According to a feature story in the Los Angeles Times today (online), a report issued by the California Coastal Commission concludes that,

Building a six-lane toll road through San Onofre State Beach near San Clemente would lead to widespread violations of state environmental laws designed to protect endangered species, natural resources and recreational opportunities, according to a California Coastal Commission report released today.

The 236-page analysis conflicts with claims by the Transportation Corridor Agencies that the proposed route for the Foothill South tollway is the least harmful to the popular coastal park of the eight alternatives the Irvine-based agency considered. "It's difficult to imagine a more environmentally damaging alternative location" for the 16-mile toll road, the Coastal Commission's staff concluded. "No measures exist that would enable the proposed alignment to be found consistent with the California Coastal Act."

The Foothill South would divide the northern half of San Onofre state park lengthwise and pass over a marine estuary that has been designated a nature preserve.

With 2.7 million visitors a year, San Onofre is the fifth most popular destination in the state's 278-park system. It contains at least six endangered species, archeological sites, campgrounds, panoramic views of the sea and world-renowned surfing spots.

If the highway is built, it will be by far the largest project of its kind put through a state park and park officials fear it could lead to other significant encroachments statewide.

It is good to know that there is at least one agency in the U.S. like the California Coastal Commission that still has some integrity. It will be critical for the actual Coastal Commissioners to reject the toll road that would destroy San Onofre and the fabled Trestles surf break. Serge

Desalinization projects are the newest hope for the developer lobby in Southern California to find new ways to provide water for all the new construction projects they want to build in our increasingly dry desert. The limitations of course are power, concerns about where to put these plants and their impact on the marine and coastal ecosystem (since they suck in and discharge huge amounts of water.

But the OC's Chuck Devore, of the 70th Assembly District has an idea to get around this. He wants to build a new nuclear power plant at San Onofre to provide energy for desal for all of southern California. Here is Mr. Devore in the OCBlog:

More nuclear power = More fresh water
I introduced a bill to allow the construction of a new nuclear reactor at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station for the purpose of powering a major desalination facility. My bill, ABX2 5, was introduced in the special session on water and would allow a new reactor to be built at San Onofre in North San Diego County. The site, which contains two operating reactors, could host a third if 20 percent of the new reactor's power is dedicated to water desalination. Anew reactor could produce about 1,200 megawatts of power. My bill would require that 240 megawatts of that power be designated for sea water desalination. This could provide about two-thirds of San Diego County's fresh water needs. Or, the fresh water could be piped out to San Diego, South Orange County, and Western Riverside County – all areas threatened by the tenuousness of the state's dwindling water supplies.
All the best

Chuck--our dwindling water supplies are due to the massive development boom in Southern California, drought associated with climate change and our unsustainable H2O consumption practices. Nukes=Water. What a nightmare. How about just implementing a green water conservation strategy for California. The irony here is that Chuck introduced the bill because the goal of the energy industry to have LNG plants up and down the coast in California has disappeared.
Serge

Even with the polluted water last week, beach conditions have been calm in Imperial Beach with looping hollow lefts off the North Side of the pier, and a hardcore group of groms and early risers taking advantage of the best south swell of the season. Despite the idyllic conditions on the beach, things are far from serene at the Imperial Beach City Hall, where Mayor Jim Janney and the City Council have ignored the growing community concern over the lack of public involvement in the planning of large capital improvement projects. On Sept. 19, the City Council approved a policy banning council members from "attending city sponsored public workshops," in a move that appears to violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. (What is the punishment for a council member who violates the ban -- a waterboarding session at Ye Olde Plank Inn?)

The bizarre ban on council members meeting with the public was most likely influenced by a July 11 meeting in which more than 25 residents met with Janney and City Manager Gary Brown, to discuss the $56 million dollar dredging project proposed by the city and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. At the meeting concerns were raised by longtime residents, many with professional and technical expertise in coastal engineering, about the viability of the project, the incompetence of the corps, and the enormous expenditure of public funds on what is a public subsidy for wealthy beachfront property owners. Meeting participants became alarmed when Janney informed them that the city of Imperial Beach might have to use redevelopment funds to provide up to over $1 million in required local matching funds for the project.

After the meeting, Janney promised to hold a full public hearing on the dredging project. Unfortunately, after being pressed for a date for the forum, the Mayor backed away from his commitment. In a August 27th letter he stated that a public hearing would only “be held after funding had been granted to carry out the project” and only if he believes it is necessary to be “open to suggest to the Council” that we have a hearing. Janney also wrote that it is a “waste of the community and City Council’s time” to hold a public hearing (the last one was held in 2002) on the most expensive project in the history of Imperial Beach. Within a month of his letter had had banned any council involvement in public workshops. So much for democracy in Imperial Beach.

Generally an attempt is made by elected officials to listen to the concerns of residents regarding expensive taxpayer-funded projects prior to having them approved. Instead Mayor Janney will solicit public input on the sand project only after the Army Corps and the lobbying firm of Marlowe & Company (who according to the Center for Responsive Politics earned close to $1.6 million last year from Imperial Beach and other cities) design and approve the project themselves. More recently, City Manager Gary Brown promising to spend an additional $31,000 on a new SANDAG study for a proposed $22 million dollar sand countywide sand replenishment project.

It is unfortunate that Mayor Janney and the City Council trust the Army Corps to carry out a viable cost-effective project in Imperial Beach. Surf City, New Jersey, learned the hard way about the trustworthiness of the federal government’s most incompetent agency. The corps carried out a $71 million dredging project in Surf City that dumped more than 1,100 WWI-era explosives on the beach. As a result Surf City had to close its beach for three months over the spring to remove them. Despite the cleanup effort, more than a dozen explosives were found in the sand over the summer. The corps has proposed closing Surf City’s beach over the winter to search for additional explosives. As a final insult, the Army Corps billed Surf City for the cost of removing the ordnance (the city has refused to pay). Mayor Janney and the City Council are unconcerned that the corps has proposed dredging in an area that according to the city of Imperial Beach’s own website was used as a WWI bombing and gunnery range.

The blind support for the seriously flawed and costly dredging project is an excellent example of how Mayor Janney and the City Council no longer consider the residents of Imperial Beach to be their primary constituents. Instead the Mayor and Council members appear to be concerned first with appeasing the interests of city staff, government agencies and private lobbying firms who have little interest in the future of our town. The council’s disregard for the public is highlighted best by the expenditure of $415,000 to remodel the council chambers with flat-screen TVs while delaying a popular initiative to provide a skateboard park for Imperial Beach’s growing population of at-risk and low-income children that would be an ideal and well-justified use of redevelopment funds.

The top priority of Mayor Janney and the Council should be to build a healthy and sustainable city that reflects the diversity of Imperial Beach. For now, under the leadership of Janney and the City Council, our elected officials have retreated into a bunker and cut themselves off from the voters who elected them. It is time to for the mayor and council to return to the real world and embrace the needs, concerns and dreams of the people who make Imperial Beach such a cool place to live.

-- SERGE DEDINA

Originally published in the Voice of San Diego  

Despite the embarrassing pleading of the UT editorial board on Monday for the feds to give Bajagua a fat sole-source no bid contract to build a sewage plant in Tijuana, the project is experiencing what the T-1000 in T2 went through after Arnold threw it into the pit of molten steel -- dying an ugly death. Of course having the UT plead to the IBWC to give Bajagua a contract would be like having Dick Cheney write you a letter of recommendation to get a job at MoveOn.org -- a tragic blunder.

If that wasn’t bad enough, according to the UT’s Mike Lee, during the September 14 court hearing on the existing International Wastewater Treatment Plant’s ongoing violations of the Clean Water Act: "U.S. District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz left in place a September 2008 deadline for the International Boundary and Water Commission to fix the pollution problem created by its wastewater treatment plant in San Ysidro."

That means, unless Bajagua builds their plant in less than one year, their project is dead. Finished. Muerto. Finis. Kaput. Dude -- it’s over.

Meanwhile, plans for building an alternative treatment plant on the U.S. side of the border that would cost $500 million less than Bajagua are moving forward. And the alternative publicly funded project has the political support in the U.S. Senate that Bajagua does not have. Here is the UT again.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she supports putting $66 million toward the San Ysidro facility next year -- enough to get the roughly $100 million retrofitting project well under way. Her position is important because she sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee, which is negotiating next year's budget with the House. "I believe it presents the best opportunity for dealing with Tijuana River pollution," Feinstein said in a statement sent yesterday to The San Diego Union-Tribune. At this point, there are simply too many unresolved questions about the Bajagua proposal," she said. "We simply cannot afford to wait any longer on the assumption that the Bajagua plan will work out."

More than 19 organizations including some of the U.S. and Mexico’s most influential environmental groups signed onto an August 20 letter to Feinstein supporting the alternative treatment plant. Some of the groups included the Natural Resources Defense Council, Heal the Bay, Defenders of Wildlife, The Ocean Conservancy the San Diego Chapters of the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club and the Coronado Surfing Association (I also signed onto the letter for WiLDCOAST).

The Bajagua team -- Jim Simmons, Enrique Landa, Gary Sirota, Craig Benedetto and Marco Gonzalez -- can’t seem to get a break these days. They’ve lost their support among the feds in the Senate and among enviros. Lee also reported that: "Bajagua's preconstruction process in Mexico has not gone smoothly. Yesterday, company officials blamed the boundary commission for suspending work on the project. That status discourages construction companies from preparing bids for the job, Bajagua officials said."

What corporation in their right mind would make plans with a company that has to depend on the IBWC and a federal judge to obtain a contract? Isn’t the point of the private sector to find customers on the open market and sell them a product? Where do judges and federal agencies fit into Adam Smith’s great big plan? What business school you have to attend to learn to write business plans like that at?

I can only imagine what Bajagua’s elevator pitch is these days, "Bro -- if the judge grants an extension, and these fed dudes in El Paso approve our project, we might just have a killer sewage plant in TJ for you to partner with us on."

In the meantime, sewage-polluted water continues to foul the waters of Imperial Beach. Over Labor Day weekend scores of surfers reported stinky water. And last Friday and Saturday the entire beachfront stunk, according to one observer, "like a dead seal." One surf mom reported finding a condom in the water. Most likely the pollution was coming from the Punta Bandera sewage river miles south of the U.S.-Mexico border -- a problem Bajagua would never solve. Can you say quagmire?

-- SERGE DEDINA

Originally published in the Voice of San Diego 

FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES

FAIRBANKS, Alaska, Sept. 20 — The cap of floating sea ice on the Arctic Ocean, which retreats under summer’s warmth, this year shrank more than one million square miles — or six Californias — below the average minimum area reached in recent decades, scientists reported Thursday.

The minimum ice area for this year, 1.59 million square miles, appeared to be reached Sunday. The ice is now spreading again under the influence of the deep Arctic chill that settles in as the sun drops below the horizon at the North Pole for six months, starting Friday.

The findings were reported by the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., and posted online at www.nsidc.org.

While satellite tracking of polar sea ice has been done only since 1979, several ice experts who have studied Russian and Alaskan records going back many decades said the ice retreat this year was probably unmatched in the 20th century, including during a warm period in the 1930s. “I do not think that there was anything like we observe today” in the 1930s or 1940s, said Igor Polyakov, an ice expert at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

The ice retreat has been particularly striking this year. The Alaskan side of the Arctic Ocean has stretches of thousands of square miles of open water; the fabled Northwest Passage through the islands of northern Canada was free of ice for weeks; and the sea route between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans north of Russia was nearly clear a week ago, with one small clot of ice around a group of Siberian islands.

Mark Serreze, a senior researcher at the snow and ice center, said it was increasingly clear that climate change from the buildup of greenhouse gases was playing a role in the Arctic warming, which is seen not only in the floating ice but also in melting terrestrial ice sheets, thawing tundra and warming seawater.

“We understand the physics behind what’s going on,” Dr. Serreze said. “You can always find some aspect of natural variability that can explain some things. But now it seems patterns that used to help you don’t help as much anymore, and the ones that hurt you hurt you more.”

“You can’t dismiss this as natural variability,” he said. “We’re starting to see the system respond to global warming.”

Still, he and other scientists acknowledged that both poles were extraordinarily complicated systems of ice, water and land, and that the mix of human and natural influences was not easy to clarify.

Sea ice around Antarctica has seen unusual winter expansions recently, and this week is near a record high.

Last Sunday, 60 Minutes reported on the booming industry of Shark watching in South Africa. More than 35,000 tourists every year come hoping to watch a great white shark.

The part that was the most shocking of the entire show was not the controversy surrounding this tourism industry, not even the story of a shark attack survivor, but the images of fishing boats catching any species of sharks to obtain the fin. The images show the inhumane way that people cut the fin, and how they drop the shark who is still alive back to the water to bleed to death and sink to the bottom of the ocean. At the end, the reporter is also shown surrounded by thousands of fins confiscated to a company operated in South Africa.

Demonized without a reason (more people died by defective toasters than by shark attacks each year), most shark species are endangered, some of them at the brink of extinction. Key species for ocean ecosystems, these amazing creatures that have survived for millions of years are being wiped out due to greed, ignorance and nonsense traditions.

What can you do?

-Educate your friends about the importance of sharks for ecosystems.

-Boicot restaurants offering shark fin soup. Unfortunately, some restaurants in California (including San Diego) offer shark fin soup in their menus. Let the owners or managers know that you will stop consuming food from that restaurant and that they should stop contributing to the destruction of our marine life.

-Consume fish products from sustainable fisheries : Sharks are often bycatch victims of unsustainable fishing practices such as trawling .

Saul

“There is only so much waterfront in this planet,” and everyone knows that “Once it’s gone, it’s gone!” I look out the window of our small plane and see the exquisitely beautiful shoreline of the Baja California Peninsula and feel sad. The colorful panorama of unspoiled shoreline will be gone forever.

Can we save parts of it? Can we win this mad race?

Ads for more dam waterfront condominiums proliferate in Southern California, Arizona and Texas: “There’s only so much, folks. Grab yours now, cheap in Mexico!”

Between Rosarito and Tijuana condos are rising fast --like false fronts on a movie set—only these are here to stay, often blocking off the waterfront view for everyone else.
Up and down the coast, the condos are coming—everywhere, it’s a tsunami, and to my astonishment, many people think this is a good thing. “More jobs for the locals”, they say.

Now, I am not opposed to condominiums in general. Such multi-unit housing can make for efficient use of space rather than consuming endless acres of the hinterlands. And I’ve seen some marvelous condos and townhouse projects, using green materials and eco-design to bring green spaces, water, and wildlife into the life /view and contact of residents, neighbors, and the by-passing public. They do not contaminate and their footprint is small. They blend into the environment and are sometimes almost invisible.

I think for example of an array of low-to-mid-rise adobe developments, set modestly into their arid environs, taking a leaf from their Pueblo antecedents rather than ostentatiously upsetting the landscape. No question: with taste and restraint, condos can be done well, respecting their site, the native residents and the communities of which they will be an undeniable part for decades.

I also recognize that condo dwelling simply suits the way many people prefer to live—compactly, in a pleasant and convenient place during retirement. Condos are a kind of human hive, and the people occupying them are social animals, that like ants like to live together. From this standpoint, the proliferation of condos might be seen as an evolutionary adaptation, a move away from space-taking, habitat-fragmenting sprawl.

So good for condos, when they really work to the advantage of the people and communities they are intended to serve without harming the site they are on. But too often the only obvious good accrues to the pocketbooks of owners and investors, not to the neighbors, or to the place itself.

The question again is: Can we save some pristine shoreline from being built? …Let us try to…help us

Fay

Inspired by various articles regarding research on red tides and causes of toxicity, I want to share with you a comprehensive collection of articles printed in the LA Times a year ago that improved my understanding of the age-old phenomenon.

In the compelling 5-article series titled Altered Oceans found in the Los Angeles Time, researchers presented yet another reason why runoff from modern life such as agricultural runoff is bad – it’s the main culprit in the boom in algal blooms in the last few years. 

These runoffs contain rich organic materials like nitrogen, phosphorous, and other nutrients that practically foster and fuel the growth of algae and bacteria.  Because of the abundance of food and nutrients, algal growth has exploded and incredibly toxic species have begun to emerge where they used to be suppressed.  The fireweed, for example, is an incredibly extreme and dangerous type of algae that when touched or exposed to, causes anything from burning eyes to swelling legs and tongues. 

Red tide in California.

Not all algal blooms or red tides are nearly as toxic.  They are actually quite natural in their normal rates of occurrence but the reason we are afraid is because they are occurring at an alarmingly higher rate than before and affecting a much larger range of species, including humans.

Fishes are dying.  Jellyfish overgrowth is suffocating other marine species.  Gray whales are washed ashore.  Manatees are found bleeding from their nostrils.  Sea Lion brain chemicals are altered due to exposure to toxic algae.  Still not compelling enough for you?  How about this – your next paradise vacation to the Florida Keys may result in algae intoxication along with the other 60,000 Americans affected each year.  The rate of algal blooms in coastal Florida has increased so significantly that families are driven away from their vacation homes and long-time residents are forced to consider moving inland.  Mild exposure to the toxicity is simple because “many algae produce an arsenal of toxins carried ashore by sea breeze.”  The symptoms of intoxication vary – from shellfish poisoning to paralysis or coma – toxic algal blooms are keeping our coastal paradises unsafe for us to venture.  What’s next?  Will we sport face masks to the store?  Will we leave our children with nothing but a legend of “the once sound and peaceful coastal lifestyle?”

We know why there are coastal blooms.  We know that they are becoming more intense and dangerous at their rising rate.  We also know that the only people who can make a difference are the people in power, or do we?  Actually, while waiting for our politicians to act we the people can pull our part to make a change.  Yes, the government has the say on tightening regulations as to what can and cannot be flushed into the ocean, but we consumers should be progressive and think before we buy.  It is a matter of a split second to choose between the organic apple or the regularly-farmed apple, the regular milk or the organic milk.  Go for the organic.  By supporting organic farming you are saying you want clean oceans, fewer dangerous algal blooms, and more time on the beach.

Smart shopping tips for individuals who care:

1. Buy organic
2. Shop for seafood at FishWise partnered grocery stores -
3. Have the Seafood Watch pocket guide handy when you are shopping for seafood -
4. Reduce plastic consumption by bringing your own organic and 100% recyclable shopping bags to the store: try Trader Joe’s, Costco, and your local farmer’s market.  Most stores reimburse you for using your own bags!  Read more -
5. Shop at Farmer’s markets to support locally grown and healthy produce

Always remember: slower the demand, slower the supply.  Every decision you, your friends, and your family make affects the overall production rate.  It’s how I remind myself I’m making a difference.

Fiona Teng

 The crazy levels of ocean pollution pouring into the ocean south of the U.S.-Mexico border is no longer the dirty secret it used to  be. Check out what  San Diego Councilmember Ben Hueso wrote today in the VoiceofSandiego.org:

On a recent kayak trip, I traveled south from Imperial Beach to Rosarito, and on my way south I passed the well-known community of San Antonio del Mar, which is located about five miles south of the border.

As I kayaked into the vicinity of San Antonio del Mar, I came across what I consider the most severe example of environmental degradation I have ever witnessed. I was astounded to see a large area of brown water with an unusually large presence of marine birds and dolphins obviously feeding on something. I soon realized that I was paddling through a brown mixture of slimy untreated sewage. After kayaking for a few more minutes, I was further shocked by the concentration of the sewage and the vast span of coastline it covered. I was also surprised that there was not a containment crew trying to clean up the sewage.

When I returned to the site three days later, I was greatly disturbed to see that nothing had changed. All the while, I saw bathers swimming in the water, surfers surfing nearby and, of most concern, fishermen pulling fish out of the surrounding waters. There were no warning signs to inform the beachgoers or fishermen of what was obviously a public health hazard.

I have known for years that Tijuana has been unable to successfully process its sewage for decades and that the result has been frequent discharges into the Tijuana River Valley. Never did I imagine, however, that the problem occurred daily and the outflow drained directly into waters that were regularly frequented by the general public.

As I kayaked, I fought a very strong northerly current that is one of the strongest I have ever experienced in my years of kayaking along the coast. This uniquely strong current brings millions of gallons of this sewage into Playas de Tijuana, Imperial Beach, Silverstrand State Beach, and Coronado, which are frequented by millions of visitors and residents annually.

Sewage plume, San Antonio del Mar he sewage plume can clearly be seen flowing north in an aerial view on Google Earth maps.

With the recent election of Tijuana’s new mayor, Jorge Ramos, and Baja California’s new governor, José Guadalupe Osuna Milln, an opportunity now exists to unite both San Diego and Mexico’s elected officials. Priority needs to be placed on preventing this type of sewage from entering our coastal waters. The hundreds of millions we propose to invest in improving water quality in San Diego by improving our creeks and watersheds and reducing discharge in our bays and beaches is but a mere drop in the bucket in comparison to correcting this immense problem that we seem helpless to address through our legal processes.

If anything, the Mexican government should acknowledge the problem as beyond their immediate control and post signage preventing swimming or fishing within a five mile radius of the outflow zone. Who knows how many people and animals have been affected by the contaminated water and seafood? It’s not too late to begin to correct this problem.

Thanks Ben for calling for action to solve this problem. Those of us who are immersed in this issue and impacted by it are glad that elected officials are taking notice of this terrible problem. Serge

Optimistic news have been reported, recently indicating an increase in nesting sites for both the Kemp's Ridley sea turtles and the leatherback turtle. Populations of both these turtles were reported in past years to be highly endangered, however evidence indicating an increase in nesting sites is also contributing to what researchers believe is an increase in populations.
In a census conducted by the Caribbean Conservation Corporation in spring 2007 of the 22 mile beach stretch from Tortuguero to Parismina, Costa Rica, the nesting areas for the leatherback turtle increased from 481 nests in 2006 to 639 nests in 2007. A total of 32 new female leatherback turtles were reported to nest in this area, as well as 49 revisiting, and 22 revisiting in the same season. The numbers of new turtles is believed to be new hatchlings that have survived to their reproductive years.

www.esasuccess.org

The Kemp's Ridley sea turtle, reported to be endangered in 1970 with only a few hundred nesting sites, is now producing nests in the tens of thousands. The efforts of a relatively new hatchery in Tepehuajes, Mexico has contributed to an increase in the number of Kemp's Ridley sea turtle hatchlings, and these have been released in the Gulf of Mexico. The shrimp industry, including fishermen, biologists and regulatory bodies in the Gulf have assisted in the comeback of this population by recognizing the turtle as an integral part of the ecosystem, and actively playing a role in the increase and preservation of the young and existing populations.

www.mcsuk.org

In both these geographic areas poaching remains an ominous threat to the turtle populations, however awareness, education and dedicated participants are ever vigilant in the fight against the human predator.

Sources
www.ridleyturtles.org
Courtesy of Our Planet -Environmental Newsletter, E - The Environmental Magazine, July 16, 2007
Harrison, Emma Dr. "Leatherback Season Update." Caribbean Conservation Corporation Newsletter Issue 2:8

Submitted by Lin Heidt