Coast Gets Some Protection--Is It Enough?

Beach-goers won the right to warnings when the water is polluted. Abalone and white sharks got protection from harvesters. And the public will get new trails for easier access to the coast.

All in all, 1997 was a good year for California’s 1,100-mile coast, yielding perhaps the most important batch of legislative initiatives in two decades.

So why are some environmentalists grumbling?

“We’re definitely happy with the victories we got,” said Andy Igrejas of the California Public Interest Research Group. “But the governor had the opportunity to go much further--to actually stop pollution from reaching the beach in the first place. That’s where he came up short.”

A bit of history:

The year dawned with Gov. Pete Wilson unveiling a grand report signaling his interest in a renewed effort to protect California’s incomparable coast, which is showing increasing wear from overfishing, pollution, development pressures and neglect.

Following Wilson’s lead, state lawmakers launched a flotilla of bills--three dozen in all--addressing everything from polluted runoff to squid, poaching and toxic “hot spots” in California bays.

Twenty-two of those bills got through the Legislature, some of them weakened after protests from the administration and special interest groups. Wilson signed 15, paving the way for:

* Creation of a statewide standard for measuring pollution at beaches, replacing the patchwork approach that varies from county to county. The legislation also requires health officials to post warnings when pollution exceeds safe levels and set up a hotline for beach closure information.

* A management and research program for California’s booming squid fishery, which has come under stress as domestic and export demands have soared.

* The construction of trails, stairways and other forms of public beach access, using fees paid by developers on the coast.

* Permanent protection for white sharks--highly prized for their skulls and fins--and a moratorium on abalone harvesting between San Francisco and the Mexican border.

* A burst of funding--$1.1 million--for the state Coastal Commission, which will use it to upgrade its computers and award grants to communities that have yet to complete master plans for coastal development.

Assessing the legislative package, Resources Secretary Douglas Wheeler said that it represents “a fulfillment of the governor’s pledge to deal with the most pressing problems along the coast.”

On top of the bills he signed, Wilson also issued an executive order directing state agencies to identify other coastal problems meriting attention, Wheeler said.

“It’s the best year since establishment of the Coastal Commission [in 1972] in terms of getting a handle on these issues,” he said.

Environmentalists, who rarely find reason to praise Wilson these days, agreed. To a point.

“It’s heartening that the governor listened to the people of California and responded to their concerns about the coast,” said Ann Notthoff of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We’re gratified he signed as many bills as he did.”

Notthoff and others are less gratified, however, that a bundle of bills were sunk by vetoes. Most notably, the governor killed legislation tackling the critical problem of polluted runoff--a source of contaminants that Wilson’s own oceans report called the No. 1 threat to coastal water quality.

Polluted runoff is created when rain, farm drainage, overflow from lawn sprinklers or other water runs over the ground and picks up contaminants--everything from motor oil to pet droppings and pesticides. The tainted flow sickens swimmers, kills fish, threatens drinking water supplies and poisons wildlife habitat.

A bill by Sen. Dede Alpert (D-Coronado) required the state to develop and carry out a detailed plan to control such runoff. It was a top priority for groups pushing a coastal agenda in Sacramento this year.

“It’s fine to warn people when the water is contaminated,” said Linda Sheehan of the San Francisco-based Center for Marine Conservation. “But it’s better to prevent the pollution to begin with. The Alpert bill did that.”

“This [veto] makes no sense to us,” said Nora Lynn, the legislative aide who worked on the bill. “In the negotiating process, we dealt with every single concern the administration raised. So what’s going on?”

In remarks accompanying his veto, Wilson said the bill was unnecessary because federal law already requires the state to manage polluted runoff. Although it’s true that the state has been under such an order since 1990, the effort has been deemed inadequate by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

“There hasn’t been a strong will . . . to complete the process,” said the EPA’s Catherine Kuhlman, associate director for water in the Western region. “It would be helpful if the Legislature and governor sent a message . . . that this is a high priority.”

Wilson also vetoed a bill aiming to create a marine refuge off Malibu. The legislation, sponsored by the city of Malibu and authored by state Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Los Angeles), would have banned fishing in the refuge and created a scientific panel to study the area.

In another veto that puzzled coastal activists, Wilson killed a bill requiring signs on piers and fishing boats warning against the consumption of white croaker. The bottom-dwelling fish--popular at many community markets in Southern California, especially those serving Asian immigrants--has been found to contain high concentrations of DDT and PCBs.

Wilson explained his veto by noting that state regulators already have banned commercial fishing for white croaker in Los Angeles County. But Mark Gold, executive director of the Santa Monica-based group Heal the Bay, said the ban is poorly enforced and many people who fish for recreation remain unaware of the hazard.

“We don’t get it,” Gold said. “It’s such a clear public health risk. Doesn’t the governor want to protect consumers?”

Also killed by a Wilson veto was a bill extending the life of a program to identify and clean up “toxic hot spots” in bays. Since its creation in 1989, the program--funded by fees paid by industries that discharge waste into bays--has located and set priorities among sites of contamination in inlets from San Diego to Humboldt counties.

“I hoped that we could get on with the job of cleaning up the bays,” said Assemblyman Michael Sweeney (D-Hayward), author of the legislation. “The oil and chemical industry opposed this bill, and the governor took their side.”

In remarks accompanying his veto, Wilson praised the program but criticized the Sweeney bill--which was critical to keep the program viable. Specifically, the governor cited shortcomings in the scientific approaches outlined in the bill, a criticism Wilson’s detractors called a smoke screen.

Authors of 1997’s vetoed legislation were uncertain whether they would press their proposals again next year. What is sure to be on the table is a $637-million coastal bond act to fund the acquisition and restoration of fish and wildlife habitat.

Its author, Assemblyman Fred Keeley (D-Boulder Creek), wants to put the bond act before voters in the November 1998 election. He also will push a second bill aiming to overhaul the way the state manages recreational and commercial fisheries.

This year of coastal action comes at a critical time for California’s shore and marine life. The state’s sea environment is one of the richest and most biologically productive in the world, and industries that depend on a healthy coast and ocean contribute at least $17.3 billion to the California economy each year.

But overfishing, pollution and poaching are depleting fisheries, while sewage and contaminated runoff are closing beaches and making surfers ill. And despite tough laws, overworked state and federal agencies have been unable to document--let alone attack--all the problems.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Legislating the Coast

The Legislature passed 22 bills related to coastal issues during the 1997 session. Here is a sampling of bills signed and vetoed by Gov. Pete Wilson.

Signed Into Law

* AB 411 (by Assemblyman Howard Wayne, D-San Diego): Strengthens pollution standards and monitoring requirements for waters off public beaches. Requires posting when pollution exceeds safe levels.

* AB 1429 (by Assemblyman Kevin Shelley, D-San Francisco): Requires state to inventory existing water quality monitoring and develop a comprehensive approach to the job.

* AB 1186 (by Assemblyman Wally Knox, D-Los Angeles): Designates portion of fees paid by industries discharging into storm drains to go toward inspection and regulatory compliance.

* AB 459 (by Assemblyman Brooks Firestone, R-Los Olivos): Creates testing program for shellfish beds to detect contamination.

* SB 673 (by Sen. Betty Karnette, D-Long Beach): Requires Coastal Commission to prepare a plan for the dredging and disposal of contaminated sediments in waters off Los Angeles.

* SB 72 (by Sen. Bruce McPherson, R-Santa Cruz): Requires that fees paid by developers in the coastal zone be used to build beach access.

****

Vetoed

* SB 499 (by Sen. Dede Alpert, D-Coronado): Would have directed state to produce and carry out a plan to control polluted runoff into the sea.

* SB 1123 (by Sen. Tom Hayden, D-Los Angeles): Would have required multilingual signs at public fishing areas about the health risks of consuming white croaker.

* AB 1022 (by Assemblyman Ted Lempert, D-San Carlos): Would have mandated reporting of any gift valued at more than $10 to a member of the state Coastal Commission.