Surfrider News

---

---

---

SDSU Study Says Cigarette Butts Kill Fish

Residue is Toxic Mix

May 01, 2009
Ed Joyce (KPBS News)
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2009/may/01/sdsu-study-says-cigarette-butts-kill-fish/

San Diego State University researchers say filter-tipped cigarette butts are toxic to marine and fresh-water fish. KPBS Environment Reporter Ed Joyce tells us they want those butts classified as hazardous waste.

SDSU Public Health Professor Tom Novotny and other members of the Cigarette Butt Advisory Group plan to recommend that filtered cigarette butts should have new requirements for disposal. SDSU News Article >>

They say the toxic waste in the butts harms wildlife and the environment. "It is toxic at rather low concentrations," Novotny said. "Even one butt in a liter of water can kill the fish in a period of 96 hours."

The recommendation is based on new research from SDSU Public Health Professor Rick Gersberg.

A cigarette butt is a combination of a plastic filter and the remnants of a smoked cigarette.

The filter is non-biodegradable, and the tobacco remnant is toxic until it biodegrades into the environment.

What remains in the filter are residues, tars, and particulates.

Novotny says cigarette butts are the number one littered substance in the world, with several years as the number one single item picked up on beach cleanup days in San Diego and elsewhere.

"When they unconsciously throw their butts onto the ground, it's not just litter, it's a toxic hazardous waste product," Novotny said. "And that's what we're trying to say. So that may be regulated at the local or state level. And we hope people will be more conscious about what they do with these cigarette butts."

He says stronger enforcement of non-smoking areas and anti-litter laws could help reduce the butts.

Other policies could include fines, waste fees or taxes to pay for recycling or  making manufacturers pay for cleanup costs.

Ed Joyce, KPBS News.

---

---

Date: April 22, 2009
Contact: Frank Quimby, (202) 208-6416
Nicholas Pardi, (202) 208-3982

President Obama, Secretary Salazar Announce Framework for Renewable Energy Development on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, in an Earth Day speech at a wind turbine tower manufacturing plant, President Barack Obama announced that the Department of the Interior has finalized a long-awaited framework for renewable energy production on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The framework establishes a program to grant leases, easements, and rights-of-way for orderly, safe, and environmentally responsible renewable energy development activities, such as the siting and construction of off-shore wind farms, on the OCS.

"It is fitting that on Earth Day President Obama is taking this bold step toward opening America's oceans and new energy frontier, so that we can wisely build a clean energy economy that will create millions of new jobs across the country," Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar said. "This new framework will enhance our energy security and create the foundation for a new offshore energy sector that will employ Americans developing clean and renewable energy."

In addition to establishing a process for granting leases, easements, and rights-of-way for offshore renewable energy development, the new program also establishes methods for sharing revenues generated from OCS renewable energy projects with adjacent coastal States. Additionally the framework will enhance partnerships with Federal, state, and local agencies and tribal governments to assist in maximizing the economic and ecological benefits of OCS renewable energy development. The Final Framework has been submitted to the Federal Register, and is available at http://www.federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2009-09462_PI.pdf

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 granted the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service (MMS) the authority to regulate renewable energy development on the OCS, but no action had been taken under that authority until today. Since taking office, Secretary Salazar has made it a priority to finalize the rules that will govern offshore renewable energy development, given the enormity of this clean, renewable energy source and its proximity to major population centers. A number of other countries already are tapping significant energy from offshore winds.

The Interior Department and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) cleared the way for the publication of these final rules by signing an agreement on April 9, 2009 that clarifies their agencies' jurisdictional responsibilities for leasing and licensing renewable energy projects on the OCS.

Under the agreement, the MMS has exclusive jurisdiction with regard to the production, transportation, or transmission of energy from non-hydrokinetic renewable energy projects, including wind and solar. FERC will have exclusive jurisdiction to issue licenses for the construction and operation of hydrokinetic projects, including wave and current, but companies will be required to first obtain a lease through MMS.

The proposed wind farm off Nantucket Sound, known as Cape Wind, has been undergoing review independently of the rule making process, and no decision is being made on the project at this time. If approved, it will be subject to the terms of the final framework announced today.

The Interior Department's Minerals Management Service is responsible for the management of the more than 1.7 billion acres of submerged lands on the OCS, to include mineral resource and renewable energy development.

Energy Policy Act of 2005

OCS Renewable Energy Program Framework

###

---

Seeking sentiment on drilling, Salazar gets an earful

April 17th, 2009

http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/04/17/seeking-sentiment-on-drilling-salazar-gets-an-earful/

Posted by: Nichola Groom (Reuters)

Tags: Environment, California, drilling, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, natural gas, offshore drilling, oil, renewable energy

---

---

---

ACTION ALERT!

Speak Out on Offshore Oil Drilling!

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar will host four regional public meetings in April to present Interior's findings on Outer Continental Shelf energy resources and potential environmental impacts from their development. At the meetings, the Secretary will also hear comment from public officials, interested organizations, advocacy groups and private citizens on OCS's development.

The meetings will be held at the

• Atlantic City Convention Center in Atlantic City on Monday, April 6;
• Tulane University in New Orleans on April 8;
• Dena'ina Convention Center in Anchorage, Alaska, on April 14
• University of California-San Francisco's Mission Bay Conference Center on Thursday, April 16.

If persons cannot attend in person, or are unable to speak at the meetings, they are welcome to submit written statements, comments or documents, either at the meeting or during the extended public comment period. Written comments can be either submitted at the meeting or thereafter throughout the extended public comment period electronically at www.MMS.gov, "Five Year Program," "How to Comment," or by mail to Ms. Renee Orr, Chief, Leasing Division, Mineral Management Service, MS 4010, 318 Elden Street, Herndon, VA 20170-4817

http://www.nottheanswer.org

Chad Nelsen
Surfrider Foundation
p: 949.492.8170x408
cnelsen@surfrider.org
PO Box 6010, San Clemente, CA 92674

---

Court sides with power plants over fish

By MARK SHERMAN - April 2, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the government can weigh costs against benefits in deciding whether to order power plants to undertake environmental upgrades that would protect fish.

The court's 6-3 decision is a defeat for environmentalists who had urged the justices to uphold a favorable federal appeals court ruling that could have required an estimated 554 power plants to install technology that relies on recycled water to cool machinery.

By reducing water intake, the closed-cycle cooling also results in fewer fish being sucked into the system or smashed to death against screens. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates water-intake systems at power plants kill 3.4 billion fish and shellfish each year.

The ruling, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, was a victory for the power industry, which has long advocated for the use of cost-benefit analysis on environmental issues. The utilities were backed by the Bush administration.

It is unclear whether the EPA in the Obama administration will chart a similar course or decide not to use cost-benefit analyses when they yield less environmental protection. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson previously directed the New Jersey environmental protection agency. New Jersey was one of several states that challenged the EPA regulations that the court approved Wednesday.

EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said the agency would have no comment on the ruling.

Reed Super, a lawyer for the Riverkeeper Inc. environmental group, said the court made clear that EPA has discretion in how to proceed. "We have all the confidence in the world that the Obama administration will do the right thing," Super said.

The high court decision overruled the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. The appeals court said the Clean Water Act does not allow cost to be used when deciding what technology would best minimize environmental impacts.

But Scalia said even the appeals court and environmentalists "concede that some form of cost-benefit analysis is permitted."

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens cited "powerful evidence" that Congress did not want cost-benefit analyses to be used in determining the best available technology for reducing the number of fish killed. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter also dissented.

All new power plants must use closed-cycle cooling.

But the regulations at issue in the Supreme Court case apply only to older facilities.

Scalia said there is nothing wrong with EPA regulations that allow the use of less costly systems that come close to achieving the same environmental benefits as closed-cycle cooling.

The closed-cycle systems would cost $3.5 billion a year and reduce the number of fish killed by up to 98 percent, he said. EPA says other technologies would cost a tenth as much and cut the number of fish killed by 80 percent to 95 percent, Scalia said.

The same EPA analysis also found that the most fish-friendly systems would reduce the amount of electricity the plants generate. Utilities would have to build 20 new 400-megawatt power plants to replace the electricity, the EPA said.

Electricity costs could rise by 2.4 percent to 5.3 percent in that scenario, the agency said.

Entergy Corp.'s Indian Point nuclear power plant on the Hudson River north of New York City is among the facilities potentially affected by the ruling. Indian Point, one of the biggest users of water for cooling, would shut down for about 10 months if it had to install the recycled water system, according to estimates in court papers.

"Forcing cooling towers on Indian Point ... could significantly raise electricity costs and add pollutants to the air from fossil burning plants that would be needed to replace Indian Point's power," Entergy spokesman Jim Steets said.

Among the problems environmental groups have with cost-benefit calculations is the difficulty of valuing the benefits.

"Trying to put a dollar figure on fish and aquatic systems gets very difficult and contentious," said Amy Sinden, a Temple University law professor who wrote a brief in the case on the side of the environmental groups. "It is inevitably understated."

Indeed, the EPA's analysis valued the annual benefit in fish saved at $83 million, but that number takes account only of the value of fish that end up on dinner plates or sport fishing hooks - about 2 percent of all the fish killed. The agency assigned no value to more than 98 percent of the aquatic life killed each year.

"This narrow focus skewed the agency's calculation of benefits," Stevens said.

The cases are Entergy Corp. v. EPA, 07-588; PSEG v. Riverkeeper, 07-589; and Utility Water Act Group v. Riverkeeper, 07-597.

Associated Press writer Jim Fitzgerald in White Plains, N.Y., contributed to this report.

Copyright (c) 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

---

Judge shelves plastic bag ban

Daily Breeze
http://www.dailybreeze.com/business/ci_11754190

By Andrea Woodhouse, Staff Writer
Posted: 02/20/2009 11:11:59 PM PST

A Superior Court judge Friday rejected Manhattan Beach's ban on plastic carryout bags, ruling that the city should have first fully studied its potential environmental consequences.

Judge David Yaffe decided that the city must consider that a proliferation of paper bags, a likely result of banning plastic carriers, could harm the environment.

The ruling effectively voids a ban set to go into effect for many businesses in town next week.

"The judge said the city is required by law to do an environmental impact report because there is a fair argument that there would be a substantial impact on the environment," Manhattan Beach City Attorney Bob Wadden said. "There's a potential impact from the fact that more paper will be used."

Indeed, the decision is a victory for a group of plastics manufacturers who in August filed suit against Manhattan Beach, alleging the city had violated the California Environmental Quality Act by not fully studying the ban's possible environmental effects.

"We were vindicated," said Stephen Joseph, an attorney representing The Save the Plastic Bag Coalition. "We've been saying all along that the assumption that plastic was worse than paper is wrong."

Despite promises of litigation from the coalition, a unanimous Manhattan Beach City Council in July banned plastic carryout bags - its members then waxing enthusiastically that the decision would curb visual and environmental pollution.

Believing a full environmental analysis was unnecessary, the city conducted an initial study and found no significant threat to the environment from the ban.

Opponents, however, argued that eliminating the option of plastic bags in stores would only lead to the proliferation and littering of paper bags, and pointed to studies showing that paper sacks require more energy to produce, consume more space in landfills and emit more methane gases during decomposition.

Yaffe ruled Friday that an environmental impact report would settle the paper vs. plastic debate, Wadden said.

"(The judge's) analysis said this is such a big question that it needs to be done in the most public manner possible," he said.

Wadden believed the city had grounds for an appeal, as Yaffe apparently ignored a provision of CEQA that calls for an environmental impact report only when a proposed project poses a substantial impact on the environment, he said.

"The judge basically seemed to be ruling that as long as there is any type of impact, substantial or not, you have to do an environmental impact report," Wadden said. "That is not the law. If it were, you'd be doing an EIR for every little thing."

But Yaffe did not rule that Manhattan Beach lacked power to ban plastic carryout bags - and that may still come to be.

Even if a full environmental analysis echoes the coalition's arguments, Manhattan Beach could move forward by declaring that even though the ban would have a major effect on the environment, other benefits warrant its approval, Wadden said.

He estimated such an environmental impact report would cost several thousand dollars.

"What this really is is a delaying tactic, and I do think it's meant to send a message to the other cities out there looking to ban plastic bags," Wadden said. "It's buying (the coalition) time, but it isn't going to stop the cities that are determined to ban plastic bags."

And Manhattan Beach certainly seems determined. Though it could drop its pursuit of a ban entirely, Mayor Richard Montgomery believes that's unlikely.

"I cannot see this council, which gave it a 5-0 vote to begin with, taking a step backward and not moving forward with either the appeal or the EIR or both," he said Friday.

"I just think it's important to keep it in perspective that we're not discontinuing our efforts. All we're doing is following the judge's request to perform an EIR and go from there," he added.

Proving its commitment to reusable bags, the city will partner with a local environmental group Feb. 28 to give away free canvas totes to shoppers at four grocery stores in town, Montgomery said.

Meanwhile, city leaders will discuss their next step in a closed session next month, Wadden said.

Joseph, the coalition's attorney, didn't view Friday's ruling as a setback for the city.

"It's a victory for the people of Manhattan Beach because now, if there's an environmental impact report, they get to find out the truth before there is a vote," he said. "They get to see what's really the science behind it and not these unfounded assertions the city is making."

But Friday's ruling could be discouraging for the many Manhattan Beach stores and restaurants already prepared for the ban, set to kick in Feb. 28 for most businesses.

Manhattan's business community was largely receptive to the change, said Helen Duncan, president of the Manhattan Beach Chamber of Commerce, who noted that most respondents in a survey conducted by the chamber before the ban was approved said they supported such a prohibition.

She expected many of the businesses would ungrudgingly eliminate plastic carryout bags regardless of Friday's ruling.

"I think they're going to do the change even without the law," Duncan said. "They're going to see it's what should be done, that it's right and they're going to do it. We have businesses that care about the community."

The Kettle, a downtown mainstay, began taking steps months ago to order paper carryout bags, rather than plastic, which are generally preordered by the restaurant in large quantities, said manager Emily Jason.

"I don't think they realize how much goes into a decision like this, and we're a small business," said Jason, clearly frustrated Friday afternoon.

"To have to stop ordering the plastic bags - because we order them way ahead of time - and then have to go back to look for other alternatives, and now (the ban) is not going to be valid? It's amazing."

---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT:
Joe Geever
Surfrider Foundation, CA Policy Coordinator
949-636-8426

Sabrina Venskus
Law Offices of Sabrina Venskus
213-482-4200

Playa Vista Phase 2 Development Comes to Screeching Halt

Playa del Rey, CA (January 23, 2009) - The latest chapter in the long saga surrounding the massive Playa Vista development in Los Angeles is finally closed. On January 22, Surfrider Foundation's South Bay Chapter, and their partners Ballona Wetlands Land Trust and the City of Santa Monica signed a settlement agreement that sends the controversial Phase 2 of the development back to the drawing board. The settlement terms establish that the Environmental Impact Report inadequately informed the public of the foreseeable harm to the local environment from the project. Consequently the City Council's decision to grant development permits and entitlements have been reversed.

"In effect, the City's approval of the Phase 2 development has been rejected by the court and Playa Vista has given up challenging that decision," says Sabrina Venskus, attorney representing the Surfrider Foundation's South Bay Chapter. "One of the unintended, but beneficial consequences of this rejection is it provides my clients an opportunity to seek a more environmentally-sensitive use of the land — thereby improving the quality of life for Playa Vista residents and the Los Angeles community as a whole."

The simultaneous denial of development permits for the project, the collapse of the housing and development industry, and Mayor Villaraigosa's promise of a "Greener LA" leaves the future of the property in temporary limbo. Surfrider Foundation sees this as an opportunity to bail out the developer by working out a public acquisition deal, and opening the door to their long held dream of restoring this relatively small, but critically important part of Southern California's network of coastal wetlands. In effect, Playa Vista residents would get the community serving retail they were promised while raising the value of their investment from the construction of a new passive recreational area, and the community of Los Angeles would get cleaner water, more wetlands and less traffic.

Chairman of the Surfrider Foundation's South Bay Chapter Craig Cadwallader, says the group has advocated using the space for "treatment wetlands" since the project's inception. "Wetlands naturally cleanse pollutants from the City's runoff, re-charge our groundwater reserves, restore critical habitat for multiple species threatened with extinction, and create a beautiful and natural open space for the enjoyment of local residents."

Scientists also recommend creating and restoring coastal wetlands to provide a major benefit in the State's new focus on reducing global warming and adapting to some inevitable climate change. "These wetlands are incredible at carbon sequestration and impeding sea level rise from contaminating our freshwater aquifers," says Alan Walti, the South Bay Chapter's Environmental Coordinator. "It's just one more compelling reason to seriously consider our recommendation."

The future of the land is still an unanswered question. One more chapter in the massive development proposal has been closed, and Surfrider Foundation hopes the next chapter tells a story of major improvements to our coast and ocean and the end of a contentious adversarial relationship between the local community and the developers.

About Surfrider Foundation

The Surfrider Foundation is a non-profit grassroots environmental organization dedicated to the protection and preservation of our world's oceans, waves and beaches. Now in its 25th year, the Surfrider Foundation has grown from a small group of dedicated surfers in Malibu, California to a global movement made up of over 50,000 members and 90 chapters worldwide. For more information visit us at www.surfrider.org.

###

---

---

---

{back to top}

---

---

Plastic Wind-Bag Files Suit Against Manhattan Beach

The Beach Reporter - August 21, 2008

http://www.tbrnews.com/articles/2008/08/22/manhattan_beach_news/news01.prt

Manhattan Beach News

Plastic bag advocates hope to sack ban

by Julie Sharp
(Updated: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 2:37 PM PDT)

A group of plastic bag manufacturers, distributors and retailers filed a lawsuit against Manhattan Beach challenging the city's recent ban of the shopping sacks.

The coalition, SaveThePlasticBag.com, filed its suit against the city Aug. 12 with the Los Angeles Superior Court and claims that the city justified the bag ban with misleading information and a biased, not thorough environmental impact study.

The citywide ban was adopted at the July 1 City Council meeting after the issue was postponed at a previous council meeting due to a need for an Environmental Impact Report as required by the California Environmental Quality Act.

The lawyer representing SaveThePlasticBag .com, Stephen Joseph, lambasted the city saying the report was only a justification for banning plastic bags rather than a full study of the pros and cons of plastic bags in Manhattan Beach.

"The study was a series of cutting and pasting from the misinformation superhighway (the Internet) rather than a full study," said Joseph.

The coalition, whose founding members are Elkay Plastics and Command Packaging, posted its main objection on its Web site, stating that the city did not prepare an authentic Environmental Impact Report and hopes that the court will force the city to prepare a more objective study. Joseph said the city should spend more time studying the impacts of banning plastic bags. The Daily Breeze also stated that the suit intends to address the city's power in issuing such a ban and questions if the city should be able to ban a product regardless of an objective environmental study.

"I represent an industry that generates about 4,000 jobs. Would you want to lose your job based on misinformation?" said Joseph.

City Attorney Bob Wadden was quoted in the Daily Breeze as saying that the city's environmental impact report has an excellent chance of holding its own in court. City staff has yet to be served with the complaint and would not comment further without seeing the actual complaint filed.

If the Manhattan Beach ban stands, it would be enforced within about five months. The ordinance approved by council bans all point-of-sale carryout plastic bags in the city and will take effect for grocery stores, food vendors, restaurants, pharmacies and city facilities in about five months and in about 11 months for all other retail businesses and vendors, according to a city staff report.

Malibu is the only other Southern California city to ban all point-of-sale plastic bags at all retail establishments. San Francisco has a limited plastic bag ban and Oakland attempted a similar ban but a 2008 Alameda County Superior Court decision overturned the ban due to a weak environmental study.

{back to top}

---

City of Los Angeles Water Use Restrictions Now In Effect

From: Bill Rosendahl councilman.rosendahl@lacity.org
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:27:54 -0700
Subject: Water Use Restrictions Now In Effect
http://www.councilmanrosendahl.com
City Hall: (213) 473-7011
West LA: (310) 575-8461
Westchester: (310) 568-8772

Dear Friends,

For the past two years, California has faced severe drought conditions. In June, the Governor issued an executive order declaring a statewide drought and directing state agencies and cities to take immediate action to address California's impaired water supply. In response, the Council and the Mayor approved the Department of Water Power's (DWP) recommendations to expand and enforce the prohibited uses of water. These restrictions will further our City's stellar record of water conservation and help us secure sustainable sources of water for the future.

PROHIBITED WATER USES:

• Watering lawns between 10 a.m. 5 p.m., April 1 to September 30 and between 11 a.m. - 3 p.m., October 1 to March 31
• Using a hose to clean hard surfaces such as sidewalks, walkways, driveways or parking areas (with the exception of water brooms)
• Having water in fountains, lakes, or decorations unless it is re-circulated
• Allowing leaks to go unattended
• Washing a car without an auto shut off sprayer
• Irrigating while it is raining
• Watering with sprinklers for more than 15 minutes at a time (drip systems exempt)
• Overwatering causing runoff on to the sidewalk, street, or gutter
• Using single-pass cooling systems (a cooling system that uses water without re-circulating it)

IN ADDITION:

• Commercial laundry and carwash systems must have re-circulated water
• Hotels must give guests the option to re-use their towels without washing them daily
• Restaurants cannot serve water to customers unless it is requested

There are penalties for not complying with these water-usage prohibitions.

PENALTIES:

• 1st offense: a formal warning
• 2nd offense: $100 fine
• 3rd offense: $200 fine
• 4th offense: $300 fine
• 5th offense: Restricted or disconnection of water service

The DWP also suggests some WATER SAVING TIPS that I would like to share:

• Fix leaky faucets, plumbing joints and your sprinkler system. It saves 20 gallons a day for every leak stopped.
• Use a broom instead of a hose to clean driveways and sidewalks. It saves 150 gallons or more each time.
• Shorten your showers. Even a one- or two-minute reduction can save up to 375 gallons per month.
• Don't water the sidewalks, driveway, or gutter. Adjust your sprinklers so that water lands on your lawn or garden where it belongs and only there. It can save up to 500 gallons a month.
• Don't use the toilet as a wastebasket. It saves up to 200 gallons a month.
• Run only full loads in the washing machine and dishwasher. It saves 300 to 800 gallons a month.
• Use only as much water on your lawn as you need. Step on your grass. If it springs back when you lift your foot, it doesn't need water. Use the watering calculator and watering index found at http://www.bewaterwise.com to learn just how much you should water. It saves 750 to 1,500 gallons a month.
• Replace your old washing machine with a new, high-efficiency model. It saves 20 to 30 gallons per load. Learn more about how you can receive a $250 rebate from LADWP at http://www.ladwp.com
• Install a new "smart" sprinkler controller that figures out the right amount of water for your landscape. These controllers can save 40 gallons a day.

I hope you will join us in these important water saving techniques during this time of extreme water shortage. The City also offers many rebates and incentives to help residents and business conserve water. For more information, please visit http://www.ladwp.com.

Thank you,

Bill Rosendahl
Councilmember, 11th District

Councilman Bill Rosendahl
200 N. Spring Street, Room 415
Mailstop 218
Los Angeles, CA 90012

{back to top}

---

ACTION ALERT - AB2058 NEEDS YOUR HELP!

Action Alert

The American Chemistry Council and bag manufacturers are digging into their deep pockets to fund a campaign against AB 2058 (Plastic Bag Litter Reduction Act). They are spreading misinformation about the environmental and societal impacts of reducing plastic bag usage. For the first time, California has the chance to pass the most aggressive policy to reduce plastic bag consumption. We can't allow the American Chemistry Council and others to use their large budgets to spread misinformation to legislators and the public.

AB 2058 -- NEEDS YOUR HELP!

Under AB 2058, large grocery stores and pharmacies would be required to charge a 25 cent fee for plastic grocery bags, the proceeds of which would be used for local litter abatement, cleanup and prevention programs. This fee-based approach has encouraged shoppers to bring their own reusable bags and has reduced plastic bag consumption in Ireland by over 90%.

Tell your legislator to SUPPORT AB 2058. Let your legislator know that all Californians want to protect their community from plastic bag pollution. Please take a few moments to fill out this form with sample letter and we will hand deliver your letter to legislative offices in Sacramento. http://www.healthebay.org/actionalerts/2008_07_28_ab2058/default.asp

Myths versus Facts

Myth 1: This proposed law is a tax.

Fact: AB 2058 is NOT a tax, it's "fee by choice". You can CHOOSE not pay 25 cents if you just remember BYOB: Bring Your Own Bag.

Myth 2: This proposed law will hurt low-income consumers.

Fact: AB 2058 can actually help low-income consumers SAVE money and clean up plastic bag blight in their communities. Under AB 2058, proceeds from the revenue can also be spent on reusable bag giveaway programs.

Low-income communities are burdened by the blight caused by plastic bag litter in their communities. Los Angeles County spends $18 million per year on litter prevention, cleanup and enforcement activities, tax dollars that could've otherwise been invested in public safety, libraries and parks.

The plastic bag industry is already making a profit off of low-income families that pay upwards of $18 per year in "hidden costs." Each time you get a plastic bag at the grocery store, you pay 2-5 cents that is already embedded in the price of goods.

Myth 3: There is no need for this law because plastic bags are fully recyclable.

Fact: While plastic bags are recyclable, less than 5% actually get recycled despite aggressive efforts to educate the public and implement recycling programs. California currently spends $25 million per year to landfill plastic bag litter. The quantity of plastic marine debris is rising and WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO RECYCLE OUR WAY OUT OF THIS PROBLEM.

Again, please take a few moments to fill out this form with sample letter and we will hand deliver your letter to legislative offices in Sacramento. http://www.healthebay.org/actionalerts/2008_07_28_ab2058/default.asp

Thank you!

{back to top}

---

{back to top}

---

From: Surfrider Foundation
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:06:09 -0700
Subject: Trestles Toll Road Hearing Canceled for July 25th.

Dear Surfrider Member,

We wanted to remind the hearing on the 241 Toll Road scheduled for July 25th at UC Irvine's Bren Center is canceled. They feared that the turnout from supporters of San Onofre State Beach and Trestles would overwhelm the facilities at UCI, estimating that over 10,000 of you would show up.

Clearly there is strong community opposition to this destructive highway project, and those voices need to be heard. Unfortunately no other venue has been identified. The Department of Commerce said they are committed to having a public hearing and are looking for a venue that would accommodate the crowd and their budget. The hearing could possibly be held in late August or early September.

We will keep you informed as the situation develops, but for now there will be NO Hearing on July 25th at the Bren Center.

In the meantime, make sure that the Commerce Department knows that you still want the opportunity to be heard. Send an email to Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez demanding that they reschedule the hearing so that he can hear from the community on this issue. Copy and paste the text below or write your own letter, and send it to gcos.comments@noaa.gov

Surfrider and Sierra Club are planning a community meeting on July 24th to talk about what the cancelation of the hearing means. Mark Massara, long time Surfrider and Sierra Club activist, (and attorney) will be on hand to discuss the current situation and answer questions.

The meeting will take place on July 24th at the San Clemente Community Center, 100 N. Calle Seville, San Clemente, CA 92672, at 7:30 pm. click here for directions>>

If you would like to receive regular updates about the Trestles campaign, please sign up: click here>>

Stefanie Sekich SSekich@surfrider.org, Surfrider Foundation

{back to top}

---

{back to top}

---

A very special Thank You to our friends at Whole Foods Market for selecting the Surfrider Foundation - South Bay Chapter for their "5% Day" on June 12, 2008!

On June 12, 2008, Redondo Beach held a 5% Day for
the Surfrider Foundation - South Bay Chapter.
We presented a check for $1,996.45.

Courtesy...
Lena Pereira
Marketing Supervisor
Whole Foods Market Redondo Beach
405 North Pacific Coast Highway
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
(310)376-6931 phone
(310)376-7651 fax

{back to top}

---

SURFRIDER FOUNDATION OPPOSES EFFORTS TO LIFT THE OFFSHORE OIL MORATORIUM

San Clemente, CA (June 19, 2008) This week, there have been several calls for Congress to lift its long-standing ban on offshore oil and gas drilling. In response to these announcements, the Surfrider Foundation has released a statement on its position against offshore oil drilling.

"Surfrider Foundation is opposed to any attempt to lift the federal moratorium on offshore oil drilling," said Environmental Director Chad Nelsen.

"Our nation's oceans, waves and beaches are vital recreational, economic and ecological treasures that will be polluted by an increase in offshore oil drilling."

"Instead of advocating for transient and environmentally harmful ways to meet America's oil needs, we should seek a comprehensive and environmentally sustainable energy plan that includes energy conservation."

About Surfrider Foundation

The Surfrider Foundation is a non-profit grassroots organization dedicated to the protection and enjoyment of our world's oceans, waves and beaches. Founded in 1984 by a handful of visionary surfers in Malibu, California, the Surfrider Foundation now maintains over 50,000 members and 80 chapters worldwide. For more information on the Surfrider Foundation, go to www.surfrider.org

###

Alexis Henry
Communications Manager
Surfrider Foundation
PO Box 6010
San Clemente, CA 92674
P: 949-732-6413 | C: 714-315-7102
Email: Ahenry@surfrider.org

{back to top}

---

From our friends at Saatchi & Saatchi LA:

{back to top}

---

Something you too can do that makes a difference...

From: Jeff Eick
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 6:01 PM
To: Surfrider Foundation Membership Email
Subject: Keeping the ocean clean

My name is Peff Eick. I was honored by being inducted into the Hermosa Beach Surfers Walk of Fame in April of this year.

I have been surfing for over 55 years. Recently I have been surfing on a standup paddle surfboard when the surf is flat at my home break in Manhattan Beach. My field of view on the stand up board has revealed that there are lots of plastic bags in the water. I wondered what I could do to pick up some of the plastic while not interrupting my surf session.

I went to Home Depot and bought some strips of velcro. I put the velcro around my upper calf and when I see a bag I grab it, roll it up and put it between my leg and the velcro. I can still surf and when I come in I just through it in the trash. It's my little part to keep the ocean clean.

Peff Eick

{back to top}

---

DailyBreeze.com

RB desalting plant is inching forward

ENVIRONMENT: The facility would test treated water; none would be used for drinking.

By Kristin S. Agostoni, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 02/09/2008 12:07:34 AM PST

Environmental leaders are looking cautiously at plans to turn ocean water into potential drinking water at a test site in Redondo Beach, even as the West Basin Municipal Water District pledges to minimize the effects on sea life.

West Basin, which proposed the demonstration desalination plant more than a year ago, presented its plans Thursday to a small audience at the Los Angeles Conservation Corps' SEA Lab. It marked the start of an environmental review for a project that will require a host of approvals, including permits from the California Coastal Commission, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and others.

With the cost of imported water expected to rise due to dwindling supplies, district officials stressed the need to find a new source of potable water.

"With costs going up, ocean desalting, it makes sense," West Basin director Ed Little said. "We need to find out how to do it in an economic and environmentally sensitive way, and that's what we're coming at here."

But environmental leaders say desalting should be used as a last resort to conservation and recycling efforts. Also, some worry a temporary plant could pave the way for a full-scale facility that could do significant damage to ocean ecosystems.

West Basin officials, anticipating those concerns and others, have invited environmental groups to a meeting Monday to discuss the plans in greater detail.

"We're going forward in a very slow and measured way,"

Assistant General Manager Paul Shoenberger said.

The district wants to build the desalter in an old pump house next to the SEA Lab on Harbor Drive. Across the street is the former Southern California Edison plant - now AES - which used the structure to supply cooling water to four units that are now decommissioned.

The plant would be West Basin's second desalter; it already operates a smaller pilot facility at the NRG plant in El Segundo.

The agency has said the Redondo project is temporary and that its goal is to operate a permanent facility in El Segundo, once that plant finishes an extensive renovation.

In the meantime, though, the Redondo desalter would operate on a larger scale, filtering 500,000 gallons of seawater daily through the power plant's old intake pipe - up from 40,000 gallons in El Segundo.

( West Basin had initially discussed filtering 1 million gallons a day but later revised the plan, Shoenberger said.)

To minimize the number of organisms getting flushed into a 14-foot underwater tunnel, Shoenberger said the district wants to run an 8-inch pipe inside and cover the opening with a wedgewire screen.

The protective cover and smaller pipe - which draws water at a lower velocity - will keep larger organisms from getting pushed against the screen and reduce the amount being sucked in by 95 percent, he said.

None of the water would be used for drinking; after testing, the salt-free water would be combined with the concentrate and released back to sea. The salinity of the outgoing flow would be nearly identical to the incoming seawater, Shoenberger said.

West Basin also wants to simulate a natural subsurface intake system that would use water first percolated through the ocean floor. The temporary device would be built onshore and used for research.

But even with those safeguards, environmentalists still have questions.

Joe Geever, California policy coordinator for the Surfrider Foundation, said his group has supported desalting research elsewhere along the coast. But large-scale plants should be "an option of last resort," he said, only after water conservation and recycling programs are exhausted.

And while wedgewire screening devices are believed to minimize the effect on aquatic life, Geever said "the jury is still out about whether they work."

Sarah Abramson, a staff scientist with Heal the Bay, said she questions why the agency plans to test screening devices if the subsurface intake method is known to have fewer effects.

Still, even that process would require study, she said: "We don't know the feasibility of certain locations."

Desal plants that use wells and subsurface pipes require less energy and reduce the effect on sea life, said Conner Everts of the Desal Response Group.

But Everts also believes that co-locating desalters with coastal power plants poses problems, as it promotes antiquated systems that last year suffered a blow in court; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency had no basis for letting electricity generating systems suck in ocean water even if other measures were taken, such as replacing sea life with fish nurseries.

And Everts said he has concerns not only about how West Basin's process will work, but that the quality of the purified water would be safe to drink. "The Santa Monica Bay is not exactly a safe place to swim (let alone) drink water out of it," he added.

West Basin's proposal is a lucrative one for the Los Angeles Conservation Corps and the tiny SEA Lab.

The agency will pay the corps $5,000 a month in rent and spend $1.5 million renovating the pump house. Once the desal project is done, the lab can reclaim the space.

Yet as environmentalists pose questions, the deal puts the nonprofit aquarium in an awkward position. After all, it was formed in 1996 with money from a legal settlement between Edison and the Earth Island Institute, which alleged the company's new San Onofre station would harm aquatic life.

"We are extremely sensitive of the perception. We wrestled with this, most definitely," said Dan Knapp, the Corps' deputy director. "We're first and foremost a youth development agency, but we're also an environmental agency."

The Corps agreed that West Basin could use the space for research purposes, he explained, yet that doesn't mean the aquarium is a partner.

"The only reason we've gone into this is that it's temporary and pure research," Knapp said.

The benefits to the lab were also considered. Today, the 1940s-era pump house, is "completely unusable to us," Knapp said.

"It can be used to bolster our education. We have plans for wet labs and classroom space. This will help us make it safer and allow us to further our mission."

kristin.agostoni@dailybreeze.com

Joe Geever
Surfrider Foundation
California Policy Coordinator
8117 W Manchester Ave. #297
Playa del Rey, CA 90293
(310) 410-2890
Please help restore and protect the ocean we love by joining Surfrider Foundation at: www.surfrider.org/join

{back to top}

---

The California Coastal Commission voted 8-2 to oppose a planned toll road that threatens San Onofre State Beach Park and the surfing resources at Trestles...

Panel rejects toll road through San Onofre State Beach

California Coastal Commission votes against the six-lane Foothill South route.

By David Reyes (david.reyes@latimes.com) and Dan Weikel (dan.weikel@latimes.com)
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

February 7, 2008

DEL MAR — The California Coastal Commission handed environmentalists a major victory and rejected the pleas of motorists Wednesday, voting down plans to build a six-lane toll road through San Onofre State Beach, a popular preserve in north San Diego County known for its scenery and famous surf spots.

Before a boisterous crowd of more than 3,500 people, commissioners decided 8 to 2 that the proposed Foothill South project violates the California Coastal Act, which is designed to regulate development along the state's 1,100-mile shoreline. They reached the conclusion following hours of sometimes heated public testimony that pitted protecting the environment against the need to relieve traffic congestion in south Orange County.

The decision was a major setback for the Transportation Corridor Agencies, which has spent years and tens of millions of dollars preparing to construct the 16-mile tollway as an alternative to Interstate 5.

"This project looks like something from the 1950s," said Commissioner Sara Wan of Malibu, who voted against the tollway. "Putting a massive project in an environmentally sensitive area, it is inconceivable."

Read the Los Angeles Times article: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-tollroad7feb07,1,2734208.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

{back to top}

---

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-playa13dec13,1,888700.story?coll=la-headlines-california

Playa Vista is denied review of ruling that stopped construction

After the state Supreme Court's decision, the developer of the West L.A. project says it will try to resolve the environmental impact issues with the city.

By Martha Groves, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 13, 2007

The California Supreme Court on Wednesday denied a request by Playa Vista to review an appellate court ruling that halted work on the development's final phase. The 2nd District Court of Appeal had found that the project's environmental impact report was flawed.

Playa Vista said in a statement that it had expected the result because the state's high court accepts only a tiny percentage of cases for review. The company said it would work with Los Angeles officials to address the three issues that the appellate court decided needed further analysis.

In September, the appellate court found that the city's approval of the big, mixed-use development's Phase 2 was based on an environmental review that was "deficient in its analysis of land-use impacts, mitigation of historical archaeological resources and wastewater impacts."

The project's $1.1-billion second and final phase, the Village, calls for 2,600 housing units and 250,000 square feet of office and retail space on 111 acres.

The retail space would include a supermarket and other businesses in the hope of reducing traffic outside the development.

Playa Vista's first phase involved 3,246 housing units and more than 3.2 million square feet of office and retail space. The company is allowed to continue with first-phase construction.

Sabrina Venskus, lead counsel to the environmental groups that challenged Phase 2, said her clients would favor a much scaled-down final phase, with no housing and about 110,000 square feet of retail space. Her clients have recommended that the rest of the property set aside for Phase 2 be converted into a treatment wetland to clean storm runoff before it could reach the Ballona Wetlands and Santa Monica Bay.

Joe Geever of the Surfrider Foundation, one of the organizations that sued the city soon after it approved the second phase in 2004, said the high court's denial would force the city to think about alternatives for the controversial project just south of Marina del Rey. But he acknowledged that "people living in Playa Vista were promised those amenities, and I think they should get them."

Steve Soboroff, Playa Vista president, said the company expected to present further analysis of the three issues to the city "in a couple of months."

"I'm confident it's going to be remedied so we will get done with our ultimate vision," he said.

Frank Mateljan, a spokesman for the city attorney's office, said: "Now it's up to the city and the developer to remedy those [issues]. The EIR conditions are fixable."

martha.groves@latimes.com

Joe Geever
Surfrider Foundation
California Policy Coordinator
8117 W Manchester Ave. #297
Playa del Rey, CA 90293
(310) 410-2890

{back to top}

---

THE GOOD DAY for Saatchi & Saatchi LA is a Great Day for Our Beaches!

Saatchi & Saatchi Los Angeles makes a clean sweep of the beach on Thursday, November 15, 2007, in support of the Surfrider Foundation - South Bay Chapter. This special beach clean up event, coordinated by Saatchi's Bruce McDermott, was well-executed by our friends at Saatchi LA and sincerely appreciated by the South Bay Chapter and all beach-goers, both human and other!

A special thanks goes out to all... ya done good!

{back to top}

---

Groups plan suit to force L.A. County, Malibu to clean water

Ventura County Star - 6/6/07

By Noaki Schwartz, Associated Press

LOS ANGELES - A decade after environmental groups settled a federal lawsuit with a plan to control pollution flowing into Southern California coastal waters, they have filed an intent to sue again this time to force local agencies to actually clean up the water.

The Natural Resources Defense Council and the Santa Monica Baykeeper used Los Angeles County's own data to show how the county and the city of Malibu potentially owe millions of dollars in fines for violating the Clean Water Act. The notice, which was sent Thursday, is the first step in filing a federal lawsuit within the next 60 days.

"This lawsuit focuses explicitly on results measured at the beach and in local waters," said David Beckman, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "No longer could the county merely file a paper program to be in compliance with the Clean Water Act. It would have to actually clean up the water to be in compliance."

The federal law required pollution limits to be set by 1979 for all water in the United States considered unsafe for people and aquatic life.

In the mid-1990s, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Baykeeper filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the county violated clean water standards by failing to control storm water polluting Santa Monica Bay. The two sides settled in 1996, with the county promising to develop a program to find the type and source of pollutants flowing into the bay through storm drains and flood control channels.

In 1999, the same groups sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for failing for 20 years to ensure that state waters were clean. In a settlement that year, the EPA agreed to set pollution limits for the 156 water bodies in Los Angeles and Ventura counties.

In this latest round of legal action, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Baykeeper say Los Angeles County and Malibu have routinely violated clean water standards by discharging contaminated water and urban runoff into coastal waters. County data showed that Malibu Creek and the Los Angeles and San Gabriel rivers repeatedly exceeded safe levels of cyanide, aluminum and fecal coliform.

The groups' notice seeks imposition of penalties for violations of the Clean Water Act ranging from $27,500 to $32,500 per day dating to May 2002.

Some of the area's most famous beaches have been plagued for years by water quality problems, which can make people sick. Los Angeles County had the 2,213 beach closings in 2005, the notice said. #

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2007/jun/06/groups-plan-suit-to-force-la-county-malibu-to/

####

{back to top}

---

Pollution contributing to marine mammal deaths

San Luis Obispo Tribune - 4/19/07

Investigators say water pollution is contributing to a spate of marine mammal deaths that have scattered carcasses along the California coast.

In the past several weeks, dozens of whales, dolphins and sea lions have washed ashore dead or dying from Los Angeles-Venice area to San Luis Obispo.

The latest discovery occurred Tuesday in Ventura, where an 8-foot juvenile minke whale washed up dead at San Buenaventura State Beach. Lifeguards buried it in the sand.

"It is episodic. Springtime is peak time when this happens," said Michelle Berman, assistant curator and marine mammal specialist for the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. "Animals are reproducing, and we have upwelling and nutrients that can lead to red tides. But to have so many in a short time frame is not so common."

In Santa Barbara, a 29-foot sperm whale washed ashore April 9 near Isla Vista. In both instances involving whales, investigators collected tissue samples from the carcasses in an effort to pinpoint the cause of death.

Meanwhile, numerous dolphins and sea lions are washing ashore sick or dead on Southland beaches.

Peter Wallerstein, president and founder of Whale Rescue Team in Los Angeles, said he has conducted 78 marine mammal rescues this year, many of them common dolphins. He rescued a dolphin at Santa Monica beach and another at Venice beach this week. A live harbor porpoise washed up near Oceano Dunes near San Luis Obispo but died later.

Joe Cordaro, wildlife biologist for the National Marine Fisheries Service, said he does not see an ecological disaster under way but is concerned about toxic algae. It can produce domoic acid, which accumulates in shellfish and fish and sickens seabirds, otters, sea lions, dolphins, whales and humans. He said some sea lions show symptoms of domoic acid poisoning, including seizures and paralysis, but he said investigations are under way to determine if other factors contribute to the problem.

"We get spurts like this from time to time," Cordaro said, "but whenever we get one like this, this many (fatalities) at one time, it raises our antennae."

Officials warn beach-goers to keep themselves and children a safe distance from animals that appear distressed, especially sea lions.

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/183/story/20637.html

####

{back to top}

---

Teach and Test Program Update

October 10, 2004 was the official launch date of the South Bay Chapter's "Teach and Test Program." This is an exciting new initiative to coordinate with local high schools and improve water quality monitoring in the South Bay area. We have organized several high schools to sample local beaches for their science courses. The Chapter will then have the water samples analyzed and publish the results in an on-going database. We're also contributing to a study of plastics accumulation in our beach sand.
More information >>

{back to top}

---

Save "Toes Beach" Dunes

Surfrider Foundation is tracking a development proposal to build townhouses on the dunes at Toes Beach in Playa del Rey (corner of Culver Blvd/Pacific St). These dunes are important coastal habitat and provide the local community with unique scenic, recreational and educational benefits. Our members and other local organizations are working to find funding to acquire this property for habitat restoration and public access.
More information >>

---

Report Pollution Local Phone Numbers

Surfrider Foundation frequently get calls from members who notice a sewer spill or other water quality violation and want to know how to report it. A call recently received was from a person at Ecostation in Culver City, who said a mobile car detailing service was pouring a lot of soupy water down into the storm drain system and then to Ballona Creek. To report pollution in the South Bay area...
More information >>

{back to top}

---

Dear Surfrider Foundation Chapter Activists,

I'm writing to tell you about some special and exciting campaigns and issues that the national office is working on that increase our level of services to you, as well update you on some Surfrider Foundation Headquarters accomplishments. This information can be accessed through our website. More information >>

---

---

Top of page >>