by Andrew Christie, Chapter Director
Here’s a fun fact: The mission of the Port San Luis Harbor District “is to serve the public… ensuring an environmentally responsible, safe, well-managed and financially sustainable harbor that preserves our marine heritage and character.”
Another fact: More than 71,000 voters reside within the boundaries of the District, which encompasses the Five Cities. The elected members of the Harbor Commission allegedly represent their interests.
But it’s a good bet that most of those folks don’t know that on June 23 -- as Amber Johnson, CEO of the Pacific Coast Strategies p.r. firm, watched from the back of the room (see “Anti-Marine Sanctuary Mystery Solved,” page 3) -- the commissioners said no to ecosystem-based management of our irreplaceable coastal resources, $23 million in annual economic benefits for the region and 600 new jobs, and yes to the SLO Coast someday getting its very own offshore rigs and matching oil spills.
They formally took a position opposed to the nomination of the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary for the Central Coast, which would provide experienced resource protection staff for incident response in oil spills, boat groundings and other emergencies. The communication, coordination, mobilization of response assets, contingency planning and preparedness, would provide a benefit to the port and immense conservation value.
But first and foremost: A Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary will mean fishermen and coastal businesses here will never have to deal with the disaster Santa Barbara is dealing with. The designation of a National Marine Sanctuary will prevent any new offshore oil drilling within the sanctuary's boundaries.
In addition to this easily grasped point and what you might think would be an urgent and obvious benefit in our neck of the woods these days, the Commissioners had before them a letter from the Northern Chumash Tribal Council that effectively rebutted every argument previously made to the commissioners opposing sanctuary designation.
It’s worth reading. Evidently the Commissioners didn’t read it, as it amply demonstrated that the stories the Commissioners had been told about national marine sanctuaries meaning a loss of “local control” are false. Also the story that we have lots of state and federal regulations already so we don’t need a marine sanctuary. Also stories about alleged harmful economic impacts of sanctuaries that are the opposite of the reality of economic benefits realized by coastal communities fortunate enough to be adjacent to marine sanctuaries.
The Commissioners also had before them a report from the U.S. General Accounting Office entitled “Marine Sanctuaries Program Offers Environmental Protection and Benefits Other Laws Do Not.”
It was pretty obvous they hadn't read that, either.
Instead, they concluded, in all seriousness:
- We have plenty of tourists already.
- If we abide by current regulations, nothing bad’s gonna happen.
- Our fisheries are thriving so let’s keep things the way they are.
- Avila Beach just declared itself a bird sanctuary but that didn’t bring more birds.
- Whales come here even though it’s not a marine sanctuary.
- Our representatives in Sacramento can be trusted to do what’s best.
To that last point: Last year, the State Assembly tried and failed to pass a bill that would have permanently banned oil drilling in state waters off Santa Barbara. Senate Bill 1096 was killed by oil company lobbyists. After the vote, the L.A. Times reported that “Lawmakers who spoke in opposition said they saw no need to change current procedures.”
But the biggest jaw-dropper of the night: The commissioners had before them the evidence of a recently befouled coastline from Refugio to Manhattan Beach arguing against keeping “things the way they are” when they have a chance to keep oil rigs out of their offshore waters. Instead, they agreed with the claim by the President of the Port San Luis Fisherman’s Association that the Refugio oil spill was “a land-based spill” and had nothing to do with offshore oil.
Let me underscore the point: The commissioners agreed with that statement. They believed it to be true, after more than a month of extensive news coverage of the spill, and on the same day that the Associated Press reported “ExxonMobil has temporarily ceased oil production on three platforms off the coast of Santa Barbara because an oil spill last month crippled the pipeline it used to transport crude to refineries.”
At the conclusion of those deliberations, and despite public testimony overwhelmingly urging their support, the Commissioners unanimously put themselves on record as opposed to the nomination of the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary.
Three months ago, the residents of Marin and Sonoma Counties succeeded in expanding the boundaries and protections of the Cordell Bank and Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuaries. They did so because they wanted to extend the benefits that national marine sanctuaries have brought to their communities.
The advantage that residents of Marin and Sonoma have over the Port San Luis Harbor Commission: an acquaintance with reality. Since they’ve had national marine sanctuaries for years, they actually know from actual experience that they did not lose “local control,” and knew better than to believe they had lots of state and federal regulations already so they don’t need a marine sanctuary, and knew that marine sanctuaries have improved the health of their coastal waters and boosted their local economies.
“Out to lunch” as a characterization of the Harbor Commission’s deliberations and vote would be kind. Inexcusable ignorance and dereliction of their mission statement would be more descriptive.
Attention, Five Cities residents: This is your Harbor Commission at work.
If you'd prefer to see elected representatives take some action slightly more representative, now's the time to get this message to your County Supervisor: Sanctuary now!