Heal the Bay Blog

It’s not often that candidates running for Los Angeles City Council, City Attorney, and City Controller offices have an occasion to appear at the same event, but on April 1, candidates running in the May 21 election gathered at a unique forum to answer questions about the environment, transportation, the economy and their vision for a better Los Angeles.

Candidates from City Council districts 1, 6, 9 and 13, as well as the candidates running for City Attorney and City Controller, responded to questions from panelists, offering their ideas about how to address local issues like increasing the scope and accessibility of public transportation, conserving water resources, reducing poor air quality impacts on public health, increasing open space and urban greening, preparing for climate change impacts, attracting green jobs to Los Angeles, and mitigating environmental justice hot spots.

The event was well-attended by members of the public and various non-profit organizations, and staff from local city agencies.  The dialogue offered the public the chance to question candidates directly on these issues. The discussions between candidates were lively—sometimes heated—and the forum offered the candidates the opportunity to further distinguish themselves from their opponents and sharpen their positions on critical issues that will affect all Angelenos.

Watch video coverage from the Candidate Forum for the following races:

• Los Angeles City Attorney: Carmen Trutanich & Mike Feuer
• Los Angeles Controller: Dennis Zine & Ron Galperin
• Los Angeles Council District 1: Gil Cedillo & Jose Gardea
• Los Angeles Council District 6: Nury Martinez & Cindy Montanez & Richard Valdez
• Los Angeles Council District 9: Ana Cubas & Curren Price representative Andrew Lachman
• Los Angeles Council District 13: Mitch O’Farrell & John Choi

Heal the Bay was proud to sponsor the forum along with a broad coalition of organizations, including Climate Resolve, the Los Angeles League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club, Tree People and Green LA Coalition. After all, the individuals who will be elected on May 21 will shape and influence Los Angeles environmental, transportation and economic policies for the foreseeable future.  

Read the candidates’ positions on these important issues here.  

Follow the Los Angeles Times’ coverage of the event.

A single storm can sweep billions of gallons of polluted runoff directly into Santa Monica Bay.  Yes, that’s billions with a “B.”  So it’s not much of a stretch to understand why the majority of waterbodies in Los Angeles County, including the Santa Monica Bay, are officially impaired by bacteria, trash and metals. In fact, 7 of the 10 most polluted beaches in California are located right here in our backyard.

Equally troubling, valuable storm water is literally going down the drain.  We live in in an area of permanent drought, yet we keep building and expanding, importing billions of gallons of costly and increasingly scarce water from our neighbors to fuel our growing demand. Imagine if we captured and reused the water from storms instead of funneling water into stormdrains and rivers and to be dumped full of pollution into the sea?

Storm water, if recharged, can provide a safe and less expensive source of water.  Rainwater becomes an asset, rather than a liability.

Last week, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors considered moving forward with the “Clean Water, Clean Beaches” Measure, a funding measure that would help local cities and the County implement critical clean water projects to protect our region’s surface waters and also provide other added benefits such as increasing the local water supply and open space. Property owners would be assessed an annual fee based on the amount of runoff their parcels generate. The typical homeowner would pay roughly $54 a year.

The measure has been contemplated for the past seven years but gained momentum over the last year, as new storm water regulations were recently adopted.

A diverse mix of supporters – including representatives from local cities, businesses, environmental organizations and community groups from across L.A. County came out to support the Measure. The supporters outnumbered the protestors, despite the hearing being a “protest hearing” specifically required by law to consider opposition to the measure.

We are grateful that so many supporters showed up to make their voices heard, but it was especially gratifying to see middle school students from the Santa Monica Alternative Schoolhouse, who took the Santa Monica Blue Bus to the hearing, testifying as well as absorbing a valuable lesson in how our local government functions.

Some critics complained about how the outreach materials were assembled and distributed to the public. On principle, others opposed the idea of any more levies on property owners to fund public works infrastructure and programs, no matter the need.

While there was some positive discussion by the Supervisors about needing to clean up our region’s waterways, they did not all see the urgency in moving the measure forward expeditiously, despite three board members of the Regional Quality Control Board testifying in support of the measure and referencing looming compliance deadlines.

At times it felt like the supervisors wanted a silver-bullet solution to their water quality issues to avoid enforcement. Simply implementing a project or policy doesn’t mean that sufficient water quality improvement will result.   Several supervisors were disturbingly misinformed about their legal responsibilities to implement Clean Water Act requirements.

Instead, the approved motion contemplates a general election with a “goal” of 2014.  This direction deviates from the previous trajectory of presenting a mail ballot this spring to property owners, which seems fair given that they are the individuals most directly affected by the fee. Keep in mind, that 2/3 of voters are needed to pass a fee-related measure in a general election – a very high bar to meet — rather than a simple majority for a property owners ballot.  Some see the change as a significant setback for the measure, especially because a property owner ballot is a completely viable option.  However, stormwater advocates need to remain positive and vigilant.  

So what is next?

We will continue to work with the County to ensure that the content of the measure is as strong as possible. It’s almost there but just needs a little more work. The measure should include a refined rebate and incentive program for property owners who are already implementing stormwater capture practices. Parties are also debating the exact nature of a so-called sunset clause, which determines a phase-out period for the fees. With a report due back to the supervisors in 90 days, remaining issues should be hammered out by then.

Hopefully, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and staff responsible for implementing water quality requirements in cities and L.A. County can educate their elected officials about water quality requirements and the many consequences of not having the necessary funding to implement infrastructure enhancements.  There is an alarming disconnect here.

Concurrently, we need to strategize on additional paths forward to achieve a sustainable funding source for water quality improvement projects. The consequences of not doing anything are very dire. Not only will the benefits such as improved water quality, public health protection, job creation and increased local water supply not be realized, but municipalities will not be afforded this important source of funding for achieving compliance with mandatory Clean Water Act requirements.

Do you support a sustainable approach to clean water? Contact your Los Angeles County supervisor to support the “Clean Water, Clean Beaches” measure!

How did weeds get to Southern California? One of the principal causes of habitat destruction, weeds threaten our region’s natural places.  Constant maintenance and eradication is an absolute necessity as we battle against exotic invasive plants, and it’s beneficial to understand the origins of this enemy.

Weeds are here because people brought them here, sometimes deliberately, sometimes accidentally. Some were brought long ago, some only recently, but whatever the reason we have no one to blame but ourselves.

A common example is black mustard. Originally from Europe and one of the most widespread and recognizable weeds in California, it was supposedly scattered by Franciscan padres to mark the route of El Camino Real (which means it’s been here at least 300 years). The story is probably true, but it’s likely the missionaries also cultivated mustard for its food and medicinal properties, which is a common reason for the presence of many weeds.

Many common weeds in the Santa Monicas were likely introduced deliberately to the U.S. by European immigrants: mustards, horehound, milk thistle, fennel, common plantain (goose tongue), cheeseweed, castor bean, watercress… the list goes on. Some weeds have been brought accidentally, mixed in with the seed of a cultivated food crop, say perennial pepperweed contaminating sugar beet seeds or something. Others were brought as food for imported animals; red-stemmed filaree was likely brought as a forage plant for the livestock immigrants were importing. All in all the transportation of food, forage, and medicinal crops, seed, and plants is probably the most prevalent explanation for the presence of weeds.

But then we also brought a lot of them over because we liked the look of them or found them useful in some way. Eucalyptus trees are from Australia and they’re invasive, some species more than others. They were planted all over California from the late 1800s to the 1930s as a cash crop and also because we simply thought they were cool ornamentals.

Chinese immigrants brought Tree of Heaven here around the same time also as a fast-growing ornamental.  Iceplant was planted for decades for erosion control along roadways and on beaches. It’s common along the entirety of California’s coast but is originally from South Africa.

There’s also money in weeds, at least for a time, as plenty of invasives were introduced by the nursery industry. Here in California common selling points for non-native plants that end up becoming invasive would be things like “erosion control,” “drought resistance,” and “fast growing.” Fountain grass is a terrible invasive (fast growing and drought resistant!), responsible for untold millions of dollars’ worth of habitat degradation and destruction, and incredibly still sold by some nurseries.

Same with pampas grass. Very pretty and striking, very destructive, and still sold by some nurseries. Mexican feather grass is a new ornamental grass gaining popularity and though it hasn’t been around long enough to become and invasive, it’s “fast growing” and “drought resistant” properties coupled with the ability to reseed itself means it’s probably just a matter of time until it’s a problem, too. Rule of thumb: if it’s “fast growing” and “drought tolerant” but not a native, skip it.

Because of growing awareness there’s generally less deliberate and accidental introduction of invasives today than in the past when we, A) didn’t understand how invasives would be a problem and, B) really seemed to enjoy nothing more than mowing down native flora and spreading pretty exotics everywhere. However the world is incredibly interconnected and there are people and animals and ships and planes crisscrossing the world every day, so we’re probably going to keep on having new, awful problems to deal with.

As a concerned citizen, here’s what you can do:

• Don’t landscape with suspect plants;
• Eradicate invasives on your own property;
• Join us to restore habitat with Stream Team and
• Help us spread the word!

Next time, we’ll introduce you to specific weeds, where they’re a problem, and what we’re trying to do about it.

Feel like getting a good workout and fighting weeds at the same time? Join our restoration this weekend in Malibu Creek State Park on Sunday, March 10.