7/13/11

The Environmental Protection Agency’s powers to set clean-water standards would be limited under legislation passed by the Republican-led U.S. House over threats of a veto by the Obama administration.

The bill blocks the EPA from tightening water pollutant limits without a state’s consent if the agency previously approved the state standard. The measure, which passed 239-184 yesterday, is part of an effort to rein in what Republicans say is an agency’s regulatory overreach threatening the economy. Sixteen Democrats joined Republicans to support the measure.

Supporters said limits on the EPA would give farmers, coal companies and other businesses that discharge pollutants into waterways greater certainty that standards won’t be changed.

The EPA is engaged in an “unprecedented regulatory grab” during a “difficult time in our economy,” Representative John Mica, a Florida Republican and chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said during debate.

The bill is the “single-worst assault on clean-water protections in a generation,” Steve Fleischli, a senior attorney at the New York-based Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement.

Democrats said the EPA should retain its authority to supersede state rules because pollution crosses political boundaries.

Advisers to President Barack Obama will recommend a veto if the legislation passes Congress, according to an administration statement issued yesterday. The measure must also pass the Senate before being sent to the president.

Health, Economy

The bill “would significantly undermine the Clean Water Act and could adversely affect public health, the economy, and the environment,” the administration said.

Supporters of the bill cited the EPA’s decision in January to revoke a federal permit granted in 2007 to the Spruce No. 1 mountaintop mine in Logan County, West Virginia, operated by St. Louis-based Arch Coal Inc. (ACI) The EPA said the mine operations were “destructive and unsustainable.” The legislation would prohibit such actions without state concurrence.

House Republicans are pursuing other measures to restrict the EPA. The House Appropriations Committee approved a bill on July 12 to cut the EPA budget to $7.1 billion, or 20 percent less than Obama requested.

The spending bill also would delay rules limiting greenhouse-gas emissions from industrial polluters such as power plants and oil refineries.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved a bill on July 12 that postpones a clean-air rule targeting pollution that leads to smog and soot.

The bill is H.R. 2018.

Read Original Article

7/15/11

California's highest court has upheld a ban on plastic bags in Manhattan Beach in a widely watched case that could spur additional prohibitions on an item increasingly blamed for littering beaches, strangling wildlife and clogging landfills.

In its unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court said Thursday that Manhattan Beach was not required to conduct a costly environmental review in 2008 when it passed an ordinance prohibiting the bags at the city's 200 or so retail stores.

A group of bag makers and retailers had sued the city, arguing that a shift from plastic to paper bags would cause wider environmental damage. Two lower courts sided with the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition.

The state Supreme Court Thursday overturned those decisions, concluding that "substantial evidence and common sense support the city's determination that its ordinance would have no significant environmental effect."

Environmentalists praised the decision.

"We all want less plastic trash in San Francisco Bay and our oceans - now the court has given Bay Area cities a green light to act swiftly to end the era of the plastic bag in our region," said David Lewis, executive director of environmental group Save the Bay.

The decision has little impact on San Francisco, which enacted its ban on non-biodegradable plastic bags at supermarkets and chain drugstores in 2007, well before the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition was established.

But the case could change the course of bans in other Bay Area communities.

The Save the Plastic Bag Coalition has a similar lawsuit pending against Marin County, which in January passed a plastic bag ban in its unincorporated areas without an environmental review. With Thursday's ruling, Marin County Deputy Counsel David Zaltsman said his case only grows stronger.

"It simply doesn't make sense for these small jurisdictions to conduct environmental studies on the number of boat trips that will increase from China for additional paper bags," Zaltsman said.

San Carlos also believes the ruling precludes the need for an environmental study, which could cost the city upwards of $60,000, according to Mayor Andy Klein.

"The major hang-up for us has been the cost," Klein said. "Now we can debate the ordinance on the merits only."

Stephen Joseph, lawyer for the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, doesn't see it that way. In his view, the court's opinion was applicable only to Manhattan Beach, and certainly not to bigger cities where the environmental impacts could be much larger.

Indeed, the court did note that environmental reviews may be necessary in some cases.

"The analysis would be different for a ban on plastic bags by a larger governmental body, which might precipitate a significant increase in paper bag consumption," the court stated.

7/3/11

If developer Dan Johnson and his team finally earn approval to revitalize a derelict lumber mill's 240-acre company town on the shores of Humboldt County they'll be building homes with first floors 32 feet above ground.

The state's scientific advisers expect rising sea levels will hasten most of the California coastline's eastward push as it combines with storms or tsunamis. They say the few extra feet through 2100 will slowly make beaches of bluffs and marshes of beaches.

From Crescent City to San Diego, state and local planning authorities have started telling developers to factor sea-level rise into project designs.

California's diverse coastal terrain means every spot needs a unique and costly adaptation, frustrating both environmentalists and coastal property owners. 

"There's a major tug between those who want to protect economic investment and those wanting to preserve natural habitat," said Curtis Fossum, the State Lands Commission's executive officer.

Environmentalists loathe the erection of sea walls, which tarnish prized beaches. Developers question overly cautious planning officials for relying on uncertain estimates. Builders only reluctantly agree to leave open low-lying coastal space that would otherwise generate profits.

A decade ago, Johnson began seeking clearance for his $100 million mixed-use town on the half-mile-wide Samoa peninsula just west of Eureka.

State studies show the tiny strip is susceptible to tsunamis. Three major ones have hit the northern coast in the past 60 years. Many scientists also say global climate change will bring more frequent storms of great intensity.

Tack sea level rise onto either tsunami or storm waves, and there's a potential of accelerated erosion and more severe coastal flooding. As a result, a $100,000 peer-reviewed study by Johnson's consultants found that permanent habitable space in the project must be 32 feet above ground to miss the brunt of tsunami waves – with a 3-foot sea rise included.

"It's not about letting people stay in their house, but about having something for them to come back to," Johnson said.

Town by town, as projects such as Johnson's come to the Coastal Commission's attention, the panel has forced local agencies to adopt a rule that all new projects consider sea level rise.

Advocates for protecting the coast say developers and regulators are playing a dangerous game by building so close to the ocean.

Former Sierra Club California coastal programs leader Mark Massara is skeptical that all of Johnson's project will remain usable by 2100.

In March, the state's Ocean Protection Council decided state agencies should prepare for a half-foot increase in sea level by 2030, just above a foot of rise by 2050 and nearly 5 feet of rise by 2100 if humans don't start drastically cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

A study undertaken by the state due at the end of year will reveal which areas of the coast are most at risk. It would cost $100 billion in 2000 dollars to replace existing coastal property in California, according to 2009 study for the state by the Pacific Institute.

Coastal landmarks like roads, golf courses and train tracks eventually may be relocated – lest they become crackers in oceanic soup.

Other property, such as the San Francisco International Airport, will need fortified levees. Groups such as Sierra Club California and the commission warn that levees and sea walls are costly and would destroy sandy beaches because they stop sand from being replenished by natural bluff erosion. Sea walls already line about a tenth of California's 1,100 miles of coast.

Whether it's sea walls, leaving property undeveloped or moving structures back, the precautions mean extra costs and lower returns for project promoters. It's a delicate compromise.

Humboldt County developer Kurt Kramer said as needed as they may be, the added burdens from the short-staffed Coastal Commission discourage construction.

"They win by making the economic model uneconomic," he said.

State officials said putting together plans and rules in place now is essential.

"If you build a roof over your house in July, you call it an expense," said Will Travis of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. "Come November, you view it as an investment."

7/13/11

The public will have another chance Thursday to weigh in on what the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District should do with its abundance of water.

In order to maintain water rights, the district is hoping to implement a plan to pursue revenue-generating uses, including attracting companies that use industrial amounts of water, selling water to another municipality, or using water in the Mad River watershed for environmental restoration.

The plan, released earlier this year, was created after a year of extensive outreach to community groups and agencies. The board expects to approve a final draft in August.

Board President Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap said the board hopes residents will attend the hearings -- held at noon and at 6 p.m. -- and provide feedback on the options.

”It would be helpful to hear what folks like about the proposed plan, and if they have any concerns,” she wrote in an email to the Times-Standard. “This document is based entirely on public input already, but it is helpful to hear whether we've distilled that input accurately, or if we've left anything out.”

With California's use-it-or-lose-it water rights system, the district could lose rights to the lion's share of the supply its system was designed to provide. The board has until 2029, the year the current permit expires, to develop and explore long-term options to maintain local control of the water.

The draft plan is available online at www.hbmwd.com/ draft_implementation_plan_to_evaluate_and_advance_ recommended_water-use_ options.

If You Go:

What: Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District Board of Directors meeting

Where: District office, 828 Seventh St., Eureka

When: Thursday, noon and 6 p.m.

At a glance:

The Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District has created a draft plan to evaluate and pursue new water-use options. With the loss of industrial customers, such as pulp mills, the district had to pass costs onto residential customers last year. The plan could help the district find other sources of revenue, and ensure it keeps its water rights, set to expire in 2029.

In April, the district released a draft of the plan, which looks at actively pursuing companies that use industrial amounts of water, selling water to another municipality, or using the water in the Mad River watershed for environmental restoration.

The Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District Board of Directors will hold a public hearing on the plan Thursday at noon and 6 p.m. 

Read More