Heal the Bay Blog

Heal the Bay CEO Ruskin Hartley says that despite warm temperatures all is not sunny in Southern California.

I spent much of the past two weeks on the beach. While the rest of the country suffered through sub-zero temperatures, it remained a balmy 72 and sunny here in Southern California.  It’s been great as my family from the Bay Area and England was here for the New Year.  Each day we’d remark how glad we were that it had “turned out nice again.” Let’s face it, 72 and sunny is pretty much perfect. Christmas on the beach. Can you beat it? Really not.

But with the holidays a memory, it is time to get serious about what 72 and sunny means for us in Southern California and beyond. If dry weather persists, and with no rain in the forecast, we need to start thinking about drought.

Gov. Brown is starting to think the same, according to the head of the Department of Water Resources. When a drought is declared in Sacramento, it has cascading effects across the state. Crops die as previously irrigated fields dry.  Sprinklers are banned and lawns turn brown.  Native fish in our streams struggle as water is diverted.  Water quality suffers as discharge regulations are relaxed. The economy suffers as agricultural fields lie fallow. And we start counting the days until the raindrops fall.

2013 was a record dry year for the state. By some estimates, it was the driest year in California since records began, way back in 1849. In downtown Los Angeles we had 3.6 inches of rain, a tad drier than 1947 and 1953 when 4.08 inches fell.  To add some perspective, in 1849 the state’s population was about 50,000; in 1940, 6.9 million lived here. That rose to 10.6 million in 1950 and stood at 37 million in 2010. That’s less rain and a lot more people.

 It’s true that we have built a remarkable system to capture and transport most of the state’s water from north to south (while sweeping in water from the Colorado system to boot). We’re definitely getting better at using water efficiently here in California — after all, L.A.’s population has grown over the last 20 years and our water usage has not. But we have a long way to go. In California we use an average of 105 gallons per day per person. In Australia they have it down to 59 gallons daily.

The impending drought highlights the need to invest in our water infrastructure in California. But we can no longer assume it’s just a matter of impounding and transporting water from north to south. We need to work towards a more resilient system. And resiliency has to start locally. We need to make investments to reduce demand and make California a world leader. We need to make better use of local water supplies by cleaning up and harvesting groundwater, sustainably. We need to recycle wastewater (300 million gallons a day out of Hyperion alone). We need to capture, infiltrate and make use of urban runoff, reducing stormwater pollution in the process.And then, and only then, should we shore up our ability to move water around the state to better match supply and demand.

Doing all of this is going to take bold leadership. We at Heal the Bay are ready. Are you?

Peter Shellenbarger, a Heal the Bay science and policy analyst, and James Alamillo, Heal the Bay’s urban programs manager, say plans for revitalizing the L.A. River may soon hit a snag.

The Los Angeles River has been getting a lot of attention lately. It also may soon get some much-needed TLC, in the form of extensive revitalization plans now being debated by a complex web of local, state and national agencies.

Various government units and community groups are assembling detailed plans for bringing the river and its many tributaries back to fuller life, such as the U.S. Army Corps’ ARBOR plan or the recent expansion of L.A. River kayaking programs.

Revitalizing the L.A. River and its tributaries would obviously provide enormous environmental, economic, recreational and social benefits to Southern California.

But these visionary projects may soon hit a bump in the river, as it were.

A new study by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, to be debated in the coming months, could undermine legitimate opportunities to expand green space and recreational opportunities for millions of residents in L.A. County.

In a nutshell, the Regional Board has been gathering data about recreational uses along 44 miles of river. Many observers are concerned that the new study, known as RECUR, will be used to delist or redesignate beneficial recreational uses along several major segments of the L.A. River and its tributaries, such as Arroyo Seco, Verdugo and Compton Creek. The specter of reduced protections is now clouding many of the grand visions to bring the Los Angeles River and its tributaries back into greater public use.

If the board ultimately decides to eliminate designated recreational beneficial uses along many stretches of the river and its tributaries, there will be less regulatory oversight provided to these reaches. If parts of the river are viewed as not having recreational use potential, water quality standards would be relaxed in those areas.

Some dischargers welcome such changes because weakened protections make it easier and less expensive to meet compliance standards. But the changes could result in a regulatory hodgepodge on the river, where different sections receive different water quality protection. It’s a dangerous precedent.

Delisting or redesignation also would result in less protection of parts of the river with recreation potential, creating fewer incentives to enhance them in revitalization plans. Designers would obviously think twice about siting public amenities in spots with compromised water quality.

There are numerous efforts underway by many community and government groups to transform the L.A. River from a largely concrete channel into a healthy ecosystem. Projects are being pursued by Heal the Bay, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California Coastal Conservancy, California State Parks, California Department of Water Resources, Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, amongst others.

So a number of interested parties are watching the RECUR study very closely. The report does provide some valuable information about the Los Angeles River and its tributaries, such as confirming what recreational uses are happening in various reaches. But the study has significant flaws.

Most important, the report is merely a snapshot in time and fails to capture a full picture of potential recreational uses in and along the river.

The board’s process for judging the recreational value of river stretches seems like a bit of Catch 22 logic. Many areas are being considered for recreational delisting because the Board says no one uses them. But in reality, most of these stretches are either fenced off or posted as being illegal to use. One could reason that no one is using them, although this is not always the case.

RECUR’s timeframe does not adequately reflect current uses of the Los Angeles River or its tributaries, or possible uses if existing legal restrictions are removed. For example, kayaking on the Los Angeles River is so popular that a second designated spot has been opened along a section of the Glendale Narrows. But RECUR doesn’t take these uses into account, as they were not taking place during the study period. The random two-hour observations included in the study took place from July 2011 to December 2012

Heal the Bay staffers have observed bathers in Compton Creek, yet the presented study results indicates that no observed or reported recreational activities occurred along this stretch.

In essence, under the proposed delisting portions of the river will largely be “written off” for revitalization because they will no longer be viewed as worthy of potential recreational use or protection. That may be useful to dischargers, but it will seriously shortchange local residents who could benefit from expanded uses of the river that to this point have been untapped.

With limited resources for enforcement and compliance oversight, the Regional Board should prioritize the protection of established beneficial uses, instead of engaging in the messy process of removing them.

The Regional Board is now deciding if it will take action on the Technical Report and debate proposed amendments to the LA/Ventura Basin Plan. Among the discussion items would be the suggested changes to recreational beneficial-use designations in the Los Angeles River System.

In advance of any possible action, the Board is seeking public comment on the report. Staff is encouraging the public to submit written comments by Feb. 28. The process allows members of the public to express concerns about the draft feasibility report. Yes, the document is a bit of a slog, but the stakes are important. This is a great opportunity for the public to become involved in the decision-making process about the future of the L.A. River. Make your voice heard. Please send comments to the Board.

Consuming recreationally harvested mussels, clams or scallops from the Los Angeles County coastline may be hazardous to your health, according to a new advisory issued by the California Department of Public Health.

Officials are noting dangerous levels of paralytic shellfish poisoning toxins have been found in mussels in the region. They also note that cooking the shellfish does not destroy the toxin. Eating tainted seafood can cause a variety of very serious illnesses.

The advisory does not apply to commercially sold shellfish, which are frequently monitored and tested for toxins. More information here.

If you’re a longtime Heal the Bay supporter, you may remember a proposal to drill for oil in the City of Hermosa Beach back in the late 1990s. We worked closely with partner groups to defeat that effort.

A recent legal settlement has put oil drilling back on the table for Hermosa residents. A ballot measure to reconsider the current moratorium on oil drilling is being put to a vote of Hermosa Beach residents next March. Simultaneously, energy company E&B Natural Resources is proposing a slant drilling operation that would send machinery directly into the Bay to extract oil.

Heal the Bay has joined with partners in the South Bay including Stop Hermosa Beach Oil, Keep Hermosa Hermosa, and the Surfrider Foundation in a grassroots effort to uphold the current moratorium. Allowing oil drilling in Hermosa will impact all the communities of the South Bay. Any drilling poses significant risk to the entire Bay if an accident occurs.

This issue is near and dear to the heart of José Bacallao, Operations Manager at our Santa Monica Pier Aquarium, who is also a Hermosa Beach resident. He’s encouraged by the community’s engagement thus far.

“For almost 30 years, Heal the Bay, our members and our partners have worked hard to revitalize and heal Santa Monica Bay. The oil drilling proposal in Hermosa Beach threatens all that,” Bacallao says. “It’s just too big of a risk.”

Our policy team will be monitoring developments closely and will be mobilizing community support in the coming year to influence decision-makers.

You have a voice in the fight against oil drilling off our coast. Subscribe to Heal the Bay’s e-newsletter to get the latest news and engagement opportunities.

For the past two years, Heal the Bay has helped to bring hands-on science and provide meaningful experiences for elementary students as partners with teaching collaborative, Education by Nature, headed by Children’s Nature Institute.

Heal the Bay’s Melissa Aguayo, our Speakers Bureau manager, recently completed a pilot program at Magnolia Elementary school, providing extensive science education to Magnolia students.

Located near the Pico-Union neighborhood, the school serves a high percentage of youth from low-income families, with 90% of the student body qualifying for the free lunch program.

We were ecstatic when teacher Marta Shallcross, our all-star partner at the school, let us know that Magnolia’s API scoreincreased 66 points to 770, which in the world of test scores, is a big deal!

The school’s third graders in particular scored exceptionally well, which Ms. Shallcross partly attributes to the partnership, which was focused on supporting California’s science standards.

Building upon this success, we’ll continue to work with Magnolia while simultaneously expanding the program to a new school in 2014.

Bring marine science into your student’s classroom with one of our inspiring speakers!

“Mom, I have a headache”…..“It must be that radiation you got surfing the other day …” BUSTED

Heal the Bay has been swamped with calls and emails from concerned California residents asking about possible human and biological impacts originating from the 2011 Fukushima disaster. Since the Japanese tsunami in March 2011, the Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant has been continually releasing radiated water to the Pacific Ocean. We’re asked on a weekly basis about ocean water contamination, local seafood consumption safety, and what news sources are credible. In an effort to keep the public up-to-date on emerging environmental issues, we’ll try to illuminate some of the truths and debunk many of the myths currently surrounding the Fukushima Disaster.

Myth: California’s coastal waters are contaminated with harmful radiation from Fukushima

Busted: Entering the ocean in California, even to surf or swim, will not expose you to harmful radiation as a result of Fukushima. Open ocean currents in the greater Pacific dilute radioactive concentrations within four months of their release from Japan, according to Dr. Erik Van Sebille, a physical oceanographer at the University of New South Wales. The World Health Organization has concluded that four months’ time provides adequate dispersion of any radioactive materials released along the Japanese shoreline. It takes years for seawater plumes from Japan to reach U.S. shores.Therefore, enjoying California’s beautiful beaches and waters, even on a daily basis, will not expose humans to harmful radiation, or cause headaches or hair loss, as some media channels have led the public to believe.

Myth: Fish caught in Japan and the Far Pacific contain harmful radiation and cannot be consumed.

Plausible: It depends on the type of fish and where it was caught. Know your seafood’s origins before you consume. Highly migratory fish species and those caught in and around Fukushima may have elevated concentrations of radiation and should not be consumed; these species have been identified and/or removed from commercial fishing markets. Large predatory species, such as Bluefin Tuna, and bottom-dwelling species, can bioaccumulate contaminants more readily and may be more prone to having higher concentrations of radiation in their bodies. Read this FishWise article for more on Pacific seafood. There are other reasons to avoid eating certain species of fish aside from Fukushima radiation. Check out Seafood Watch or Environmental Defense Fund’s seafood health advisories on other contaminants such as mercury that may be present in some fish.

Myth: Consuming fish originating from California’s waters could put you at risk from harmful Fukushima radiation.

Busted: Because of dilution, scientists are not concerned about the levels of radiation in seafood harvested from the U.S. West Coast. Fish caught along California’s waters as well as our northern and southern boundaries do not have high levels of radiation. Consult US EPA’s consumption guidelines for fish caught in Los Angeles and Orange Counties.

Myth: U.S. federal agencies are actively monitoring the Fukushima disaster for public health and environmental impacts.

Confirmed: Three major federal agencies are currently monitoring radiation from the Fukushima disaster: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is monitoring marine debris and atmospheric dispersion of radioactive particles; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is monitoring air and water for radiation that is harmful to human health; and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is monitoring Japanese imports to insure food safety. These agencies work closely together to monitor radiation leveling in the United States as well as our imported goods.

Myth: All information found on the Internet about Fukushima is true.

Busted: There is a great deal of inaccurate information floating around the Internet about Fukushima radiation and its impacts to human and marine life. We recommend double-checking your news sources for credibility, and when in doubt, check out how Heal the Bay is keeping up to date on the most recent news and scientific studies on the Fukushima disaster. We will provide updates on our website and social media channels (Facebook and Twitter) on the issue as more information becomes available.

To delve deeper, read our Fukushima FAQ.

For more information on the possible effects of radiation from Fukushima affecting fish, you can also visit the following websites:

Woods Hole Oceanic Institute

Environmental Defense Fund Seafood Selector

Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch