Protection Bills Advance in the Legislature
By Kyle Jones
As the late former director of the California Coastal Commission, Peter Douglas, said: “The coast is never saved. It is always being saved.”
In the California legislature, several important bills are moving forward that will help safeguard our coast from impacts from increased oil development and spills. These bills will achieve incredibly important goals, and not unexpectedly, the powerful oil industry lobby is determined to stop them.
The threat of increased oil development and spills have never been greater. The Trump administration has recklessly proposed to open new leases for oil drilling in federal waters off the California coast, ignoring bipartisan opposition and all the science that proves we must leave existing fossil fuels in the ground to prevent the worst impacts of climate change.
Assembly Bill 1775 by Al Muratsuchi of Torrance and Monique Limón of Santa Barbara and
Senate Bill 834 by Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara and Ricardo Lara of Long Beach seek to directly push back against Trump’s plans.
These bills will prevent any new infrastructure related to new oil drilling from being allowed on or through state lands. This means that if new platforms are established in federal waters, they would not be able to build pipelines and other infrastructure through state waters to get to tanks and refineries. These bills are expected to clear their final committees and will be up on the floors of their respective houses the last week in May. If they pass, then each bill moves to the other house.
Another bill,
AB 2864, also by Assemblymember Limón, seeks to address how California responds to oil spills. After any incident, the Office of Spill Prevention and Response is tasked with determining how much damage the oil industry has caused. Once this is assessed, a restoration plan is developed and the state can seek money from the oil industry.
AB 2864 ensures that the Coastal Commission is involved during this process. The Coastal Commission is responsible for managing the state’s coastal resources, and it makes sense for it to be at the table to make sure that the public is fully compensated for oil industry harm. This bill is also expected to be up on the Assembly floor the last week in May.
Protecting our coast from the new threats of oil drilling is critically important this legislative session. Keep an eye out for email alerts from us regarding the status of these bills and any actions you can take to help protect the Pacific. Together we can stop the oil industry from harming our coast.
Biomass Summit Draws in New Volunteers
By Daniel Barad
On April 28th, Sierra Club California convened a Biomass Summit in Sacramento to educate Sierra Club members on conventional biomass incineration and to further develop a strategy against biomass incinerators.
Representatives from several Sierra Club Chapters traveled to Sacramento to meet with experts and take part in lively discussions.
Genevieve Gale of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition (CVAQ) detailed the devastating human impacts of conventional biomass incineration in the Central Valley. CVAQ is working to reduce fine particulate matter pollution (PM 2.5), which is linked directly to heart and lung disease. Conventional biomass incinerators are among the top emitters of PM 2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley.
Brian Nowicki of the Center for Biological Diversity discussed the climate impacts of conventional biomass incineration. Biomass incinerators produce more greenhouse gas emissions per megawatt than fossil fuel plants. And while biomass incineration has been defined as “renewable” in state law, it is only “renewable” in the sense that when an incinerator burns a tree, a new tree might eventually replace it. However, that new tree will require 40 to 100 years of growth before it sequesters as much carbon as was produced by a tree burned in an incinerator.
After the Summit presentations, Sierra Club members, staff and the presenters strategized on the current biomass campaign. With the U.S. EPA’s recent declaration under Scott Pruitt’s leadership that biomass incineration is carbon neutral, the strategizing centered on pushing back against misinformation.
California is the national and, in many cases, global leader on climate and environmental issues. Sierra Club California will work with agencies to ensure that California does not yield to the Trump administration on biomass incineration.
Additionally, we need Sierra Club members’ help on the ground educating communities throughout the state about the public health, climate and economic impacts of conventional biomass incineration. Those who attended the Summit were encouraged to share what they learned with their chapters, groups and communities.
The biomass incineration industry relies on misinformation and an ability to fly under the radar while it pollutes communities across the state. With the help of our volunteers, Sierra Club California will continue to educate Californians on the harms of biomass incineration and push back against its future in California.
The Delta Drama Continues
By Kyle Jones
Proponents of plans to develop tunnels under the San Francisco Bay-Delta that would destroy the Delta ecosystem took two key steps in the last two months that put the Delta at greater peril.
In April, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) sought to flex its financial muscle and waste ratepayer dollars on a single tunnel. Then, in a surprise move, MWD announced it would vote on the two tunnels project, which would cost over $17 billion.
Sierra Club California opposes the tunnels project. It would produce no new water, but would dramatically degrade water quality and fish and wildlife habitat in the Delta and San Francisco Bay. The proposal, a version of a peripheral canals proposal that voters rejected in the 1980s, during Governor Jerry Brown’s earlier terms at governor, is already diverting resources that would be more smartly spent on helping regions dependent on Delta water to reduce that dependence.
After last-minute lobbying by all sides, including Governor Brown himself, the MWD Board voted to support the project, over the objections of the cities of Los Angeles, San Diego, Santa Monica and San Fernando.
With MWD on board, the eye of the Department of Water Resources (DWR) moved north to the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The SCVWD board rushed into a hearing, giving only 72 hours notice (the minimum requirement for a hearing), to decide whether to commit at least $650 million on the tunnels. After receiving the agreement details on the day of the hearing, and listening to five hours of robust public opposition, the board delayed the vote a week.
On May 8th, SCVWD resumed the hearing and again listened to hours of testimony from Sierra Club members and fellow advocates opposing the tunnels. Despite those appeals, the board narrowly voted 4 to 3 in support of the expensive and ill-conceived twin tunnels project. According to the SCVWD Board majority, MWD is doing whatever it can to get the project built. If SCVWD doesn’t sit at the table, some board members reasoned, the district wouldn’t get to shape the project at all. The majority of the board ignored the fact that the district could join in opposing the project and promoting progressive water solutions instead.
Despite these apparent setbacks, the fight, and political drama, will continue. The project is still undergoing permitting at the State Water Resources Control Board. The tunnels have to show that they won’t harm other users of water, such as those who divert water from the Delta, and that the impacts to fish and wildlife will be reasonable. This process may take until next year, and will likely be a subject of litigation.
The project also still has a faulty environmental impact report that must be completed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Among the biggest problems is the lack of an analysis of alternative water supplies—which the environmental community insist are the solutions that should replace the tunnels.
Finally, the project also falls far short of full funding. MWD cannot pay the $17-plus billion cost itself, and agricultural water districts have balked at the proposed rate increase for water from the tunnels. Without further public subsidies, the project cannot go forward.
Sierra Club California is a party to two lawsuits aimed at stopping the tunnels and is currently involved in the permitting hearings and process at the State Water Resources Control Board. Additionally, Club volunteers throughout the state, and particularly in the Bay Area, the Santa Clara Valley and the Los Angeles Region, have been actively working to persuade local water agencies and elected officials to oppose the tunnels.
Follow Us:
Thank you for being a part of our work! Consider making it monthly. You may securely donate online or by sending a check to Sierra Club California at 909 12th Street, Suite 202, Sacramento, CA 95814.
