Heal the Bay Blog

Kirsten James, Heal the Bay’s Director of Water Quality, will be taking an important trip abroad to talk about our successes. Here she shares her thoughts.

For the next week, I have a special opportunity to look beyond Santa Monica Bay, California and the nation. I’m traveling to China to learn about water resource issues in the world’s most populous nation. My typical work trip involves attending a legislative hearing in Sacramento or a conference in San Francisco, so it’s a big change of pace.   

The Beijing government has invited me to speak about water issues and regulation in California and share lessons learned about how to balance water quality and water supply needs for tens of millions of residents. Water resource practitioners at the Beijing Hydraulics Research Institute and agencies in Beijing are now developing a Water Action Plan for the city to address its flotilla of environmental and supply challenges. This is no small task, as you can imagine, and California water experts may be able to offer some insight about what to do and what not to do.

China’s water issues are not dissimilar to California’s. The south of China has the majority of water, while the north of China has the majority of the population and agriculture and is more like a desert climate. The geography is flip-flopped but the dynamic is the same as the Golden State.

Large engineering projects have been the “solution”  for water supply for hundreds of years. The “Grand Canal” between Beijing and Hangzhou was finished in 500 A.D.! (Sounds a lot like our State Water Project, only on another continent and 1,500 years ago).  As main population hubs become dangerously short of water and existing water sources are plagued by pollution, the Chinese government is again looking to large-scale engineering projects.  The South-North Water Diversion Project will move water along 2,000 miles of canals. 

California and the entire United States still face many water challenges, but we have come a long way since the adoption of the Clean Water Act in 1972.  The most obvious indicator is that we no longer have rivers catching on fire like we did in 1969! The U.S. grappled with many environmental problems following the great population boom and industrial expansion after World War II. Now China finds itself in a similar situation.

In California many communities are focusing on ensuring a sustainable supply of local water and instituting more “green solutions” to water management. So I definitely have a good story to share, including providing the hope that in a relatively short period of time, a nation can turn things around for the better.

I’ll keep my eyes and ears open. When I get back, I’ll share some of what I’ve learned.

Don Kinsey has been appointed to a two-year term as chairman of Heal the Bay as part of a planned executive board transition announced today by the regional environmental group.

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.