5th Annual
Top Achievements of the
Environmental Community
in Southern California
Action. Results. Change.
Note from Environment Now
®
April 2009
Despite a global economic recession that took hold in 2008, Southern Californians
continued to demonstrate their commitment to the natural environment and public
health. This past year, environmentalists rose up, stood together, and demanded change.
They got results—setting national precedents and changing both the image and future of
Southern California.
In this 5th year of publishing the Top Achievements of the Environmental Community
in Southern California, we at Environment Now are inspired by the millions who are
joining together to make measurable environmental changes happen in our community.
More than ever, activists need to learn from the past, let their frustration inspire
innovation, and take action for a better future. We hope that this report will serve as
both an inspiration and a guide.
Kevin Wells
President Terry O’Day
Executive Director
Environment Now is an activist nonprofit foundation created in Southern California by
Frank and Luanne Wells in 1989. Our mission is to be an active leader in creating
measurably effective programs to protect and restore California’s environment.
In Appreciation
Environment Now sincerely thanks our distinguished selection panelists for providing their time and expertise
to this report. We would also like to thank Ken Alex at the Attorney General’s Office for adding to this report by
highlighting the role of litigation in resolving environmental issues. Finally, Environment Now thanks The Better
World Group for its vital contributions to every aspect of this project.
Project Director: Mara Elana Burstein
Editor: Frank Kosa
Contributing Authors: Elizabeth Crosson, Caryn Mandelbaum,
Douglas Bevington, Wendy James,
Sam Emmersen, and Ken Alex
Designer: Holly Baker
Cover Photo: 2nd Annual Photography Contest Winner:
Antelope Valley California Poppy Reserve, Gary Poe
Back Cover Photo: Carl Richards
5th Annual
Top Achievements of the
Environmental Community
in Southern California
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5 INTRODUCTION
METHODOLOGY
6 LAND USE, OPEN SPACE, and SMART GROWTH &
COASTAL PROTECTION San Onofre Coalition United: State Beach Undivided
10 FRESHWATER PROTECTION and RESTORATION
12 FOREST PROTECTION
14 CLIMATE and ENERGY
16 AIR QUALITY
Southern California Water Challenges: Solutions Start to Sink In
Taking a Stand for Trees: Commercial Logging Loophole Closed
in National Forests
Unlocking the Grid: Los Angeles Votes for Transit
Getting a Lung Up on Diesel Pollution: Momentum Shifts to Solutions
18 ENVIRONMENTAL SETBACKS and FAILURES of 2008
20 LITIGATION and the ENVIRONMENT
22 BIOGRAPHIES of SELECTION PANELISTS
CATEGORY DEFINITIONS
PHOTO: Gary Poe
THE SELECTION
PANELISTS
LAND USE, OPEN SPACE, and
SMART GROWTH
Honorable Maggie Houlihan
Mayor, City of Encinitas
Jennifer Wolch, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Sustainable Cities,
University of Southern California
COASTAL PROTECTION
Honorable Pedro Nava
Assemblymember,
35th District of California
William Cooper, Ph.D.
Director, Urban Water Research
Center, University of California, Irvine
FRESHWATER PROTECTION and
RESTORATION
Paula Daniels
Commissioner, Los Angeles Board of
Public Works
Robert Wilkinson, Ph.D.
Director, Water Policy Program,
University of California, Santa Barbara
FOREST PROTECTION
Honorable Lois Capps
United States Representative,
23rd District of California
Dennis Odion, Ph.D.
Institute of Computational Earth
Systems Science, University of
California, Santa Barbara
CLIMATE and ENERGY
Karen Douglas, J.D.
Chair, California Energy Commission
Nathan Lewis, Ph.D.
Professor, Division of Chemistry and
Chemical Engineering, California
Institute of Technology
AIR QUALITY
Honorable Hector De La Torre
Assemblymember,
50th District of California
Andrea Hricko
Associate Professor, Keck School
of Medicine, University of Southern
California
PHOTO: Chris Saul
INTRODUCTION
The 5th Annual Top Achievements of the Environmental Community in Southern California (Top Achievements Report)
highlights the most significant successes of Southern California’s nonprofit environmental organizations in 2008.
With the goals of creating an objective report and deepening the dialogue between the academic community and
public officials, Environment Now enlisted distinguished
experts in government and academia to serve as the
selection panelists. For each category, the report
identifies the top achievement, a key action or strategy in
accomplishing it, and its impact. By analyzing the steps
that led to success, these models of change can be applied
to future environmental challenges.
The report also features an Environmental Setbacks
and Failures section. It outlines the year’s greatest
disappointments and identifies issues that will demand
concerted effort. Finally, the report closes with a guest
section, written by Ken Alex of the California Attorney
General’s Office, which highlights the role of litigation
in catalyzing awareness and spurring the resolution of
environmental issues.
Nominations required environmental nonprofit organizations
leadership or active involvement. Eight criteria were then used to
evaluate the nominations:
• Significant and Measurable Environmental
Improvement
• Permanent Change
• Precedent-setting
• Collaborative Effort
• Impact or Potential Impact Beyond Southern California
• Innovative Approach
• Environmental Justice Issues Addressed
• Occurred During 2008
Top Achievements Report Categories:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Land Use, Open Space, and Smart Growth
Coastal Protection
Freshwater Protection and Restoration
Forest Protection
Climate and Energy
Air Quality
METHODOLOGY
Environment Now launched the process by sending out a survey to almost 400 Southern California environmental
organizations requesting nominations for the top achievements of 2008. Eligibility was determined by the criteria
above. In this report, Southern California is defined as all of Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, and
Imperial counties as well as portions of Santa Barbara, Kern, and San Bernardino counties (south of “the Grapevine”),
as illustrated below. Statewide achievements that occurred beyond this region were eligible if they had a significant
impact on Southern California.
Through a series of discussions, panelists evaluated
the nominations with the intent to choose a single top
achievement and setback for each category. This
year, Air Quality panelists recognized three separate
actions as one achievement that significantly cleaned
up Southern California’s air. Additionally, the Coastal
Protection and Land Use, Open Space, and Smart
Growth panelists selected the defeat of a toll road
through San Onofre Beach as the number one
achievement in both categories.
Environment Now is proud to recognize the
dedicated organizations that have led the Southern
California environmental movement forward.
© World Sites Atlas (sitesatlas.com)
PHOTO: John Chase (Egrit); Carl Richards
LAND USE, OPEN SPACE,
and SMART GROWTH
COASTAL PROTECTION
Achievement
Save San Onofre coalition
mobilized 3,500 people
to demonstrate in opposition.
PHOTO: Robin Everett
San Onofre Coalition United:
State Beach Undivided
At the start of 2008, it appeared that a six-lane toll road, backed by powerful interests, would plow right through
San Onofre State Beach. By the end of 2008, however, the project was all but dead, toppled by a dedicated
coalition of environmental groups and concerned citizens. This is why their efforts are recognized for this year’s top
achievement in two categories—Coastal Protection as well as Land Use, Open Space, and Smart Growth.
THE ACHIEVEMENT
San Onofre State Beach, the 5th most-visited state
park in California, is 2,100 acres of undeveloped
coastal-canyon habitat. The Transportation Corridor
Agency (TCA) had been laying groundwork for a toll
road through the park since 1991. In 2004, the
agency released a Draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for the 16-mile long road that would connect the
existing 241 Toll Road to Interstate 5—carving through
the parklands of San Onofre State Beach. Save San
Onofre, a coalition of environmental organizations,
tribal members, cities, counties, elected officials, and
others, successfully stopped the road from bisecting
this ecological, recreational, and cultural site.
The toll road had support from some local
agencies, officials, and businesses in Orange County,
as well as the powerful backing of the California
Department of Transportation and eventually Governor
Schwarzenegger. The EIR was contested by California’s
Attorney General in two lawsuits—one filed on behalf
of the Native American
Heritage Commission and
one on behalf of the people
of California and the State
Parks and Recreation
Commission. A third
lawsuit was filed by several
environmental groups.
Despite the ongoing
litigation, TCA pursued
federal and state permits for
the proposed road.
In February 2008, when
the Coastal Commission
held a public hearing, the
Save San Onofre coalition
mobilized 3,500 people to
demonstrate in opposition.
“This was true democracy
in action,” noted Land Use
panelist Mayor Maggie Houlihan. The coalition had
also laid the groundwork with a carefully researched
presentation and briefings with each Commissioner.
“The science in the presentation was absolutely
pristine,” said Houlihan. After a 14-hour hearing, the
Commission surprised many and denied the project.
TCA immediately appealed the decision to the U.S.
Secretary of Commerce. After another call for public
comments and a hearing with more than 3,000
attendees, the Secretary upheld the determination of
the Coastal Commission.
The toll road proposal did not die there according
to Mike Fitts of the Endangered Habitats League, “but
it’s on life support.” TCA has six years to challenge the
Secretary’s decision.
WHAT MADE THE DIFFERENCE?
There were several key factors that made the
difference in an extremely nasty battle: formidable
organization, grassroots commitment, sound science,
and the involvement of regional, state, and national
officials.
The Save San Onofre coalition was wellorganized and responsibilities were clearly defined.
Each organization played to its strength—to
strategize; mobilize public support; conduct research;
and provide traffic, technical, legal, and fundraising
expertise. The February 2008 Coastal Commission
hearing was a pivotal moment in the prolonged
battle. The Surfrider Foundation and the Sierra Club
were tireless in raising
awareness of the issue.
“This never would have
happened if we didn’t
have 3,500 people at
the hearing,” said Robin
Everett of the Sierra Club.
“We sent a message. We
were not going to go away
quietly.”
The presentation to
the Coastal Commission
and the U.S. Secretary
of Commerce was a
compilation of careful
science, fact-based
argument, and summaries
which made the report
easily accessible. The
coalition also met with
every Commissioner and “walked them through the
impact of the toll road,” said Susan Jordan of the
California Coastal Protection Network. Scientists,
attorneys, and experts on a carefully assembled team
refuted the wide array of arguments put forward by
the TCA. Additionally, the coalition actively sought
officials and leaders from other counties, the state,
and federal level to have the project viewed from
a broad perspective. “The public outcry, and the
strength and accuracy of the argument combined to
make a knockout punch,” Jordan said.
PHOTO: Jason Boyd
THE IMPACT
Preventing the invasion of a 6-lane highway through
San Onofre State Beach protects coastal and freshwater
habitat, wildlife corridors, a Native American sacred site,
world renowned surfing, unique recreational experiences,
and the integrity of California’s state park system. “The
defeat was not only a major victory for San Onofre, but
for the entire California coast,” said Coastal Protection
panelist Assemblymember Pedro Nava. “The project
would’ve set a terrible precedent endangering other
areas of coastal open space and public access for future
generations.”
The achievement avoided an enormous impact on
the recreational value of the state park. The California
State Department of Parks and Recreation reported that
construction would most likely require the abandonment
of 60 percent of the park, including San Mateo campground, which hosts more than 100,000 visitors annually.
Additionally, paving and filling the area would adversely
affect the hydrology of the watershed, threatening the
world famous surf break at Trestles Beach.
San Onofre State Beach is home to at least 11
threatened and endangered species—including the
Pacific pocket mouse, arroyo toad, coastal California
gnatcatcher, and Southern California steelhead trout.
Moreover, the toll road would run directly through and
along San Mateo Creek and surrounding wetlands,
causing permanent, irreversible damage. San Mateo and
San Onofre Creeks are among the healthiest streams in
Southern California, due to limited development in their
watersheds.
Although the debate about the proposed toll road
often centered on the impact to recreational uses
and endangered species, the project also would have
demolished an 8,000-year-old ceremonial and burial
site of the Acjachemen, a Native American nation of
Southern California. Panhe, the former village located
within the park, remains a sacred and cultural site to
this day.
The impacts of denying the toll road go further
than protecting ecological, cultural, and recreational
interests. “In a place where road projects always
prevailed it is inspiring to see how this proposed project
through one of the last open spaces in coastal Southern
California galvanized an amazing diversity of people
to say, ‘enough is enough!,’” explained Brian Segee of
Defenders of Wildlife.
This battle was watched across the nation and San
Onofre Beach was saved, for now.
Environmental Organizations Involved:
• California State Parks Foundation
• Surfrider Foundation
• Sierra Club, Friends of the Foothills Campaign
• Natural Resources Defense Council
• Endangered Habitats League
• Defenders of Wildlife
• National Audubon Society, Sea and Sage Chapter
• United Coalition to Protect Panhe
• Laguna Greenbelt Alliance
• Orange County Coastkeeper
• California Coastal Protection Network
PHOTO: Trestles Beach, Craig Coppola
San Onofre Coalition United:
State Beach Undivided
Time Line of Key Events
1971: Governor Ronald Reagan establishes
1971
San Onofre State Beach.
1986
1991: TCA seriously considers the toll road
1986: Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) forms
and proposes to construct 67 miles of toll roads.
1991
proposal through San Onofre State Beach.
2004
February 2006: TCA certifies the final EIR and
April 2004: TCA releases the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (EIR). The report galvanizes longactive opposition and the Save San Onofre
coalition forms.
2006
approves a toll road through the park.
March 2006: Three separate lawsuits challenge
TCA’s approval of the toll road.
February 2008: 3,500 people attend the public
hearing to oppose the road, making it the largest
meeting in the history of the Coastal Commission.
At 11:00 p.m., they vote 8-2 against the project.
TCA appeals the decision to the U.S. Secretary of
Commerce soon after.
2007
March 2007: TCA submits an application to
the California Coastal Commission for consistency
certification.
2008
September 2008: The U.S. Secretary of
Commerce receives unprecedented 30,000
comment letters against the toll road.
October 2008: Save San Onofre presents
science and facts at the Secretary of Commerce
hearing. About 3,000 people appear to oppose
the road.
December 2008: The Secretary of Commerce
upholds the Coastal Commission’s decision against
the toll road.
PHOTO: Surfrider Foundation
FRESHWATER PROTECTION
and RESTORATION Achievement
THE ACHIEVEMENT
Cities occupy 3% of the nation’s
land, yet urban stormwater runoff
contaminates 13% of rivers,
18% of lakes, and 32% of estuaries.
By reinventing stormwater
management with Low Impact
Development plans for land use,
environmental nonprofits guided
municipal and state decisionmakers towards greater regional
water reliability. Starting in
2006, the team led by the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC),
the California Coastkeeper Alliance
(CCKA), and Heal the Bay pressed
for policies to more efficiently use
dwindling water resources. Low
Impact Development (LID) includes
water management designs such
as rooftop gardens and grassy
swales along roads, which slow
stormwater flows, allowing them
to sink into the ground, while
reducing flood risks and decreasing
water contaminants. By contrast,
stormwater traditionally rushes over
impermeable surfaces, capturing
and transporting pollutants such
as sediment, trash, and organic
materials into waterways.
In 2008, the team convinced
the California Ocean Protection
Council (OPC), made up of the
heads of the California Natural
Resources Agency, the California
Environmental Protection Agency,
and the State Lands Commission,
to adopt a forceful resolution
stating that “new developments
and redevelopments should be
designed consistent with low
impact development principles.”
Team leaders then went region by
region, persuading Los Angeles and
San Diego Counties to adopt LID
ordinances. Next, they undertook
LID integration in six different
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems (MS4) permits—which
regulate industrial, construction,
and municipal discharges.
PHOTO: Carl Richards
Southern California Water Challenges:
Solutions Start to Sink In
11
WHAT MADE THE DIFFERENCE?
THE IMPACT
The team’s success “was the result of a full court
press,” explained Tom Ford of the Santa Monica
Baykeeper. The team used well-founded legal
arguments and solid scientific evidence to garner
political support for adoption of LID designs in
land use plans and regulations. They revised MS4
permits to reduce polluting discharges and capture
water for regional reuse. Fortunately, team leaders
could point to the TreePeople’s Sun Valley Watershed
Project (celebrated in the 2006 Top Achievements
Report), as a successful example of what regulatory
reform could achieve.
Affirming the team’s arguments, the Los Angeles
County Economic Development Corporation ranked
local stormwater capture higher than desalination
and new dams for cost-effectiveness and energy
efficiency in August 2008.
Their research found that LID
enhances local water supply
quality and quantities, reduces
pollution, allows for low-energy
water reuse, and in some places
recharges aquifers.
Additionally, environmentalists worked with agency
heads to educate staff and
appropriate the necessary
funding for LID’s advancement.
The team helped the OPC revive
its charge to reduce coastal
pollution and provided expertise
at a regional workshop about
the benefits of LID.
Advocates not only influenced regional performance
standards, but also provided the OPC with attainable
LID goals across agencies. In turn, the OPC urged
a number of agencies to implement LID practices,
including:
• Department of Transportation—to develop and
implement permeable pavement, curb design, and
parking requirements.
• Office of Planning and Research—to provide
technical guidance for water quality regulations and
planning documents.
• Building Standards Commission—to incorporate LID
into building codes.
• Department of Water Resources—to create incentives
to implement LID and habitat protection goals into
integrated regional water management plans.
“Agencies are recognizing
that pollution reduction and
regional water reliability are
possible, and they are beginning
to fund and implement Low Impact
Development strategies to reach
this goal,” said Linda Sheehan of
CCKA. To this end, several team
members were also appointed
to the State Water Resources
Control Board’s Stormwater Quality
Task Force which resulted in the
allocation of tens of millions of
dollars in Proposition 84 bond funds
to support LID projects.
“This achievement was a
strategic accomplishment in
building momentum for the
Low Impact Development movement; LID should
be the rule, not the exception” said Freshwater
Protection panelist and City of Los Angeles Public
Works Commissioner Paula Daniels. Not only do
LID designs provide the benefit of regional water
reliability with minimal maintenance, they also
promise to pave urban thoroughfares with green
space and native habitat. The National Academy of
Sciences calculated LID’s potential to transform 7075 percent of urban impervious surfaces into green
ways. Once captured, an estimated 333,000 acrefeet of stormwater per year in California—enough to
serve about 350,000 people—can be re-directed for
regional reuse. This achievement will “have a rippleeffect, nationally regulating municipal stormwater
controls and introducing new opportunities for water
reuse,” explained David Beckman of NRDC.
ILLUSTRATION: Low Impact Development Center;
PHOTO: Ken Weston and Reza Iranpour
FOREST PROTECTION
Achievement
“Hazard tree” projects were motivated by a loophole
to sell timber without environmental review.
PHOTO: ForestWatch
Taking a Stand for Trees: Commercial Logging
Loophole Closed in National Forests
THE ACHIEVEMENT
In 2008, two successful lawsuits by grassroots
conservation groups protected thousands of acres of
national forest from logging. Los Padres ForestWatch
(ForestWatch) saved more than 1,000 acres of the Los
Padres National Forest northwest of Los Angeles from
a commercial logging project. The project targeted
large trees—including old-growth pines more than three
feet in diameter—in a remote, recently burned area.
The U.S. Forest Service exempted the
logging from environmental review,
claiming that the trees were “hazards”
and needed to be removed immediately
before falling on a road or trail.
However, these burned trees serve as
valuable habitat for animals.
“If the goal was to protect public
safety, why not just leave the cut
trees on the ground so as to provide
important wildlife habitat?” asked Jeff
Kuyper of ForestWatch. “We presented
this idea to the Forest Service many
times, but they insisted on taking the
trees to the lumber mill—a shocking
proposition, as it would have been the
first commercial timber sale on the Los
Padres National Forest in more than
40 years.” ForestWatch believed the
Forest Service was using the hazard
tree exemption as a loophole to sell
timber. The group filed suit and in
summer 2008 a federal judge ruled in
their favor, halting the logging.
John Muir Project (JMP) then
moved quickly to apply the precedent
from the ForestWatch case to another
“hazard tree” project seeking to cut
15,000 mature and large trees in Plumas
National Forest in the Sierra Nevada. As Dr. Chad Hanson
of JMP reported, “there has been a widespread problem
where the Forest Service claims it is logging ‘hazard
trees,’ and then anything goes—logging old-growth
green trees, destroying spotted owl habitat, and creating
miles-long clearcuts. They completely and utterly abused
this loophole.” JMP’s lawsuit was successful, making
the Plumas project the largest “hazard tree” sale ever
stopped by a conservation organization.
WHAT MADE THE DIFFERENCE?
“Small groups can have a big impact on environmental
protection when they combine solid science with a
willingness to enforce environmental laws through
litigation,” observed JMP staff attorney Rachel Fazio.
Research conducted by Hanson demonstrated that the
“hazard tree” logging was unnecessary and ecologically
harmful. In fact, one study conducted by Hanson and
botanist Dr. Ed Royce showed that many burned trees
13
marked by the Forest Service for logging actually were
alive and regenerating. In another study, they found that
even dead trees are likely to remain standing for many
decades, providing essential habitat for wildlife species
such as the imperiled black-backed woodpecker.
In addition to solid science, this victory depended
on ForestWatch and JMP’s courage to file suit despite
potential controversy surrounding the Forest Service’s
portrayal of “hazard tree” logging as a public safety
issue. In the Plumas National
Forest project, the Forest Service
initially claimed that it needed to
expedite cutting 15,000 trees without
environmental review because of
the risk of trees falling. But when
faced with JMP’s legal challenge, the
agency conceded that it only saw
50 trees as urgent hazards. When
the resulting settlement required
those trees be left on the ground as
wildlife habitat rather than selling
them, the Forest Service opted to
cut only seven trees as of the end
of 2008. Similarly, the ruling in the
Los Padres case still permitted the
Forest Service to cut some trees, but
precluded a timber sale. Despite
earlier claims that the trees were
imminent hazards, the agency has
not sought to cut those trees. Such
behavior reinforces the concerns of
ForestWatch and JMP that the Forest
Service’s “hazard tree” projects
were not primarily motivated by
safety concerns, but rather by the
goal of commercial logging without
environmental review.
THE IMPACT
“Closing this loophole is an outstanding achievement
because of the particularly destructive nature of logging
after fire, which removes or disables resources vital to
the process of ecosystem recovery and to biodiversity
that uses burned forests,” noted Forest Protection
panelist Dr. Dennis Odion. Thanks to the action of
ForestWatch and JMP, thousands of acres of forest
are still standing and the Los Padres continues to be
a national forest without commercial logging. Forest
Protection panelist Representative Lois Capps said,
“The Los Padres remains a role model, showing that
national forests can be valued more for recreation,
wildlife habitat, and clean water, rather than resource
extraction.” As Kuyper concluded, “this is a classic tale
of how a grassroots organization can influence federal
forest policy, not only protecting our local forest, but
also national forests throughout California.”
PHOTO: ForestWatch
CLIMATE and ENERGY
Achievement
Measure R not only created a plan to transform
Southern California’s transportation system, it financed it.
PHOTO: Darrell Clarke
Unlocking the Grid:
Los Angeles Votes for Transit
THE ACHIEVEMENT
In 2008, the economy was in a tailspin, gasoline
prices skyrocketed and tumbled, and the Los Angelesarea environmental community had not organized
around a transportation issue in years. Yet somehow,
67.93 percent of the voters in Los Angeles County
approved Measure R—a half cent sales tax increase
for transportation, at least two-thirds going to transit
projects.
Measure R not only created a plan to transform
Southern California’s transportation system, it
financed it. The average Los Angeles County resident
will contribute about $25 per year to pay for new
transportation projects and accelerate those already in
the pipeline. The $40 billion generated over 30 years
will cover the expansion of public transit including
subway, light rail, and bus-way
systems; traffic reductions;
maintaining existing fares
on public transit; and street
improvements.
WHAT MADE THE DIFFERENCE?
A dynamic coalition of
environmental, labor, and
business groups developed a
comprehensive proposal and
waged a strong campaign. The
effort was launched initially
as the “Subway to the Sea”
coalition, a project intended
to create momentum for the
Wilshire Subway. As the coalition
explored possibilities, the focus
shifted to a comprehensive plan
that served the entire county
and provided funding. Led by
former Santa Monica Mayor
Denny Zane, the Los Angeles
County Transportation Funding Collaborative (now
called Move LA) was launched with 34 organizations.
The collaborative successfully held “It’s Time to Move
LA!,” a conference designed to identify how to finance
essential transportation investments in Los Angeles
County.
Environmental, labor, and business groups
engaged political leadership at the local, state, and
national levels to ensure broad support and dissolve
organized opposition. The group enlisted Mayor
Antonio Villaraigosa, who had supported Subway to the
Sea during his campaign, and County Supervisor Zev
Yaroslavsky, who had once opposed tunneling to build
subways. U.S. Representative Henry Waxman was
persuaded to reconsider his earlier opposition—which
had banned federal co-funding—to a subway along the
15
Wilshire corridor. Santa Monica City Councilwoman
and then Metro Chair Pam O’Connor also played a key
role. And, California Assemblymember Mike Feuer
successfully carried legislation authorizing the Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
to collect the tax if approved by voters.
THE IMPACT
In addition to public outcries to relieve congestion,
local officials must reduce vehicle miles traveled and
help meet global warming targets due to Senate
Bill 375, also enacted in 2008. Measure R gives the
County a head start by generating financial resources
for transit alternatives in one of the most transit-poor
major cities in the world. Climate and Energy panelist
California Energy Commission Chair Karen Douglas
called the passage of Measure R
“a funding mechanism to achieve
the goals of SB 375—the critical
link between transportation and
land use planning with regard to
climate change.”
The first phases of work
funded under Measure R are
likely to include an extension of
the Expo Line from Culver City
to Santa Monica, an extension
of the Gold Line from Pasadena
to Azusa, and placement of a
bus-way or light-rail line along
Crenshaw Boulevard in South
Los Angeles. The Expo Line
extension to Santa Monica is
likely to have the most profound
impact on the area easing traffic
in a key east-west corridor and
giving thousands of commuters a
convenient alternative. But the
furthest-reaching impact may
be the change in the mindset of
millions of residents. As more Angelenos find rail to
be convenient and efficient, Measure R could launch a
new trend toward transit-oriented development.
Leading Environmental and Transit Advocacy
Groups Involved:
• Move LA (formerly Los Angeles County
Transportation Funding Collaborative)
• American Lung Association of California
• Coalition for Clean Air
• Sierra Club
• The Transit Coalition
• Subway to the Sea Coalition
• Environment Now
• Several Business and Labor Groups
AIR QUALITY
Achievement
Innovative strategies for three major categories
“pushed the envelope in regulating diesel.” —Air Quality panelist
Assemblymember De La Torre
Ten years after California declared
diesel exhaust as a toxic air
contaminant, environmental groups
finally got traction when they
redirected their efforts from years of
proving the negative health effects
of diesel to physically cleaning up
buses, trucks, and ships.
REDUCING DIESEL POLLUTION
FROM SCHOOL BUSES
THE ACHIEVEMENT
Environmental groups, Our Children’s
Earth Foundation and Communities
for a Better Environment, led by the
Environmental Law Foundation filed
suit against the two largest school
bus contractors in North America.
They asserted that buses exposed
children to diesel engine exhaust
without warning, thus violating
Proposition 65—The Safe Drinking
Water and Toxic Enforcement Act.
The case settled in 2008 with one
of the companies, Laidlaw Transit,
Inc. Laidlaw agreed to spend at
least $4.7 million to install California
Air Resources Board (ARB)—
approved diesel emissions reduction
equipment, and an additional $23.6
million to retrofit buses or purchase
new ones that meet 2007 standards.
As a result, Laidlaw’s buses will be
the lowest emitting fleet to date.
WHAT MADE THE DIFFERENCE?
Co-defendant, Durham School
Services, settled and agreed to clean
up its fleet in 2007. The lawsuit
raised awareness among parents
who pressured the San Francisco
Unified School District, which in turn,
demanded cleaner buses. Once
San Francisco set the precedent,
interest was sparked elsewhere.
Durham’s business significantly
increased due to their clean buses
and this helped persuade Laidlaw to
settle. Additionally, ARB’s existing
Lower-Emission School Bus Program
provided financial incentives for
new buses and retrofits, making it
easier for companies to change their
equipment.
PHOTO: Jimmy Meyer
Getting a Lung Up on Diesel Pollution:
Momentum Shifts to Solutions
17
THE IMPACT
MARINE VESSEL LOW-SULFUR FUEL RULE
This is the first time
that Prop. 65 was used
to clean up school
buses. Environmental
Law Foundation and
its coalition partners
also sent notices of
Prop. 65 violations to
ten other California
school bus providers,
and the companies are
all agreeing to clean
up and replace their
fleets. “This is one of those cases of going after the
big guy and moving the entire industry,” said James
Wheaton of Environmental Law Foundation.
THE ACHIEVEMENT
ON-ROAD DIESEL TRUCK AND BUS RULE
THE ACHIEVEMENT
The Statewide Truck and Bus Rule, unanimously
adopted by ARB in December 2008, applies to
approximately 400,000 instate and about 500,000 outof-state trucks. Beginning in January 2011, most fleets
are required to install diesel exhaust filters, with almost
all trucks retrofitted by 2014. By the year 2023, all
trucks must be replaced or upgraded to meet the 2010
engine emission standard.
WHAT MADE THE DIFFERENCE?
The coalition advocating the rule was made up of
traditional environmental groups and community-based
grassroots organizations. About 110 individuals from
60 nonprofits were engaged early on. This forged
strong relationships, enabling members to respond
effectively to challenges. “ARB was impressed with our
message and presence,” explained Camille Kustin of the
Environmental Defense Fund.
THE IMPACT
In July 2008, environmental groups led by Friends
of the Earth, Union of Concerned Scientists, Natural
Resources Defense Council, and Coalition for Clean Air
pushed ARB to adopt regulations for Low-Sulfur Fuel
for Ocean-Going Vessels. In July 2009, ships operating
within 24 nautical miles of California are required to
use lower-sulfur marine distillate fuels rather than
“bunker fuel” in main and auxiliary engines as well
as auxiliary boilers. Approximately 2,000 ships are
subject to this regulation—making it the most stringent
requirement in the world.
WHAT MADE THE DIFFERENCE?
Both advocates and ARB wanted the rule in place.
“One driver for this collaboration was that this rule
was one of the biggest emission reduction measures
ARB had ever undertaken,” said John Kaltenstein of
Friends of the Earth. ARB’s first attempt to regulate
marine fuel was overturned following an industry
lawsuit asserting that the federal Clean Air Act
preempted the regulation. Therefore, it was critical
that the agency regulate in-use operations rather than
impose an emission standard for ship engines—the
latter, risked falling under federal jurisdiction rather
than state. “Reducing the sulfur content in fuel
substantially lessens respiratory ailments, cancer risks,
and premature mortality,” said Kaltenstein. In a Los
Angeles Times article (July 25, 2008), ARB Chairman
Mary Nichols called it “the most significant rule the Air
Resources Board has adopted in the last five years.”
THE IMPACT
2009 Reductions
Diesel PM
75%
NOx
6%
SOx
80%
2021 Reductions
2011 - 2014 Reductions
Diesel PM
83% (15 tons/day)
Diesel PM
68% (13 tons/day)
NOx
6% (11 tons/day)
NOx
25% (124 tons/day)
SOx
95% (140 tons/day)
9,400 premature deaths prevented
and $48 – $69 billion saved
between 2011 & 2025 (ARB 2008)
Leading Environmental Groups Involved:
• Friends of the Earth
• Union of Concerned Scientists
• Natural Resources Defense Council
• Coalition for Clean Air
• Central Valley Air Quality Coalition
• East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice
3,600 premature deaths prevented and an
80% reduction in cancer risk
between 2009 & 2015 (ARB 2008)
Leading Environmental Groups Involved:
• Friends of the Earth
• Coalition for Clean Air
• Union of Concerned Scientists
• Natural Resources Defense Council
PHOTO: Mobile Source Air Pollution
Reduction Review Committee
ENVIRONMENTAL SETBACKS and
FAILURES of 2008
Developing Tejon Ranch is
the epitome of poor planning.
PHOTO: Tejon Ranch, Dean Hueber
Challenges and Opportunities for the Future
19
In addition to celebrating accomplishments, Top
Achievements Report panelists identified the most
significant environmental setbacks and failures of
2008. Every panel discussed climate change, noting
that efforts to stop and reverse this daunting problem
have been woefully inadequate. Panelists also
specifically pointed out the following setbacks that yield
important lessons and should guide Southern California
environmental efforts in the future.
protections in freshwater water resources by reversing
a Federal Claims Court ruling that a regulatory restraint
on the use of water did not amount to a physical
taking of water. Should the Circuit Court’s holding
prevail, taxpayers will be crippled by compensation
to water agencies that are required to implement
environmental protections. These protections are part
of the government’s responsibilities to maintain water
resources under the Public Trust.
LAND USE, OPEN SPACE, and SMART GROWTH
Tejon Ranch Settlement: The Opposite of
Smart Growth
In May 2008, Tejon Ranch Company and five highly
respected environmental organizations announced
California’s largest-ever land conservation deal: up
to 240,000 acres could be protected. In exchange,
the groups dropped their opposition to the largest
development project ever proposed in the state. The
new residential city would be far from jobs, creating
a commuter’s nightmare. A second development for
luxury homes is sited in federally designated critical
habitat for the California condor. Although there are
parts of the settlement to be applauded, including the
potential acquisition of 49,000 acres for a state park, the
deal falsely gives the impression that developing Tejon
Ranch is smart growth.
FOREST PROTECTION
Faulty Fire Policy Costs Lives, Ecosystems,
and Taxpayers
During summer 2008, the Forest Service Regional
Forester unilaterally changed policy, forcing firefighters
to suppress every forest fire in California, including
wilderness fires located far from homes—even though
fire is essential for healthy forest ecosystems. In
addition to the environmental damage caused by
aggressive suppression, the policy unnecessarily put
firefighters in danger and cost taxpayers hundreds of
millions of dollars. The policy directive was ultimately
withdrawn after Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics,
and Ecology called attention to its flaws and nine
firefighters died in a helicopter crash while suppressing
fire in a wilderness area.
COASTAL PROTECTION
Climate Policy Must Address Coastal Ecosystems
California’s 1,250 miles of ocean coastline fails to
receive the attention required to address the inevitable
impacts of global warming. While the governor’s office
made significant strides to address sea level rise,
other issues such as ocean acidification, habitat loss,
erosion, saltwater intrusion into aquifers, increased
storm frequency and intensity, tourism declines, and
the destruction of infrastructure need to be addressed.
Real leadership on these issues is needed at the Coastal
Commission and the Ocean Protection Council, but
severe budget cuts make their responsibilities harder to
manage. State and local agencies should develop clear
goals, priorities, and guidelines specifically addressing
climate change impacts along California’s
coast.
FRESHWATER PROTECTION and
RESTORATION
Individual Water Rights Trump
Public Interest
In September 2008, the Federal Circuit
Court of Appeals held that the Bureau
of Reclamation’s endangered species
enforcement on rivers was a taking of
water rights and granted the Casitas
Municipal Water District millions of dollars
in compensation. The Circuit Court
inched closer to instilling private property
CLIMATE and ENERGY
“Green” Ballot Initiatives Confuse Voters,
Waste Resources
Two unsuccessful statewide ballot measures in 2008
(Props 7 & 10) were intended to accelerate California’s
clean energy agenda. Unfortunately, as has happened
with past initiatives, tens of millions of dollars were
spent, and most environmental leaders opposed the
measures because they believed the language would
have led to unintended, harmful consequences. Voters
were told that most environmentalists opposed the
measures even though they were ostensibly designed
to protect the environment. The statewide initiative
process should be refined and environmentalists must be
engaged early to avoid “green” measures that split the
community, confuse voters, and waste limited resources.
AIR QUALITY
Port Fee “Terminated”… Again
Despite an agreement with Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger and bipartisan support in
the legislature, Senator Alan Lowenthal was
again thwarted in his efforts to implement
a fee on cargo containers coming into
California ports. Had it not been vetoed,
Senate Bill 974 would have created an
important precedent, collecting funds to
cover air pollution reduction and congestion
relief efforts directly from the shipping
companies responsible for substantial
emissions associated with port operations.
PHOTO: John Hicks
LITIGATION and the ENVIRONMENT
PHOTO: Mineral King Canyon , Brian Michelsen
Contributed by: Ken Alex,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, California
21
In 1999, environmental groups filed an administrative petition with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Eight years later, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA changed the national discourse on
global warming by determining that the Clean Air Act applies to greenhouse gas emissions. In essence, it
was a declaration that global warming is real.
While most public interest environmental litigation is far less dramatic, this case serves to underline a
key point. Judicious use of litigation in environmental matters is an essential element of our democracy. It
remains a check on corporate excess and government inaction, a significant supplement to enforcement, and
an antidote to administrative and legislative gridlock. What’s more, litigation can bring environmental issues
to public consciousness and provide a basis for resolving problems.
The 2007 Top Achievements Report spotlighted the
San Bernardino County case, in which the Center
for Biological Diversity and the state Attorney
General filed separate suits under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As a result, San
Bernardino County agreed to identify and mitigate
the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions in the
County’s 20-year General Plan. But the impact went
far beyond San Bernardino. Before the lawsuit,
virtually no environmental documents addressed
global warming. In less than two years, more than
600 environmental documents have considered it.
In 2008, a Sierra Club lawsuit challenging the
City of Stockton’s General Plan (supported by the
Attorney General) under CEQA, resulted in another
ground-breaking agreement that may change local
land use policy throughout the State. The settlement,
among other things, requires Stockton to implement
green building standards for residential, commercial,
and industrial construction; concentrate new
development in downtown and other infill areas; and
ensure that public transit serves new development.
However, effective environmental litigation
has resulted in a backlash in recent years in both
California and the nation, coming with criticism that
such litigation is excessive. The statewide initiative
Proposition 64 limited the ability of environmental
groups and others to sue under California’s Unfair
Business Practices Act. Supreme Court decisions
have also constrained the ability of citizens to use
federal courts. But environmental groups still have
multiple legal tools in California. Non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) regularly use CEQA to enforce
environmental review of projects, and Proposition 65
for warnings identifying chemicals that cause cancer
and reproductive toxicity. NGOs are also protected
by California’s important anti-Strategic Lawsuits
Against Public Participation statute. Retaliatory suits
aimed at NGOs to quash valid claims are dealt with
summarily by the courts. At the federal level, a
series of longstanding statutes preserve and reaffirm
the role of citizen enforcement, including the Clean
Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered
Species Act.
Government simply does not have the resources
to enforce environmental laws fully. Citizen suits
are therefore an essential element of our system.
Without strategic litigation, California’s environment
would be unrecognizable today. Mineral King, offshore oil drilling, Giant Sequoia National Monument,
and the Los Angeles Air Basin are just four examples
of policies, projects, and plans radically altered
by litigation for the benefit of the public. Because
of citizen group efforts, it is almost impossible to
imagine California with a large-scale development
in King’s Canyon, hundreds or thousands of oil
platforms choking the coastline, timber harvesting
in Sequoia redwood groves, and significantly greater
refinery emissions in Los Angeles. It is no surprise,
therefore, that litigation has a central role in the Top
Achievements of the Environmental Community in
Southern California.
Of course, the system is not perfect. The
Attorney General’s office, for example, spends
significant time and money dealing with cases that
appear to be designed to obtain attorneys’ fees
rather than promote health and safety—and this
pattern is by no means limited to citizens’ suits.
The solution is not to disavow litigation, but rather
to pursue it with care and forethought, recognizing
that it is ultimately a tool to address environmental
problems, not an end in itself.
To date, the substantial benefits of citizen and
NGO suits on behalf of the environment, and public
health far outweigh the costs. With care and effort,
that will continue to be the case.
Ken Alex, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General, heads the environment section of the California
Attorney General’s Office. He is also the co-lead of the Global Warming Unit, and for five years led
the energy task force, and the investigation and litigation related to California’s energy crisis.
BIOGRAPHIES of SELECTION PANELISTS
Land Use, Open Space, and
Smart Growth
HONORABLE
MAGGIE HOULIHAN
Mayor, City of Encinitas
Maggie Houlihan serves on the
Encinitas City Council, the League
of California Cities Environmental
Quality Committee, Encina Wastewater
Authority Board, San Elijo Joint Powers
Authority, and the Regional Solid Waste
Authority. She has also served on
San Diego Association of Government’s
Regional Planning Committee and
Regional Housing Task Force.
JENNIFER WOLCH, PH.D.
Director, Center for Sustainable
Cities, University of Southern
California
Dr. Jennifer Wolch is Professor of
Geography at University of Southern
California. She directs the Center
for Sustainable Cities and leads the
Green Vision Plan for 21st Century
Southern California, a planning guide
and decision support toolkit for habitat
conservation, watershed health, and
recreational open space in the region.
Her research focuses on metropolitan
sprawl, physical activity, urban design,
parks, and environmental justice.
Coastal Protection
Freshwater Protection
HONORABLE PEDRO NAVA
Assemblymember,
35th District of California
Before his election to the State
Assembly in 2004, Assemblymember
Nava served on the California Coastal
Commission for eight years. He is
the Chair of the Assembly Banking
and Finance Committee, member of
the Assembly Coastal Caucus, and
representative to the Ocean Protection
Council. He is also a member of the
Assembly Health, Insurance, and
Business and Professions committees.
PAULA DANIELS
Commissioner,
Board of Public Works
Paula Daniels has more than 25
years of leadership and management
experience in addressing complex
legal and environmental issues
in California. She has knowledge
on water quality issues, including
watershed and urban runoff
management, and water re-use. She
also serves on the governing board
of the California Bay-Delta Authority.
She is the recipient of several
environmental honors, including the
2007 Water Quality Leadership award.
WILLIAM R. COOPER, PH.D.
Director, Urban Water Research
Center, University of California,
Irvine
Bill Cooper is a Professor of Civil and
Environmental Engineering and the
Director of the Urban Water Research
Center at the University of California,
Irvine. His research focuses on water
quality issues in oceans, estuaries,
rivers, and streams. He recently
initiated studies on the cycling of
dissolved organic matter in natural
waters comparing photo-chemically
mediated reactions to those resulting
from the “in situ” generated reactive
oxygen species.
ROBERT C. WILKINSON, PH.D.
Director, Water Policy Program,
University of California, Santa
Barbara
Robert Wilkinson is Director of the
Water Policy Program at the Bren
School of Environmental Science and
Management at the University of
California, Santa Barbara. He is also a
lecturer in the Environmental Studies
Program at UCSB. His lectures,
research, and consulting focus on
water policy, energy, climate change,
and environmental policy issues.
CATEGORY DEFINITIONS
LAND USE, OPEN SPACE, and SMART GROWTH Panelists considered achievements that improved sustainability in Southern
California by preserving sensitive open spaces, wildlands or wildlife corridors; creating or improving urban parks; improving
efficiency of human development patterns; or reducing urban sprawl. Land use planning, education, and environmental
justice projects were also eligible.
COASTAL PROTECTION Panelists considered achievements that had a direct affect on Southern California’s coastal ecosystem. Projects addressed: restoration, protection, water quality, biodiversity, ecosystem functionality, habitat, wetland or coastal
preservation, education, or environmental justice. Projects on islands off the coast of Southern California were also eligible.
FRESHWATER PROTECTION and RESTORATION Panelists considered achievements that concerned contamination, runoff, mitigation
measures and technologies, protection and restoration of inland waterways and habitats, conservation, groundwater
recharge, education, or environmental justice. Statewide projects were considered if significant effects were seen in
Southern California.
BIOGRAPHIES of SELECTION PANELISTS
23
(Continued)
Forest Protection
Climate and Energy
Air Quality
HONORABLE LOIS CAPPS
U.S. Representative,
23rd District of California
Lois Capps served as the
Representative of California’s 22nd
District from 1998 to 2002. Since
2003, Capps represents the 23rd
District which includes portions of
San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and
Ventura Counties. Capps is committed
to helping people through better
schools, quality health care, and a
cleaner environment. She also serves
on the Natural Resources Committee
and its subcommittees on Forests and
Public Lands.
KAREN DOUGLAS, J.D.
Chair, California Energy
Commission
Karen Douglas was appointed to
the California Energy Commission
in 2008 and became Chair in 2009.
From 2005 to her appointment, she
served as Director of the California
Climate Initiative at the Environmental
Defense Fund. Prior to that, she
spent four years at the Planning and
Conservation League. Commissioner
Douglas has worked on a wide range
of environmental issues, including the
Imperial Irrigation District/San Diego
water transfer.
DENNIS ODION, PH.D.
Institute of Computational Earth
Systems Science, University of
California, Santa Barbara
Dennis Odion is an ecologist and
researcher with the Institute of
Computational Earth Systems Science,
University of California, Santa
Barbara. He investigates patterns
of wildfire severity and the response
of vegetation. He has published a
variety of papers on this subject,
ranging from the establishment of
local patterns in chaparral after fire to
landscape patterns of conifer forests
that have burned in the Sierra Nevada
and Klamath regions.
NATHAN LEWIS, PH.D.
Professor, Division of Chemistry
and Chemical Engineering,
California Institute of Technology
Nathan Lewis, Professor of Chemistry
at California Institute of Technology,
studies the connection between
energy, environment, and climate.
Lewis served on BP’s technical
advisory council and for the last
15 years and has consulted to the
U.S. government, looking across
technology areas relevant to national
security. He has advised a variety of
corporations and funds on investment
strategy in the chemical sensing and
energy sectors.
HONORABLE HECTOR DE LA TORRE
Assemblymember,
50th District of California
Assemblymember Hector De La Torre
represents the 50th Assembly District,
which includes communities in south
east Los Angeles County. He chairs
the new Assembly Accountability and
Administrative Review Committee
to ensure efficient government
and identify savings in government
programs. He has worked to enhance
the quality of life in his district by
ensuring funding to build new parks,
investing in local infrastructure,
attracting economic development, and
improving the delivery and quality of
healthcare services.
ANDREA HRICKO
Associate Professor, Keck
School of Medicine, University of
Southern California
Andrea Hricko is Associate Professor
of Preventive Medicine and Director
of Community Outreach and
Education for the Southern California
Environmental Health Sciences Center,
based at Keck School of Medicine at
University of Southern California. She
has taken a leading role in the Los
Angeles/Long Beach ports expansion
debate, informing policymakers and
the public about the health effects of
air pollution.
CATEGORY DEFINITIONS
FOREST PROTECTION Panelists considered achievements that reformed logging practices or prevented harmful projects such as
over-grazing or poor development. Restoration, species protection, education, and environmental justice all qualified, as well
as projects that addressed public or private forests. In addition to projects in Southern California, those in the Sierra Nevada
and other regions of the state were considered because healthy forests are critical to Southern California’s water supply.
CLIMATE and ENERGY Panelists considered achievements that addressed transportation, energy generation or use, greenhouse
gas emissions and climate change. Projects could include conservation, fuel efficiency, renewable energy, alternative fuels,
clean or energy efficient technologies, trip reduction, transit, education, or environmental justice. Statewide projects were
considered if they had a significant impact on Southern California.
AIR QUALITY Panelists considered achievements that reduced Southern California’s six common “criteria” pollutants, air
toxins or pollution from stationary or mobile sources as well as, achievements that focused on disproportionate impacts and
regional pollution. Human health effects, environmental justice, education, and measurable and quantifiable work were also
considered. Eligibility was limited to outdoor air quality achievements.
In memory of Dorothy Green—“If there’s one
thing I’ve learned in my lifetime of activism,
it’s changes don’t come easily...”
2515 Wilshire Boulevard • Santa Monica, CA 90403
310.829.5568 • FAX 310.829.6820
www.environmentnow.org