RipRap

Guidelines Without Guidance

2009-01-10T06:14:00.000-08:00

The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR), the division of government charged with administering the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has released draft "guidelines" instructing state agencies how to evaluate the impact of projects they approve or undertake on Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG). Anyone who was hoping for real help from OPR in how to tackle this difficult issue must be very disappointed.

In 2007, the Legislature and the Governor enacted SB 97, a statute that authorized OPR to issue these CEQA guidelines relating to GHG emissions. The rationale for adopting the law was that agencies needed some direction in how to deal with GHG and climate change in their CEQA environmental review process. After the passage of AB 32, it became clear that GHG emissions would be an important part of the environmental review of nearly every major project in California. But figuring out when a project would have a "significant" impact on the state's total GHG emissions, or on climate change in general, was no easy task. The Legislature therefore asked OPR to develop guidelines that would specifically address how GHG emissions and climate change should be addressed in CEQA documents.

OPR has apparently decided to take a milquetoast approach to meeting their mandate to provide agencies with guidance on how to address the GHG issue. The draft guidelines read like a document drafted by lawyers rather than scientists who might actually have something interesting to say about methods for estimating GHG emissions and their significance, in spite of the fact that OPR claims they consulted with a variety of experts to develop the guidelines. The draft guidelines do little more than apply existing CEQA statutes and case law to the GHG issue. Of course, that's exactly what every lead agency and court in the state would be doing even if OPR didn't undertake this task, so it doesn't appear that they're contributing much of substance.

OPR could have taken their mandate in SB 97 to devise methods of mitigating GHGs and related impacts more seriously. Public Resources Code section 21083.05 (enacted as part of SB 97) gave them a pretty broad mandate, had they chosen to use it. Instead, they took a very conservative approach that hewed closely to the language of existing statutes and regulations, and they punted the really hard, really technical question (how to determine a proper standard of significance) to CARB. Maybe OPR didn't feel up to the task.

Draft section 15064.4(a) lists criteria that a lead agency should consider when determining the significance of a projet. It expressly mentions the State's overall AB 32 objectives, which are focused on 2020 as an end date. It doesn't mention the Governor's own Executive Order S-3-05, which requires even more draconian reductions by 2050. Nor does it make any mention of the regional GHG reduction targets that CARB will be devising under SB 375, adopted last year. Those regional targets will certainly be relevant to transportation and land use planning projects (general plans, Regional Transportation Plans, etc.), even if they are not applicable to all projects subject to CEQA. It strikes me as curious that these other targets/objectives are not even mentioned. It would have been fairly easy to draft some short, pithy language to include in 15064.4 that could have really added some backbone to CARB's regional GHG targets in particular. As it stands, nearly every project or plan in the state could arguably said to have a minimal effect on the state's ability to meet its AB 32 goals in general. And of course that's exactly what every lead agency will claim.

I also think it would have been prudent of OPR to state that quantification of a project's GHG contribution, as opposed to a "qualitative" description of it, is the preferred method whenever possible. Draft section 15064.4(b) gives the agencies way too much wiggle room. It's true, as the OPR spokesperson said to you, that quantification is sometimes difficult, and CEQA generally gives lead agencies a lot of latitude in how they approach the environmental analysis. But in this case, we're talking about a very specific kind of impact that lends itself to quantification. We're not talking about a visual impact or some other fuzzy type of environmental impact.

Estimating project-related air pollution is hardly a new scientific endeavor. There are models that are quite effective in quantifying the emissions contributions of even complex projects like long-term land use plans. A knowledgable transportation modeler assures me that CARB has computer models, available to any lead agency, that can help estimate project GHG emissions related to increases in traffic. There is also ample available sector-specific data, thanks to the state's GHG inventory, that could be used by modelers. The notion that agencies might be forced to rely on "qualitative" methods of estimating project impacts just doesn't hold water, given the state of computer modeling technology and the ocean of data available to planners.

By passing legislation like AB 32 and SB 97, the Legislature and the Governor put California on the leading edge of the struggle to come to terms with climate change in the United States. But ultimately, the implementation of the lofty goals of these statutes falls to state agencies like OPR and CARB. The success or failure of California's GHG regulation efforts depends on the political courage of the staff and political appointees who will work out the details of how the State will get a grip on its GHG problem. The GHG-related CEQA Guidlines proposed by OPR are not an indication that the agency has the courage to realize the State's lofty ambitions.

Presidential Politics in Endless Cycle

2008-10-24T10:08:00.001-07:00

Maybe the New York Times could have saved some ink this year...

In the span of this campaign, proof that his judgment is superior to that of [his opponent] has been provided by their respective choices for Vice President… In the brief period since nomination, [opponent’s vice presidential candidate] has already proved from his injudicious, intemperate remarks that he is utterly inadequate.

--The New York Times, October 1968, endorsing Humphrey over Nixon

While we're on the topic here's some damning praise of the GOP vice presidential nominee from California's top Republican:

Brown: Do you think she is she qualified to be president?

Schwarzenegger: I think that she will get to be qualified.

Brown: She will get there? What do you mean? She's not ready yet?

Schwarzenegger: By the time she is sworn in, I think she will be ready. You get to get up to speed. I know, when I became governor, there were a lot of things I did not know. The answer is: Do you have the will? Do you have the will to educate yourself? Do you have the will to get up to speed? Do you have the will? Are you a sponge that absorbs information very quickly? And that's the kind of person that she is. And, I think that is exactly what she would do, also, if she becomes vice president.

The Sacramento Valley: California's Great Exception?

2008-08-28T15:24:00.000-07:00

The Sacramento River Watershed Program has released a fascinating online report on suburban sprawl and the demise of agriculture in the Sacramento Valley. It appears to be a work in progress, and the "best management practices" identified for governments to cope with sprawl are nothing new. But there is plenty of interesting information and analysis packed into the presentation. The GIS layer maps that accompany the text are especially noteworthy.

One of the more interesting observations related to the suburbanization and exurbanization of the Sacramento Valley concerns the availability of water. In most of the state, the availability of water is one of the principal checks on unrestrained sprawl. Not so in the Sacramento Valley, according to the authors:

Below the Delta and the federal and state pumping plants, water is the principal limiting factor for exurban sprawl. This is not the case for the Sacramento Valley and much of the Sierra foothills in the Sacramento Watershed. The groundwater basin in the Sacramento Valley recharges readily from the normally abundant rainfall in Northern California. In only a few areas has groundwater depletion become problematic, like in eastern Sacramento County where urban and medium density suburbs were allowed to develop solely reliant on groundwater pumping. Very likely, all the areas zoned for low density rural residential development have sufficient groundwater supplies.

Abundant groundwater resources are the exception in California, where most development has depended on guarantees of imported water. Thus, when making predictions about the build-out of the Sacramento Watershed, it is not prudent to look at the patterns from Southern California where local water supplies were the limiting factor, or the Bay Area, where confined geography have restricted exurban rural residential growth. Other areas of the nation may provide more accurate models for the potential of exurban build-out in the Sacramento Watershed.

Groundwater-fed development will also differ from development in regions that rely on surface water (including state or federal project water) in another important aspect. While surface water diversions are highly regulated and governed by a complex system of water rights and contractual obligations, comprehensive regulation of groundwater use in California is much less developed. Where the state plays an active role in overseeing the use of the state's rivers, streams, and reservoirs, the regulation of groundwater extraction is mostly a local matter. The jurisdictions charged with regulating groundwater uses are also those most directly embroiled in local disputes about land use and development. The state has little direct power to ensure the sustainable use of groundwater resources.

A Water Koan

2008-08-27T21:54:00.000-07:00

How do you build your way to preservation and population control?

California's dual water projects are generally hailed as the foundation of both large-scale agriculture in the Central Valley and the massive growth of Southern California. Farmers and southern California land speculators were among the strongest proponents for construction of the system of reservoirs and conveyance facilities that crisscross the state. It goes without saying that federal and state subsidy of these twin water works was crucial to the growth of the economy and population of the state's arid and desert regions.

There is, however, a tantalizing alternative explanation for the motives of at least one key player in the construction of the State Water Project. Marc Reisner’s fabulous Cadillac Desert cites an oral history interview of former Gov. Edmund Brown, Sr., regarding his motives for tirelessly championing the construction of the State Water Project:

...Brown suggested another motive that had made him, a northern California by birth, want so badly to build a project which would send a lot of northern California’s water southward:

“Some of my advisers came to me and said, ‘Now governor, don’t bring the water to the people, let the people go to the water. That’s a desert down there. Ecologically, it can’t sustain the number of people that will come if you bring the water project in there.’

“I weighed this very, very thoughtfully before I started going all out for the water project. Some of my advisers said to me, ‘Yes, but people are going to come to southern California anyway.’ Somebody said, ‘Well, send them up to northern California.’ I knew I wouldn’t be governor forever. I didn’t think I’d ever come down to southern California, and I said to myself, ‘I don’t want all these people to go to northern California’.”

So you like the relatively sparse population and agreeable climate of Northern California? Thank Pat Brown for having the foresight to divert the sprawl to the expendable regions of the Southland...

Solar Cookin'

2008-07-29T23:17:00.000-07:00

Summer cooking in these parts can mean producing a lot of heat, then desperately trying to get rid of it with the air conditioner or the whole house fan. That's one reason summer barbecue is such a damn good idea.

My wife recently made a shrewd purchase from Solar Cookers International, a locally based NGO. It's a simple solar oven that SCI apparently promotes in Kenya and Zimbabwe in addition to California. The oven is about as low-tech as you can imagine: a camping-grade black pot, placed in a durable clear plastic bag, nestled in an articulated piece of cardboard treated with a single reflective suface.

Here's a photo of Waylon checking out the cooker at work in our tomato patch:

Wife had already taken it for a test drive to cook a pork shoulder (that I didn't taste) and potatoes (delicious.) This weekend was my chance to take it for a spin.

I opted to try for a pot of solar-stewed green lentils and split peas, with sauteed onions, jalapenos, garlic, and paprika with a bit of lime juice and bay leaf. Green lentils often turn to mush, so I calculated that they would be a good match to the low-heat, slow cooking method of the solar oven.

In a matter of minutes, the pot became too hot to touch. Within an hour, a delicious smell of garlic and bay leaf wafted over the tomato patch. By late afternoon, about five or six hours after I put the pot out to cook, I had a decent batch of lentils-- soft, but not overly mushy:

Add some bulghur, yogurt, some delicious homegrown tomato sauce, and a little mint, and I was in vegetarian hog heaven:

If we continue to make use of the powerful Sacramento sun, I may try to make a slightly more durable version of SCI's product. We could make a larger, more permanent oven out of sheet metal relatively cheaply.

Healthy Spaces

2008-07-29T12:11:00.000-07:00

Here, courtesy of MSNBC, is another testament to the intimate link between good urban planning and public health... and another reason to leave your car at home if you can:

A new study found that the year your neighborhood was built may be just as important as diet and exercise for shedding pounds. Those who live in neighborhoods built before 1950 are trimmer than their counterparts who reside in more modern communities, the study reported.
“The older neighborhoods had a reduced level of obesity because they were generally built with the pedestrian in mind and not cars,” said Ken Smith, a co-author of the study and professor in the department of family and consumer studies at the University of Utah. “This means they have trees, sidewalks and offer a pleasant environment in which to walk.”

Straight Talk, Indeed

2008-07-28T11:23:00.000-07:00

Wow. Courtesy of DailyKos, here is video of one of the most evasive answers I've ever heard by a politician to a reporter's question... John McCain on adoption for gay families. (Let's not even get started on the apparent distinction he makes between "two parent families" and gay families...)

New York to Sacramento: Moo

2008-06-10T13:05:00.000-07:00

The self-proclaimed national newspaper of record turns sets its intrepid reporters loose on the local political scene. The result? Some attention for Sacramento's "hardscrabble" Oak Park neighborhood; an embarrassing geographical gaffe by one of the leading mayoral candidates (halfway between the Bay Area and Yosemite?); a man-on-the-street interview with a local water lawyer; and another iteration of the tired cowtown cliche.

View the article here.

Fête de la Musique!

2008-05-24T11:15:00.000-07:00

I happened across this announcement on the SacWiki... sounds promising!

The Fête de la Musique, also known as World Music Day, is a world wide music festival that takes place on June 21, which is usually the summer solstice. On this day, sidewalks, parks, community gardens, stores and more become impromptu musical stages for both amateur and professional musicians to showcase their talents. All concerts and performances are free and open to the public.

Selective Libertarians

2008-05-22T23:23:00.000-07:00

There is an interesting piece on California water law in, of all places, the most recent online edition of Edible Sacramento. The piece, by someone named Mike Madison, is a pretty sane overview of the crazy state of the law in California. I still find it bizarre to hear California farmers pushing for unregulated markets in anything. Madison, to his credit, seems fine with some kinds of government involvement, but he draws the line at subsidies for thirsty crops like corn:

Most thoughtful farmers welcome government regulation of agriculture; that is, regulation of environmental protection, public health and safety, quality standards, accurate labeling, resource conservation, and fair employment practices. We know how crazy our neighbors are, and regulation protects us from their follies. It also gives the rest of the world confidence in California's agricultural products. What is inappropriate is government regulation of markets which, left alone, regulate themselves far more efficiently than any scheme hatched by a bureaucrat. Get rid of the corn and ethanol subsidies, which were created merely to purchase votes in Iowa, and we would quickly stop wasting California's precious water on corn.

It's hard to disagree with the gist of his argument. But I'm not sure if I really believe that any farmers, thoughtful or not, welcome government regulation of agriculture. I haven't seen a whole lot of farmers challenging the Farm Bureau when it clings to the notion the "nonpoint source" water pollution, the primary source of which is fertilizer and pesticide runoff from agricultural fields, should be exempt from regulation. Most farmers are content to continue to stonewall the state's efforts to gather even the most basic information about where these pollutants originate.

Furthermore, while I agree that corn and ethanol subsidies are a cynical boondoggle, it is striking to hear such free-market libertarian arguments leveled in the interest of farmers in a state so dependent on government subsidized water. Not surprisingly, Mr. Madison carves out an exception to his laissez faire philosophy for water:

If free markets are efficient for distributing crops, why not set up a free market for California water? This idea has zealous proponents, but it is inappropriate for a vital necessity such as water. Free markets are good at setting prices for discretionary items; they are less good at allocating resources; and they are dismal at allocating scarce, critical resources in a society with large inequalities of wealth.

Free markets are also dismal at permitting agriculture to flourish in semi-arid or desertlike climates in the Central Valley. The fallacy of a "free market" in water isn't simply a function of the fact that water is a "scarce, critical resource." The problem is that, from its very origin, the "commodity" of California water is a product of government subsidy, thanks to two major water projects sponsored by the state and federal governments. Without the highly regulated water system, you wouldn't just have inefficiency, you'd have little to no agriculture at all. All the asparagus in the world won't pay for the energy and management resources consumed by California's water projects.

State and national taxpayers have, wittingly or unwittingly, already decided to underwrite California agricultural production. With that support comes regulation, to ensure that the government's involvement doesn't inadvertently undermine the many other aspects of the "public interest" that we rely on government to protect. The notion of a "free market" in California water isn't just a bad idea; it's an impossible idea.

City of Trees, City of Fools

2008-05-21T23:44:00.000-07:00

Once upon a time, someone started the rumor that Sacramento was the “City of Trees.” I am not sure who is responsible for this very local urban legend. A longtime environmental activist friend of mine once told me that the Sacramento Tree Foundation is responsible for manufacturing this enchanting bit of local boosterism.

Now, I am a big fan of trees. And I appreciate the work of the Sacramento Tree Foundation. But it’s a little disturbing to see how readily the locals have lapped up their own propaganda Kool-Aid when it comes to trees. Somewhere along the line, the “City of Trees” monicker went from slogan to fiercely held local belief. Someone claimed that the city had “more trees per capita” than any other city besides Paris. And for as long as I have lived here, I have heard that claim repeated at various times by people attempting to extol the beauty of our city. The media also picked up on the idea-- check out these pieces by NPR/KQED and the august New York Times repeating the claim.

I can claim no firsthand knowledge of the relative densities of urban forests or the number of “trees per capita” of any particular metropolitan region-- particularly those in France. But as someone who has traveled a bit beyond the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Valleys, I confidently offer this observation: Sacramento is definitively NOT the “City of Trees.” And the idea that we have more “trees per capita” than any other city this side of the Atlantic is pure fantasy.

I grew up in Indiana, and I went to school on the Gulf Coast. I have seen a fair bit of the South and the Midwest east of the Mississippi. In either of those regions, any two-bit town with a little undeveloped land could easily claim a higher density of trees, and a higher ratio of “trees per capita,” than our fair city. Most of those areas of the country were either forest or swamp. Consequently, you don’t have to think about planting trees. Any piece of land, left to its own devices, will spontaneously sprout a variety of second-growth species of tree. The roads and drainage ditches are lined with thick underbrush and canopy-producing forest. In most cases, I doubt that much thought went into the cultivation of these trees. But there they are, nonetheless-- a product of a wet climate and a legacy of a woodland ecology that humans have not quite managed to subdue.

I notice that the Sacramento Tree Foundation continues to perpetuate a slightly more modest version of the Forested Sacramento Myth. They claim here that it is the “beauty of Sacramento’s tree canopy” that is second only to Paris. In my not-so-humble opinion, this claim is no less laughable than the claim that our sprawling metropolis is among the most tree-dense cities in the world.

Does it seem as though I am more irked by the “City of Trees” myth than I should be? Perhaps. In my opinion, it is just another indicator of this city’s fantastic inferiority complex and its desperate and pathetic attempt to fashion an identity for itself. City leaders and city residents cling to the strangest things in hopes of proving that Sacramento is a unique and interesting place to live-- whether it be gentle white lies about our urban forest, or less innocent lies about the importance of professional basketball to Sacramento’s civic life. At least the lies about trees are relatively inexpensive.

Mid-Day Biking Holiday

2008-05-01T23:20:00.001-07:00

May is bike month in Sacramento, and Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates encourages you to bike to work.

What better way to celebrate than to skip work for a bike ride?

Somewhere between 50 and 100 cyclists, by my count, joined SABA in a lunchtime ride from the State Capitol through midtown, via the new bike lanes on either side of 19th Street. The pace was leisurely, and our presence was impressive! We had the air of a well-behaved Critical Mass rally.

I could have spent hours admiring the broad range of bikes that turned out. Expensive road bikes, retro fixies, fancy single speeds, folding bikes, recumbents, kids on single speed BMXers with sagging chains-- we had all types of two-wheelers in all types of conditions.

Surprisingly, the reaction from the motorists who might have been inconvenienced by our mass presence was overall positive. Only one asshole attempted to pass us through a left turn. And by contrast, many autos rolled down windows to enquire as to the occasion for our ride, and we got lots of supportive honks and huzzahs! Here's hoping Sacramento develops its pro-bicycle trend!

Stake Through the Heart of Auburn Dam

2008-04-30T22:51:00.000-07:00

The most durable public works project never built is, at long last, history. The State Water Resources Control Board has scheduled a hearing on the revocation of the Bureau of Reclamation water rights intended for use at the non-existent Auburn Dam.

Auburn Dam was originally conceived in the 1970s, in the twilight of the great dam building era. But issues like cost, concerns about earthquake safety and environmental impacts, and doubts about its necessity for flood control or water supply dogged the project from its inception. Nevertheless, the project was resurrected repeatedly by politicians with some local support. They claimed that the project would provide needed flood protection, water supply, and/or power for northern California. The fact that construction would mean millions of federal dollars pouring into the foothills didn't hurt the popularity of the cause with local politicians either. Republican Rico Oller tried briefly to have the project funded with state money. The lately disgraced John Doolittle built a career around advocacy for Auburn Dam. When Doolittle recently decided to retire in the wake of a corruption scandal and federal investigation, it was probably inevitable that his favorite pork barrel project would follow him into retirement.

USBR had previously allowed the American River to return to its original bed, effectively abandoning its attempt to build the dam. But rescission of the water rights is an even stronger indicator that the project is, at long last, dead. Rest in Peace, Auburn Dam. You won't be missed.

Dry Anxiety

2006-07-10T17:12:00.000-07:00

The most recent edition of High Country News features a chilling science fiction feature by Paolo Bacigalupi—a short story set in the Mad Maxian Southwest during an extended drought in which California enforces its superior rights to the Colorado River at the expense of towns and farmers in Arizona:

Lolo tops another mesa and stares down at the familiar landscape of an eviscerated town, its curving streets and subdivision cul-de-sacs all sitting silent in the sun. At the very edge of the empty town, one-acre ranchettes and snazzy five-thousand-square-foot houses with dead-stick trees and dust-hill landscaping fringe a brown tumbleweed golf course. The sandtraps don’t even show any more.

When California put its first calls on the river, no one really worried. A couple of towns went begging for water. Some idiot newcomers with bad water rights stopped grazing their horses, and that was it. A few years later, people started showering real fast. And a few after that, they showered once a week. And then people started using the buckets. By then, everyone had stopped joking about how "hot" it was. It didn’t really matter how "hot" it was. The problem wasn’t lack of water or an excess of heat, not really. The problem was that 4.4 million acre-feet of water were supposed to go down the river to California. There was water; they just couldn’t touch it.

Bacigalupi makes wonderful use of the apocalyptic conflict potential inherent in the oversettlement of the Southwest. He also recognizes the narrative value of the paradoxical water law regime that governs the Colorado River Basin. Arizona, a desert state fed by a large river, slakes the thirst of its farmers and cities largely thanks to the Central Arizona Project (CAP). CAP is a massive irrigation project authorized by federal legislation in 1968 that made possible both the intensification of agriculture and the explosion in population that have sustained the state’s economy for the past few decades. But the legislation authorizing CAP also clarified that the project’s rights on the Colorado were inferior to the rights of its downstream neighbors in California.

California's rights to 4.4 million acre-feet of the Colorado were first established in 1928 by the Boulder Canyon Project Act, the federal legislation that also authorized construction of Hoover Dam. By virtue of California's seniority, Arizona can only draw water after California has its share. Consequently, every year, thousands of acre feet of water flow out of Lake Mead and into Arizona that are already earmarked for use on the fields and lawns of California.

There is nothing particularly remarkable about the fact that Arizona must take into account the needs of California when it diverts water from the river. Water consumers the world over are well aware that water management is collaborative. What makes the situation on the Colorado so explosive is that the allocations of water among the states were made based on estimates that vastly exaggerated the average amount of water that falls on the Colorado River Basin. In fact, federal statutes and treaties currently make promises to the states and to Mexico that exceed the estimated 14.6 million acre feet of water that flows down the Colorado average year. To make matters worse, suburbs continue to sprout in the desert. As water demand increases, the population becomes increasingly reliant on a water source that, in the long term, is most likely not nearly as reliable as we would hope.

Arizona’s nightmare, and the inspiration for Bacigalupi’s story, is that the overallocation of the Colorado River will eventually require holders of junior rights (the CAP for instance) to refrain from using water destined for senior rights holders (in California, for example). The scenario is not entirely fanciful. Nevada and Arizona charge that California is already using more than its allotted share of the river, and both states fear that they will never be able to get full use of the water allotted to them. In the event of a serious, prolonged drought that results in a call by senior water rights holders, CAP-supplied development in Arizona is precariously poised on the edge of extinction.

Conservation measures can certainly reduce tension along the Colorado. But there is no doubt that a prolonged shortage of water on the Colorado would be a disaster, and that the consequences of a catastrophic drought would fall on Arizona before California. And although recent accords between the Colorado Basin states have also significantly reduced anxieties along the river, the fact that the reservoirs on the river are drying up makes it difficult to be entirely optimistic about the future of the region. Desalination plants and conservation projects (like the proposed lining of the All-American canal) may reduce California’s demand on the river and ease the prospects of a ‘call’ on the Colorado. Still, growth on the peripheries of Phoenix and Las Vegas is built on a supposition of the availability of Colorado River water, and that supposition may be the result of overly optimistic projections of the regular flow of the river.