|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nudging the Legislature toward a grander vision for California Traditionally, the Legislature is reactive - it creates legislation in
response to an immediate problem that calls out for a solution. When it tries to be proactive, the opposition (whoever it may be) will seek to downplay the problem, and question why the
legislation is needed. For better or worse, the
As you likely know, California is losing much of its natural shoreline to coastal erosion. The These principles include: 1) avoid development in coastal areas of high geologic hazard; 2) reduce or eliminate barriers to natural sources of sand from coastal watersheds to beaches; 3) where feasible, create a regional program of sand nourishment to protect existing shoreline development or recreational uses; 4) move development to safer ground where feasible when it is threatened by coastal erosion; and 5) consider hard protection devices such as seawalls or revetments only after all of the other preceding options have been determined to be infeasible. The bill would also require that all relevant state agencies complete a comprehensive Coastal Sediment Management Master Plan within two years that would provide information on understanding the erosion problems California faces and identify strategies to deal with them. This bill is a wonderful example of how the Legislature could work with state agencies to plan for the future and, at the same time, tackle an existing problem where we have already made many poor decisions. Environmentalists were thrilled; if this bill were actually implemented, it would be the first time the State attempted such a comprehensive approach to natural shoreline erosion. Coastal developers and property owners were far less enamored. Unfortunately, due to the State's fiscal crisis, AB 947 is being held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee and is considered "dead" for this year. I know first-hand the difficulties of trying to plan for the future in a creative manner. I tried - unsuccessfully - to require local agencies to submit environmental impact reports to the Office of Planning Research for projects that have regional impacts to help address cumulative impacts and mitigate growth problems. I also tried to require that the Coastal Commission review local coastal plans every five years for the cumulative impacts of population growth and its effects on public access and gave the Coastal Commission "sticks" to ensure that local governments accepted the Commission's recommendations. So, I know how difficult and frustrating the Legislative process can be when it comes to planning for the future. For years, one of my primary concerns has been the protection of California's remaining wetlands. Several years ago, I carried a resolution urging the President and Congress to maintain the 1989 level of federal wetland protection. Much has changed since then. Natural wetlands continue to decline while the use of wetland mitigation banks is on the rise. A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision has eliminated protection for isolated wetlands under the federal Clean Water Act. The Bush Administration has wasted no time creating regulations that carry out that decision in the broadest possible terms, and the State has done nothing (although one legislator tried to increase protection for wetlands under the California Environmental Quality Act, but that measure died). Although the State Water Resources Control Board claims it has the authority under the Porter-Cologne Act (the State's water quality law) to regulate wetlands, there is no comprehensive permitting program in place, particularly with regard to wetlands no longer covered by the federal Clean Water Act. The result is that for all practical purposes, isolated wetlands in California now have no protection. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been allocated over the years for wetlands and coastal protection, but the State has not had a mechanism for assessing the status of wetlands in California and determining priorities in a comprehensive manner. A few years ago, I authored a successful measure with former Assemblywoman (now Congressmember) Susan Davis that requires the Resources Agency to update all of the State's existing wetland inventory resources in order to prepare a restoration, management, and acquisition study. The Agency is now identifying: 1) opportunities for wetland restoration, enhancement, and acquisition; 2) opportunities for public-private partnerships on private land; 3) wetlands not currently in public ownership; and 4) instances where lead agencies have adopted mitigation measures under CEQA or a habitat conservation plan. This inventory will represent a significant step forward in the State's ability to work with local planners in determining where development should be sited and where wetlands should be protected before it is too late. It can be done. With the help of - and a serious nudge from -
progressive-thinking legislators, we can move the Legislature from thinking in terms of small steps to a grander vision of environmental protection that will protect California's natural treasures for future generations.
Ted Lempert represented San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties in the State Assembly from 1996-2000 and 1988-1992. He authored the Lempert-Keene Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act, the California Coastal
Sanctuary Act and the Ballast Water Management Program. He also served on the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors from 1993-1996, where he led opposition to the
Devil's Slide bypass proposal and convened the panel of experts that led to Measure T and the |
|
|
|
||||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Two of the biggest threats to California's unique natural beauty and
its fish and wildlife are the State's growth and the 
