Santa Lucian • October 2015 1 SANTA LUCIANSanta Lucian • October 2015 3 The world’s most democratic environmental organization (us) needs you! Yes, Santa Lucia Chapter member,

Santa Lucian • October 2015 1

Protecting andPreserving theCentral Coast

SANTA LUCIAN

IIIII n s i d en s i d en s i d en s i d en s i d eWe better be NIMBYs 2

Last call for Los Osos basin 4

Oil by rail fail 6

Remembering Letty French 10

Classifieds 11

Outings 12

Please recycle

This newsletter printed on100% post-consumer recycled paper with

soy-based inks

October 2015Volume 52 No. 9

Santa LucianSanta Lucia Chapter of the Sierra ClubP. O. Box 15755San Luis Obispo, CA 93406

NONPROFIT ORG.U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDPERMIT NO. 84

SAN LUIS OBISPOCA 93401

Don’t Miss:

9 a.m. Wed., Oct. 14

Quarry TrailMaintenance in

Morro Bay State Park

T h e o f f i c i a l n e w s l e t t e r o f th e S a n ta L u c i a C h a p t e r o f t h e S i e r ra C l u b ~ Sa n L u i s O b i s p o Co u n t y, C a l i f o r n i a

- page 12

On October 6, Help the CountyMake the Right Choice The deadline for SLO County todeclare if we want to participate in afeasibility study for a CommunityChoice Energy program with SantaBarbara and Ventura Counties isOctober 15. The County can be a part of the cost-sharing feasibility study, but they haveto act fast. Here’s why they should take Santa

Public pressure drove a promise toevaluate Community Choice into theCounty’s energy plan three years ago,but since then, the County has stalled. The first step to begin actively ex-ploring Community Choice Energy(also known as Community ChoiceAggregation or CCA) is to conduct afeasibility study. Sharing the cost withneighboring counties and cities is thebest way to go. The County of SantaBarbara voted to spend $400,000, and

Barbara’s offer: Community Choiceallows communities to pick theirenergy providers, increase the amountof renewable energy produced in Cali-fornia and achieve statewide emissionreduction goals. California countiesthat have implemented CommunityChoice have found that it provideslower electricity costs, rate stability,economic development and clean

Oil vs. Aquifer Last February, the state’s Division ofOil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources(DOGGR) got caught allowing oilcompanies around the state to injecttoxic oil field wastewater into pro-tected aquifers (see “Oil in YourWater,” March). Horrified by the obvious threat theyhad created to California’s ground-water supply and the health of millionsof people and the environment, themortified agency immediately issuedcease and desist orders to oil compa-nies operating 2,500+ illegal dumpingoperations, promptly bringing thedisastrous practice to a halt. Just kidding. What DOGGR really did was writeup a new “emergency rule” to inconve-nience oil companies as little as pos-sible, allowing them to keep doingwhat they’re doing for another year orso with an option to legalize the illegalpractice. If they wanted to continuedumping beyond a termination date,they could go legit by asking DOGGRto find that the protected aquifers theyare befouling are exempt from the SafeDrinking Water Act. First out of the gate to take DOGGRup on that exemption offer and poten-

tially set a precedent for the rest of thestate: Freeport McMoRan, currentproprietor of the Arroyo Grande oilfield, looking to expand productionwith 350 new oil and injection wellsand in need of an exemption to keeppumping and dumping outside theirpermitted area. DOGGR held a public

hearing on the exemption request onSeptember 21. About a hundred people showed upat the SLO Courtyard Marriott thatday, first for a rally held by The Centerfor Biological Diversity, Californians

community choice

energy jobs, in addition to reducinggreenhouse gas emissions at a fasterand steeper rate than anythinginvestor-owned utilities could offer. CHOICE continued on page 3

AQUIFER continued on page 5

Pump & dump! Ash Lauth of the Center for Biological Diversity works the crowd outsidethe SLO meeting on the proposal to exempt an aquifer from the Safe Drinking Water Act.

2 Santa Lucian • October 2015

Change of Address? Mail changes to:

or e-mail:[email protected]

Visit us onthe Web

wwwwwwwwwwwwwww.sierraclub.org.sierraclub.org.sierraclub.org.sierraclub.org.sierraclub.org/////santa-luciasanta-luciasanta-luciasanta-luciasanta-lucia

Outings, events, and more!

Andrew [email protected]

Printed by University Graphic SystemsCal Poly, San Luis Obispo. Mailingservices courtesy of Silver Streaks.

Office hours Monday-Friday,1 p.m. - 7 p.m., 974 Santa RosaStreet, San Luis Obispo

The Executive Committee meetsthe second Monday of every monthat 5:30 p.m. The ConservationCommittee meets the secondFriday at 1p.m. at the chapter office,located at 974 Santa Rosa St., SanLuis Obispo. All members arewelcome to attend.

Coordinator Kim Ramos, Admin and Development [email protected]

Santa Lucia ChapterP.O. Box 15755San Luis Obispo, CA 93406

Denny MynattPRINT MEDIA COORDINATOR

Sierra Club, PO Box 421041, Palm Coast, FL 32142-1041

2500

search: “Santa Lucia” and become our friend!

Now onFacebook

Sierra Club85 Second St., 2nd FloorSan Francisco, CA 94105-3441

Energy Task Force Karen Merriam

Intergenerational Task ForceVictoria Carranza [email protected]

by Andrew Christie, Chapter Director

How did it become socially unacceptable to defend your home? On September 6, L.A. Times columnist George Skelton provided a primeexample of the problem, urging the need to “reform” the California Environ-mental Quality Act (CEQA) and save us all from NIMBYism. The time has come to reclaim the “NIMBY” epithet. Development interests have advanced the narrative that CEQA destroys jobsand stifles economic growth because of NIMBYs. In truth, good projects thatavoid or fully mitigate their environmental impacts and are planned responsi-bly rarely run afoul of CEQA. Projectsthat ignore or mischaracterize theirimpacts, cut corners in the planningprocess, and rely on political persua-sion to get enough votes sometimeswind up in court and fare poorly there.Developers see that as untenable. Thusthe annual parade of end-of-session,project-specific CEQA exemptions thathas become a sad Sacramento traditionof late. The first two get-out-of-CEQAprojects, sports stadiums in LosAngeles, were completely exempted from the law. The fact that both projectsfell apart under their own weight anyway is a poetic irony. This year’s pro-posed CEQA exemption du jour is a blanket exemption for highway projects.This means if a highway expansion fills wetlands, paves over agricultural soilsor Native American sites, contributes to local congestion or degrades airquality, too bad. Since only NIMBYs object to such impacts, not only can wedismiss their objections, we can feel righteous in doing so. But there is inherent value and dignity in people fighting to defend the placesthey love, whether it’s the tree-lined block they live on, or the park down thestreet, or the wilderness that defines their home landscape. What’s wrong withthe idea of people fighting to protect their communities from development thatdegrades and destroys? In any context other than interfering with profits, itwould be seen as patriotic and noble. Would-be CEQA “reformers” presume the Building Industry Association, theoil industry, corporate health care industry and all the other players in theprivate sector to be the arbiters of the public good. Framing people who careenough about their home place to engage in its defense as selfish, narrow-minded elitists who won’t willingly sacrifice for the “greater good” –defined as high-rise buildings, residential subdivisions, power plants, late nightbars and other commercial developments — is a cynical PR tactic of bigbusiness, who would otherwise be seen as the Goliath to neighborhood Davids.Following the NIMBY-as-epithet logic, the only acceptable advocacy wouldbe for places we have no personal connection with. How does that make sense? Environmental advocates lose far more fights than we win. One of the thingsthat keeps me going is picturing all the other activists all over the world whomI will never meet or even hear about, knowing that they are fighting, in theirown ways, to preserve their precious little corner of the planet. It lifts my heartto be a part of this disassociated resistance to the relentless dismantling of theearth, on stages big and small. I hold to the idea that if we all do what wecan, where we are, to save what is dear to us, collectively the world will be abetter place. We need to reclaim the word NIMBY and wear it like a badge. (Think“Obamacare.”) We should plant a metaphorical flag in the ground and say,“Hell no, not in my back yard!” That’s what the communities around the borealrain forest in Canada are saying, the communities overlying the Ogalallaaquifer, and the indigenous people of the Niger Delta and the Amazon rainforest and Laguna San Ignacio. Because everywhere is somebody’s back yard.

Carve Your NIMBYName with Pride

Santa Lucian

EDITORGreg McMillanLindi DoudLinda SeeleySandy SimonEDITORIAL COMMITTEE

The Santa Lucian is published 10times a year. Articles, environmentalinformation and letters to the editor arewelcome. The deadline for each issueis the 13th of the prior month.

send to:Editor, Santa Lucianc/o Santa Lucia Chapter, Sierra ClubP.O. Box 15755San Luis Obispo, CA [email protected]

Santa Lucia Chapter

2015 Executive CommitteePatrick McGibney (12/17) CHAIRLinda Seeley (12/17) SECRETARYPat Veesart (12/16) MEMBERLindi Doud (12/17) MEMBERGreg McMillan (12/16) MEMBEREmily Miggins (12/15) MEMBERKaren Merriam (12/15) MEMBER

Greg McMillan COUNCIL OF CLUB LEADERSLindi Doud, Patrick McGibney TREASURERS

Committee ChairsPolitical VacantConservation Sue HarveyDevelopment Greg McMillanNuclear Power Task Force Rochelle Becker

Climate Change Task Force Heidi Harmon [email protected]

Other Leaders

CNRCC Delegates Linda Seeley, alt: Greg McMillan John Burdett

Calendar Sales Bonnie Walters 805-543-7051Outings Joe [email protected]/Kayak openWebmaster Monica [email protected] Guide Gary Felsman

Chapter Director Andrew Christie

[email protected] Seeley [email protected]


The world’s most democratic environmental organization (us)needs you! Yes, Santa Lucia Chapter member, you can run for ExecutiveCommittee and have a say in decision-making in the Sierra Club asan elected Club leader. The ExCom is an administrative body; we need peoplewho can take minutes, organize committees, inspire participation and/or organizemembers. Conservationists are welcome, but the Chapter also needs volunteerswho like to handle the needs common to all organizations. If you have some timeand would like to help this great organization, please volunteer to run for a seaton the ExCom. Each winning candidate will be elected to a three-year term. TheExecutive Committee meets monthly at the Chapter office in SLO. You may nominate yourself or suggest anyone else to any member of thecommittee. Members may also run by petition, signed by 25 members of theChapter in good standing. Nominations will be accepted for review and evalua-tion until 5 p.m. Friday, October 16. You may submit nominations to [email protected] or Sierra Club, P.O.Box 15755, San Luis Obispo, CA 934304.

the City of Santa Barbara added$50,000, to conduct the study. VenturaCounty has voted to join with $50,000. The county and the cities within SanLuis Obispo are invited to participatein the technical study to find out ifCommunity Choice Energy is feasibleand will work for our residents andbusinesses. If SLO County joins thiscost-sharing feasibility study, we cansave money and start the explorationprocess. Our neighbors to the north —Monterey, Santa Cruz and San Benitocounties — will be completing theirjoint technical feasibility study by theend of the year. Santa Barbara andVentura counties have committed tojoin together in this feasibility studyopportunity. San Luis Obispo is cur-rently the only Central Coast countynot taking any action to exploreCommunity Choice Energy. At the supervisors’ July 14 meeting,SLO Clean Energy alerted the Board tothe offer and its original deadline: Sep-

Choicecontinued from page 1

tember 1. The supervisors directedstaff to look into it and report back tothe Board. The deadline came and went with noreport and no action by the Board. Thelast chance is coming up. If SLOCounty is to move down the road toCommunity Choice Energy, it has toact now. The SLO Supervisors have tenta-tively scheduled for October 6 discus-sion of participation with Santa

The Long & Winding Road toCommunity Choice Energy

October 2006: From “We’ve Gotthe Power” San Luis Obispo is the site of “SmartEnergy Solutions: It’s Our Choice,” aregional community summit at the SLOVets Hall on October 10, a day ofpanels, booths and presentationscovering the range of possibilities forthe central coast’s transition to a cleanenergy economy…. 12:30 p.m. - 1:30p.m. Lunch Keynote: It’s Our Choice –Paul Fenn, author of California’s 2002Community Choice law, San FranciscoSolar Power Facility proposal, andEnergy Independence Ordinance.

November 2006: From “You HaveFive Years: Landmark SLOenergy summit opens window of

opportunity on CommunityChoice” Fenn, the author of San Francisco’sSolar Power Facility proposal – thenation’s largest – and of the bill thatbecame California’s CommunityChoice law in 2002, introducedSummit attendees to the concept ofcommunity choice aggregation (CCA),which allows communities to combinetheir energy-buying purchase powerand put out competitive bids to buy upto 100 percent green power while alsogetting much better rates from provid-ers as a public entity than privateentities. CCA, in addition to meaninggreener power, offers a set contractwith a reliable rate structure withpurchasers not at the mercy of steep

Assembly Bill 117 establishing Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) waspassed in 2002, giving California cities and counties the ability to break with themonopoly private utilities and purchase clean power for their citizens. It’s beenan uphill battle ever since, but lately, the forces of local clean energy have beenwinning. As it prepares to deliberate on whether to take up Santa Barbara County’s offerto participate in a joint feasibility study for a Community Choice energy pro-gram, the SLO County Board of Supervisors is in a position to make a down pay-ment on the kind of spectacular results Marin and Sonoma Counties haveachieved with Community Choice. Come with us on a stroll through the past decade of struggle over CommunityChoice in California, via the archives of the Santa Lucian, for a picture of thestate of play on CCA -- what has all led up to this moment for SLO county.

To send a message to all the Supervi-sors, go to http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/bos/BOSContactUs.htm. Ask them to explore CommunityChoice Energy now. Your message canbe this simple:

Dear Supervisor _____ ,Please explore Community ChoiceEnergy. Please act now to join thecost-sharing feasibility study opportu-nity with the counties of SantaBarbara and Ventura.

Feel free to add any of the benefits of alocal clean energy program: Choice & Competition Long Term Electrical Rate Stability Local Control & Accountability Local Jobs and a Strong Economy Clean Energy & Local Self-Reliance

CHOICE continued on page 8

The longer theCounty waits to makea decision, the moremoney you’re payingon your electric bill.

Call for Candidates

Barbara and Ventura counties as thefirst step to explore Community ChoiceEnergy. As we go to press, the agendahas not been confirmed, but as youread this, it should be. Go to: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/bos/BOSagenda.htm. Pending that confirmation, everyoneneeds to show up and speak out at thismeeting. The Supervisors need to hearhow important Community ChoiceEnergy is for everyone (truly, everysingle person) in our community. If you absolutely can’t make it to themeeting, email your Supervisor rightnow:

price jumps…. In response to aquestion from theaudience, Fennallowed that a CCAprogram of greenpower and energyefficiency couldsatisfy the energy needs currently metby the Diablo Canyon nuclear powerplant, provide more jobs, and cut thehard costs paid by ratepayers but whichefficiency programs avoid. As far asthe environmental benefits of CCA, itwould “probably be the best thing tohappen to the environment in thiscommunity in 100 years,” he said.

March 2007: From “CCA is Onthe Way- Community Choice iscatching fire in California” Marin County and its cities areactively studying setting up a joint-powers authority to implement thisprocedure of “Community ChoiceAggregation” (CCA). That way Marincould get more than half its electricityfrom clean, renewable, environmen-tally preferred sources while meetingor beating PG&E’s rates…. Is there arisk in CCA? Robert Freehling of the

Sierra Club California Energy andClimate Change Committee reversesthe question: how big a risk is it to staywith PG&E? The energy “crisis” ofEnron days, says Freehling, was causedby over-reliance on one form ofenergy, natural gas. PG&E still gets 40to 50% of its electricity from importednatural gas. Freehling says the price ofphotovoltaic solar energy “has comedown a lot” in the past few decades,while the price of PG&E’s electricityhas gone up about 4% a year since1980. So “in looking at risk, it’simportant to look at the consequencesof staying where you are.”

March 2007: From “Our EnergyFuture is Here” SEA Change is a remarkable co-alition working to bring together local

Supervisor Frank Mecham - [email protected] Supervisor Bruce Gibson - [email protected] Supervisor Adam Hill - [email protected] Supervisor Lynn Compton - [email protected] Supervisor Debbie Arnold - [email protected]

This is it. The longer we wait, themore we miss out -- on cost savings,greenhouse gas reduction, and reinvest-ing in the local economy. SonomaClean Power saved their residents andbusinesses $13.6 million after their firstyear of operation. We need to have the ability to make achoice if we want to create a betterfuture.


CanThisBasinbeSaved? This month, a superior court judge isexpected to review and approve theBasin Plan prepared by the parties tothe adjudication of the Los OsosGroundwater Basin. The draft plan was prepared by thethree water purveyors over the LosOsos basin: Los Osos CommunityServices District, Golden State WaterCompany and S&T Mutual WaterCompany, along with the County ofSan Luis Obispo, as part of theadjudication of groundwater resources. The Los Osos Basin Plan is intendedto be a comprehensive “physicalsolution” to the overdraft of this “highpriority” endangered groundwaterbasin. But the evidence, includingreports prepared by the County’s ownretained experts, demonstrates that theBasin Plan is unlikely to adequatelyprotect the Los Osos Basin from therapid advancement of seawater. Serious technical problems continueto plague the Basin Plan, including afailure to acknowledge or calculate theuncertainty factor inherent in utilizingcomputer models to predict seawaterintrusion and the effectiveness of theproposed relocation of drinking waterwells. (See “Chapter Submits Com-ments on Los Osos Basin Plan,” July).Other issues include a failure tomaximize the effectiveness of waterconservation programs, inadequatemonitoring, and a failure to considerthe environmental impacts of the BasinPlan Before the County and the Los OsosCSD formally adopt the Basin Plan,the County as the lead agency shouldundertake meaningful review of thepotential impacts of the Basin Plan,including a discussion of feasiblemitigation measures and alternatives toaddress any impacts deemed to bepotentially significant. The most important stated goals ofthe Plan are (1) to halt seawaterintrusion into the Basin and (2) toprovide sustainable water supplies forexisting and future residential, com-mercial, institutional, recreational andagricultural development within LosOsos. Unbridled residential and commer-

cial development in Los Osos hasresulted in groundwater extractionsthat exceed the sustainable yield of theBasin. According to the Plan, this isespecially true in the Lower Aquifer inthe Western Area, where fallinggroundwater levels induced intrusionof seawater into the Basin. Seawaterintrusion can irreparably damage theaquifer as a source of water suppliesfor Los Osos. According to the Plan, it “analyzesseven potential programs of action,each of which focuses on a differentaspect of Basin management.” Someprograms are intended to reducedemand, while others are intended toincrease sustainable yield. Someprograms, such as the “Water Reinvest-ment Program and Supplemental WaterProgram,” are described as hybrids,with both demand- and supply-sideimpacts. The Basin Plan expects thatimplementation of these programswould achieve a sustainable Basin. The Water Reinvestment Programcalls for “reinvesting all water col-lected and treated by the LOWWP inthe Basin, either through directpercolation to the aquifers or reuse.”This program promotes the reuse of alltreated wastewater from the LOWWPfor the benefit of the Basin, specifi-cally for discharge at the Brodersonand Bayridge Estates leach fields,urban reuse at various locations, andagricultural reuse in the Eastern Area. However, at full buildout, Los Ososwould generate approximately anadditional 340 AFY wastewater, all ofwhich has been designated for agricul-tural use.

Basin Infrastructure Programs areintended to transfer groundwaterproduction from the Lower Aquifer tothe Upper Aquifer and shift someproduction from the Western Arealandward into the Central and EasternAreas. This shift is intended to increasemaximum groundwater productionfrom the Central and Eastern Areas,increasing the sustainable yield. It is clear that the implementation ofthese programs is capable of causingsignificant impacts on the environment.The Water Reinvestment Programwould result in additional waterremoved from the aquifer but reused inagriculture, with unknown return to theaquifer. The net loss of water to theaquifer is capable of causing a signifi-cant impact, including increasing therate of seawater intrusion. The most critical aspects of the BasinPlan are the Infrastructure Programs,which would relocate the community’sdrinking water wells and shift theimpact of such extraction from thelower aquifer to the upper and moreinland. The Basin Plan calls for three newwater supply wells east of Los OsosValley Creek. New pipelines would berequired to connect the wells to theexisting Los Osos Valley Road main,with lengths of approximately 1,500feet, 2,500 feet and 5,000 feet. The Basin Plan does not discuss theenvironmental impacts of the construc-tion of new wells, the expansion ofexisting wells, or the construction ofthe necessary pipelines. The newproposed wells can have adverseimpacts on sensitive habitat and relatedspecies, including the riparian habitaton Willow and Los Osos Creeks. The Basin Plan itself estimates thatthe relocation of wells would stop theflow of 220 AFY of groundwater toWillow Creek, which supplies LosOsos Creek.

Uncertainty and future mitigation The Basin Plan vaguely admits thatthe models on which it relies areinherently uncertain, but does notadequately quantify the uncertainty ordiscuss the potential environmental

impacts of the inherent uncertainty.Likewise, the Basin Plan fails to definethe type of mitigation measures neededto address the potential uncertainty. The Basin Plan states:

The Model assumes that a given set ofconditions persists over time, withoutchanging. This obscures potentialdrought impacts and precludesevaluating seasonal Basin manage-ment strategies. Use of the steady statemodel may also lead to a more limitedunderstanding of the advance orretreat of the seawater-freshwaterinterface…. Depending on the extentto which any of the uncertaintiesdescribed above are realized andimpact Basin supply and demand,additional actions may need to betaken in the future to secure a reliablewater supply for the Basin.

The type of rigorous analysisrequired under the California Environ-mental Quality Act would ensure thatthe impacts of the uncertainty arebetter understood and well-defined andpredictable mitigation measures are inplace to ensure that circumstances suchas a prolonged drought, climate changeand sea level rise are adequatelyaddressed in order to avoid or at leastminimize impacts to biologicalresources or to the Basin itself becauseof accelerated levels of sea waterintrusion. Because approval of the Basin Planis patently capable of resulting insignificant environmental impacts, itshould have been thoroughly vettedand rigorously analyzed before thecourt approves it, along with ananalysis of all potentially feasiblemitigation measures and alternativesthat could achieve most of the Project’sbasic objective, which ought to beelimination of the threat of salt waterintrusion and nitrate pollution, notenabling “future residential, commer-cial, institutional, recreational andagricultural development.” The failure of the County to conducta thorough environmental analysis ofthe Basin Plan does not bode well forthe Basin.

Clea

th &

Ass

ocia

tes/

Keith

Wim

er, L

OSG

Love Nature? Live in Nature!Custom built, lovingly cared for home in Lopez Canyon. Rusticredwood exterior, elegant interior with lots of mahogany cabinetryand trim. 32 acres of California as it was with towering sycamores,magnificent oaks, lots of spring wildflowers, and lovely garden.Seasonal spring and stream. Plentiful private well-water. Backs intoNational Forest with Santa Lucia Wilderness and Lopez Lakenearby. Animals and birds galore. Hiking and riding trails abound.Nearest neighbors a quarter mile away. Yet only 25 minutes fromdowntown San Luis Obispo, Arroyo Grande, French Hospital, andthe SLO airport. Contact Byron Grant at Century 21 HometownRealty. (805)481-4297.


Against Fracking, SLO Clean WaterAction, the Santa Lucia Chapter of theSierra Club, and SLO 350 to call onGovernor Brown and his regulators toprotect our water and deny the applica-tion. Then we went inside to testifyagainst the plan. To get their exemption, FreeportMcMoRan must prove that the aquiferexemption and wastewater injection

will not harm other water that is usedfor drinking, agriculture, and otherdomestic and beneficial uses. Local residents and representativesfrom the Center for Biological Diver-sity, Sierra Club, Clean Water Actionand the Natural Resources DefenseCouncil pointed out that FreeportMcMoRan’s application does not,among other failings: evaluate the impacts of earthquakes(including those that could be causedby wastewater injection) and their

Aquifercontinued from page 1

The Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club are suing the Division ofOil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources for continuing to permit oil companies toinject waste fluids into California’s protected aquifers. State and federal laws safeguarding our dwindling supply of water resources aredesigned to prevent damage before it occurs. Strict adherence to these laws iscrucial in dire circumstances like the current drought, in which the governor hasdeclared California’s first-ever mandatory water use restrictions. DOGGR admits that for years it has improperly allowed thousands of wells toinject oil wastewater into protected aquifers in violation of the law. Rather thanhalting the illegal activity, DOGGR has promulgated a new set of “emergency”rules that allow ongoing illegal injections. These rules turn the definition andpurpose of a public emergency upside down. Per state statutes, emergency rulemaking applies in a situation that calls forimmediate action to avoid serious harm to the public peace, health, safety orgeneral welfare. A finding of emergency may not be based on expediency,convenience, best interest, general public need, or speculation. DOGGR offered two rationales for its emergency rulemaking. First, thatfailure to phase out illegal injections by the stated compliance deadlines “wouldseriously jeopardize the federal government’s ongoing approval of the State’sUIC Program;” and second, “codification of the compliance schedule as anemergency regulation will provide the level of certainty operators need in order to revise their business plans.” A regulation is invalid if the agency’s determination that the regulation isnecessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute is not supported bysubstantial evidence. We have pointed out that DOGGR has not providedsubstantial evidence of the existence of an “emergency” as defined by statelaw or shown that these regulations address such an emergency, therefore theemergency regulations are contrary to state and federal law. The emergency here -- one might think -- is the ongoing contamination ofCalifornia’s underground water supply. DOGGR’s promulgation of theAquifer Exemption Compliance Schedule Regulations continues to harm thepublic because it continues the illegal authorization of oil wastewater injectioninto protected aquifers. But neither of DOGGR’s stated reasons for emergencyrulemaking addresses or concerns public welfare, health or safety. Last March, the Chief Deputy of the State Water Board testified that ongoingClass II well injections were contaminating the receiving aquifers (“Any injection into the aquifers that are not exempt has contaminated those aquifers . . . .What we found is that the aquifer, no surprise, has the material that was injected into it.”) State legislators wrote to the governor, “Testimony at the hearing in conjunctionwith a recent report by CalEPA revealed that California’s [Underground InjectionControl] program is broken and the state’s groundwater resources are not beingadequately protected. There have been decades of poor data management, lax andeffectively incompetent oversight and implementation of UIC permittingand egregious administrative confusion by DOGGR and US EPA” (Cal. Legisla-ture Letter to Gov. E. Brown (March 20, 2015). The legislators requested that immediate steps be taken to stop illegal injectioninto protected aquifers. Instead of ordering the immediate cessation of all currentillegal injections, on April 2, DOGGR proposed emergency “Aquifer ExemptionCompliance Schedule Regulations” to allow the illegal injections to continue. That’s why we’re suing them.

potential to alter groundwater flow,causing water from the contaminatedaquifer to flow into groundwatersources currently tapped by more than100 private wells in the vicinity provide an analysis of the chemicalcomposition of the wastewater injectedback into the aquifer mention those plans to dramaticallyexpand operations in this oil field withup to a ten-fold increase in daily oilproduction that would likely also resultin a major increase in wastewater

production, and no analysis of whatwill happen to the aquifer if thatexpansion proceeds— includingpossible changes in pressure, thepotential for inducing fractures,chemicals that will be used, etc. Center for Biological Diversityattorney Maya Golden-Krasnersummed up the basic problem, saying“making legal what is currently illegalis not the way to proceed.” There was no word on when stateregulators might render their decision.

Are we exempt yet? A State Water Board official walks residents through the process atthe September 21 DOGGR hearing in SLO.

Why We’re Suing DOGGR

Morro Bay Takes a StepToward SanctuaryNational marine sanctuary opponents lose local stronghold

Once, the City of Morro Bay couldbe counted on to churn out resolutionsof opposition to the formation of anational marine sanctuary like theKeebler elves make cookies. For years,the perpetually regulation-averseMorro Bay Commercial FishingOrganization had only to flex its pinkyfinger whenever it wanted a city coun-cil majority to fall in line and draftanother wildly inaccurate testament tofear-mongering as an official resolutionagainst the imagined horrors ofnational marine sanctuaries. Until the night of September 22. The National Oceanic and Atmos-pheric Administration (NOAA) is due

to decide to accept or reject thenomination of the Chumash HeritageNational Marine Sanctuary in earlyOctober. Seeking to beat the deadline,sanctuary foes hastily arranged for theMorro Bay Harbor Advisory Board todeliberate on the sanctuary at theirSeptember 15 meeting so that arecommendation could be agendizedfor the City Council meeting thefollowing week. The harbor board, completely in thecontrol of commercial fishing interests,was a slam dunk, predictably passingalong a unanimous recommendation

SANCTUARY continued on page 9


Earthjustice

South County Grapples with Oil-by-RailPhillip 66 rail spurproject gets no love inPismo, Grover Beach,Arroyo Grande

It can’t happen here? For oil trains’ burgeoning accident rate, go to Earthjustice.org/features/map-crude-by-rail.

Coastal Commission May Decide the Fate of Seaworld’s Orcas

Sept. 22, 2015

Dear Chairman Kinsey and CoastalCommissioners

The signatories to this letter repre-sent non-profit NGOs, foundations,and advocacy organizations dedicatedto environmental conservation andrestoration, animal welfare, socialjustice and coastal protection. We areprofoundly concerned about the plightof captive orcas around the world,including those at SeaWorld’s SanDiego facility. We are writing toexpress our support for the Commis-sion to condition any permit that itapproves for Sea World’s Blue Worldproject to prohibit the breeding oforcas and the transfer of any whales toanywhere but a sea pen sanctuary.

In order to ensure that the orcasactually benefit from the expansion ofthe tanks, it is critical that the expan-sion is only allowed for the orcas whoare currently housed at SeaWorldrather than a blanket permit that wouldallow SeaWorld to breed and ware-house even more orcas, therebydefeating any benefit of the new tank.The capture, keeping and breeding oforcas in captivity for the purpose ofproviding entertainment is totallyinconsistent with the Commission’smandate under the Coastal Act tomaintain, enhance and restore andprotect marine resources and to pro-vide special protection to species ofspecial biological significance, whichorcas most certainly are. This Commission has a long historyof concern for and protection of whalesand other marine mammals. On theother hand, SeaWorld has a longhistory of confining these highlyintelligent, social animals in concreteenclosures, utterly devoid of natural

features, and handling them in waysthat are detrimental to their health, allthe while justifying their exploitationunder the guise of public education.However, because these orcas areforced to live in such unnatural con-ditions and are deprived of the abilityto engage in normal, species-specificbehaviors, the audiences for whomthey perform walk away with no realeducation about true orca behavior. Webelieve the Commission must take ahard look at SeaWorld’s proposal andunderstand it for what it really is. If theCommission does this it can come toonly one conclusion, that in the 21stcentury this practice must end. This proposal does not genuinelyimprove or enlarge the “habitat” forSeaWorld’s orcas because a concretetank, no matter what the size, cannot beconsidered to be “habitat.” The newtank is a viewing tank, connected to theexisting Shamu Stadium complexthrough a short, narrow channel that isgated at either end. SeaWorld will

retain most of the existing tanks andtrain the whales to transit through thischannel, into the larger tank forviewing by the public. This means thatthe new tank will be accessible to thewhales only at management’s discre-tion; in short, it will be available tosome of the whales only some of thetime. Regardless of how large the tanksare, the proposed tanks will still beorders of magnitude smaller than anorca’s natural home range. Moreover,if the purpose of the SeaWorld expan-sion is to breed or otherwise acquireadditional orcas, it will negate anyminimal benefit that might be servedby providing a larger viewing tank. A growing number of marinemammal experts recognize that orcassuffer unconscionably in captivity, andthe practice of display for humanentertainment should be phased out.That currently most of SeaWorld’sorcas were bred in captivity does not

ORCAS continued on page 10

On October 8, the California CoastalCommission will hear a request bySeaWorld for a permit to expand theirfacilities for captive orcas.

Three South County communitiesthat had previously taken no positionon the Phillips 66 refinery rail spurproject finally broke their silence lastmonth. (See Santa Lucia Chapter blogposts at www.sierraclub.org/santa-lucia/santa-lucia-blog, “When DoesSilence Become Scandal?” and“Cracks in the Cone of Silence.”) Take a bow, all you Pismo Beach,Grover Beach and Arroyo GrandeSierra Club members who respondedto our e-mail alerts and urged your citycouncilmembers to take action, and allthose who trooped up the microphonefor the public comment period at mul-tiple council meetings over severalmonths, finally forcing the threecouncils to agendize the Phillips 66project. And, of course, the work of citizensdidn’t stop there, because what actuallygot placed on the agendas of all threecouncils was very weak beer. All madean attempt to shift the focus from theimpacts of the Phillips 66 oil-by-railproject to a vague, pointless dis-cussion of national rail safety rules. Wepointed out two problems with thatstrategy: 1) urging the feds to streng-then the rules for the transport of high-hazard crude oil is only an issue oflocal concern if such a hazardous oiltrain project has been permitted andthose trains are already here, and 2) theopportunity to send letters urging thefeds to strengthen those safety mea-sures ended last May when the Depart-ment of Transportation issued the newrule, hence a proposal to send such aletter now is more than four months toolate. The councils also proposed to sendletters to the County Planning Com-

mission citing concerns about thePhillips 66 project but did not includeanything resembling a request for aspecific action. The public wasn’t having it, andneither were we and the groups wework with in the protectslo.orgmovement. The Sierra Club pointedout to the Pismo Beach City Council attheir September 15 meeting that if theostensible subject of a letter addressedto the County Planning Commission is“heighten[ed] concerns about railsafety and adverse environmentalimpacts among many of our citizens,”such a letter should logically concludewith a discernible request for actioninstead of the inscrutable text thatconcluded the City’s draft letter: “Wewould appreciate the Planning Com-missions [sic] consideration in review-ing the rail safety issues.” What kind of consideration? And didthe Pismo Beach City Council seri-ously think the County PlanningCommission is likely to overlook the

project’s safety issues in the course ofreviewing the project unless the Citysent them a reminder to take a look? At the insistence of CouncilwomanSheila Blake, Pismo’s letter grew teeth.The council agreed to strike the mean-ingless concluding sentence and takean approach suggested by the SierraClub. The letter they sent said: “Wewould like to add our opposition to theproposed project along with the largenumber of cities citing the 11 Class 1environmental impacts unless thoseimpacts can be mitigated.” Grover Beach and Arroyo Grandewere up next, with back-to-back citycouncil meetings on September 21 and22. Again, the “federal rail safety”diversion attempt failed at both coun-cils. Phillips 66 brought out more thanforty employees in green t-shirts to theGrover Beach City Council, represent-ing Phillips’ new “Protect SLO Jobs”p.r. campaign (an attempt at a riff on“Protect SLO”). They all repeated theline that Phillips 66 has a great safety

record, jobs allegedly at risk, etc. The city council saw through it, wentbeyond their staff’s recommendation tosend a weak rail safety letter to thefeds, and voted to formally oppose theproject. We have no doubt that the Phillips 66machine went into high gear after theirunexpected trouncing in Grover Beachand poured it on behind the scenes totry to pull out a win in Arroyo Grande. It availed them not. The council notonly refused to support the project,they nearly sent the County a letter ofopposition, a motion that lost on 3-2vote. The A.G. Council could havegone along with the Arroyo Grande-Grover Beach Chamber of Commerce,the only notable entity in the Countythat has gone on record in support ofthe project. But the Council broke withthe Chamber, a testament to the powerof the protectslo.org movement andthe degree to which the word haspenetrated on the extreme undesirabil-ity of this project.


September 2, 2015Los Angeles City Council

RESOLVE that the City of LosAngeles include in its 2015-16Legislative Advocacy ProgramSUPPORT for administrativeaction URGING the San LuisObispo Planning Commissionto DENY APPROVAL of thePhillips 66 facility expansionproject, inasmuch as it is fartoo dangerous for public safetyand presents far too manyenvironmental risks. Final vote: 15-0

WellThatSeemsClear

Phillips 66 projectproponents make muchof the safety record ofUnion Pacific. But themath is against them: Asoil-by-rail traffic has goneup, the number ofaccidents goes up.

“The serious safety issues raised by this project require that the county’s planning commissionand board of supervisors insist upon full and enforceable mitigation of these risks beforeapproving the project. We say ‘enforceable’ because it is unclear that county authorities canrequire structural studies of and upgrades to infrastructure or enforce speed limits on trainscoming through our county. If county officials cannot enforce mitigation of the dangers thisproject presents to our communities, they should not approve the project.”

- The League of Women Voters of San Luis Obispo County

protectslo.org

SLO County’s Community Advisory Councils are authorized to represent theircommunities in the county’s unincorporated areas by the Board of Supervisors. Theyprovide feedback and recommendations on current and future planning matters in theunincorporated areas to the Supervisors, the Planning Commission and the Depart-ment of Planning and Building. Each council makes its recommendations based on the wishes of the community.They are the link between the community and the decision-makers in the unincorpo-rated areas. There are eleven Board-recognized Community Advisory Councils in San LuisObispo County. Your council’s agenda can be found on its website, in the localnewspaper, at the post office, the community meeting room or on a general commu-nity information kiosk. Do you want help asking your council to put the Phillips 66 rail spur project on itsagenda? Drop us a note at [email protected].


governments, the private sector and thegeneral public in San Luis ObispoCounty to promote public awarenessand implement “best practices” in thegeneration, distribution and use ofenergy. The Chapter is a founding organiza-tion of the Alliance, which includes theSan Luis Obispo Chamber of Com-merce, ECOSLO, the county AirPollution Control District, CoastNational Bank, SLO Green Build,Cienaga Energy Systems, Cal Poly, theHome Builders Association, andPG&E. Last year, we held a Smart EnergySolutions Summit, introducing theconcept of “Community ChoiceAggregation” or CCA.

June 2008: From “San JoaquinSettlement-PG&E must cool it onCCA”

(reprinted from Power Connections,Mar.-Apr. 2008, Kings River Conser-vation District.) On April 10, the San Joaquin ValleyPower Authority (SJVPA) and PacificGas and Electric Company (PG&E)jointly filed a settlement agreementwith the California Public UtilitiesCommission (CPUC). The agreementrepresents a proposed settlement of thecomplaint filed by the SJVPA in June2007 regarding PG&E’s marketingconduct against SJVPA’s communitychoice aggregation program…. “Thesettlement agreement is in the bestinterest for the customers that we seekto serve and the communities that werepresent,” stated SJVPA Chair TomHaglund. “It acknowledges that PG&Ehas changed its position from neutralityto one of opposition and thereforeestablishes rules of conduct that mustbe followed as we move forward….Without the interim code of conductthat the settlement provides, PG&Ewould be able to use its inherentadvantages as a monopoly utilityto unfairly market against the SJVPAwithout properly identifying that itsstrategy is one of serving its share-holders. Without the agreement,PG&E’s activities would continue todisrupt the implementation of theSJVPA program. It gives the SJVPAthe ability to move forward withbringing the benefits of CommunityChoice to customers and othercities and counties.”

July 2009: From “Got CleanPower if You Want It”Dave Erickson, Senior CarbonAnalyst for Local Power Inc., a BayArea energy consulting firm, was inSLO at the invitation of the SantaLucia Chapter. We offered to put himup for a week on our nickel, proposing

that he address several groups oflocal elected officials, planners andmanagers on the recently completedSonoma Climate Action Plan, themost ambitious plan to cut carbonemissions to be proposed by anycounty in the United States…. “We’reusing community choice to achieve thenation’s most ambitious greenhousegas reduction,” said Erickson, “butSonoma could just as easily havecalled our climate action plan a jobsplan, or a green economic recoveryplan, or an energy independence plan.”

September 2009: From“Localize It” In the course of a 15 minutePowerpoint presentation at the Boardof Supervisors on July 21, Sierra Clubinterns Chad Worth and Nancy Colesummed up what the Santa LuciaChapter found over the course of fourenergy town halls that we conductedacross the county over the last sixmonths, attended by hundreds of

local residents:When it came toenergy generation,“Localize” was amain theme thatemerged. … Townhall participants

nity to give it to them.

October 2009: From “The PG&EPlan: Trick the Voters and MakeThem Cry” PG&E, which provides electricity toabout three quarters of NorthernCalifornia, has put $750,000 intosignature gathering for a statewideballot measure that is likely to be upfor a vote next June.… If it passes, thereferendum would amend California’sConstitution so that communities thatwish to give consumers an alternativeto investor-owned utilities wouldfirst need two-thirds approval fromvoters. Why two-thirds? Well, you need atwo-thirds vote to raise taxes inCalifornia. PG&E is trying to trickvoters into thinking that this is abouttaxes and taxpayers, when in fact it isabout choice of energyservice…. The targets ofthis measure are municipalutilities and a program thatmost Californians haveprobably never heardabout: Community Choice…. Representatives ofCommunity Choiceprograms in Marin, SanFrancisco and San JoaquinValley have objected toPG&E’s strong-arm tactics.San Francisco SupervisorRoss Mirkarimi called thestate ballot initiative“PG&E’s deceptive act tokill its competition and

subvert any California city’s right tochart its path toward energy indepen-dence.” Marin County SupervisorCharles McGlashan called it, “acynical attempt to gum up the worksfor everyone who competes with thesemonopolies….” PG&E’s ballotinitiative makes a mockery of its self-proclaimed leadership in clean energyand climate protection, places corpo-rate interest above the public good, andmakes it more difficult to confrontglobal climate change.

May 2010: From “Vote NO onProposition 16” Even by the historical standards ofpernicious, deceitful ballot initiativespowered by geysers of special interestcash and designed to shaft the public,Prop. 16 is something special. KerstenCommunications, a public policyresearch group, has pegged Prop. 16 asan attempt by PG&E “to use theCalifornia initiative process to furthersolidify their monopoly of regionalelectricity markets and advance theirown narrow corporate interests at theexpense of all Californians.” PG&E isprepared to spend $35 million to killany chance for new public powerprograms that can reduce the cost ofrenewable energy and allow localgovernments to meet goals forrenewables, air pollution control,carbon reduction and energy security,and save millions on utility bills.

July 2010: From “The UsefulDeath of Prop. 16” Proposition 16 went down to defeatat the polls on June 8, despite PG&E’sspending some $46 million to pass it,outspending the opposition by morethan 500 to 1. Californians sent amessage that our constitution is not forsale to corporations. The defeat ofPG&E’s naked power grab is a victoryfor democracy and clean energy.Despite the utility’s ubiquitous decep-tive advertising, voters saw through thelies and rejected the brazen effort byPG&E to eliminate competition.PG&E’s customers in Northern Cali-fornia and the Central Valley, whoknow the utility best, rejected thepower grab resoundingly, with SanLuis Obispo County also registeringstrongly in the “no” column….Paradoxically, PG&E’s strategy hasnow backfired — the Prop 16 ballotbattle has worked in favor of Commu-nity Choice: people throughoutCalifornia now are aware as neverbefore of CCA’s potential benefits. TheSierra Club can now help many ofthem to consider moving to operation-alize CCAs locally and regionally.

June 2011: From “The ClimateAction Plan is Missing Some-thing”

One year ago, Marin County flippedthe switch on cleaner, greener, non-polluting energy with a plan calledCommunity Choice. Already, MarinClean Energy customers are reducingannual greenhouse gas emissions byapproximately 70,000 tons, theequivalent of removing nearly 12,000cars from the road each year. Andanyone living in the Marin CleanEnergy service area can sign up for“Deep Green:” 100% renewableenergy for an extra $10 a month. InMarch, Marin exceeded the state law toprocure 20% renewable energyresources for their customers, rackingup 27% of all energy deliveries comingfrom renewable resources. Those are the results of this policy inless than a year. Need we say more? Apparently, yes. San Luis ObispoCounty completed the comment periodfor the Public Review Draft of itsClimate Action Plan, the county-wideblueprint for significantly reducinglocal greenhouse gas emissions, onJune 3. In our comments, the Chapterpointed out that the Climate ActionPlan does not include consideration ofCommunity Choice, and it should…. In2008, the San Luis Obispo Council ofGovernments directed staff to gatherinformation on a feasibility study for aCCA program. In June 2009, county supervisors,planners and city managers attendedthe Sierra Club’s Energy Town Hall inGrover Beach, where they met withSonoma County Climate Action Plandirector Dave Erikson and learnedabout Sonoma’s blueprint for initiatinga Community Choice program toexercise local control in choosing theirown energy provider and service rateswhile increasing their portion of non-pollution renewable energy andachieving the most ambitious green-house gas reduction in the nation. At the Climate Change AdaptationWorkshop held in SLO last July by theLocal Government Commission,Community Choice was one of the topfive recommended priority measuresfor the County and was included inthe LGC’s November 2010 finalreport…. Also last year, the update ofthe County’s Conservation and OpenSpace Element (COSE) includedPolicy E 1.2: “Assert more localcontrol of energy decisions andsources.” This is to be achieved via theimplementation of “Strategy E 1.2.1 -Evaluate Community Choice Aggrega-tion to determine whether it would be acost-effective and low-risk strategyto increase use of renewable energyand realize a low-carbon, local energyportfolio….” Yet, with all this encouragement,Community Choice is mystifyinglyabsent from the Public Review Draft ofthe San Luis Obispo County ClimateAction Plan.

October 2011: From “You’veCome a Long Way, CCA” In the first meeting of the SEAChange coalition after [the SLOEnergy Summit in October 2006], thePG&E representative, who had beenrather disengaged up to that point, be-came vocally disruptive, vehementlycomplaining that she had somehow notbeen kept informed or allowed to fullyparticipate in the planning of the con-ference or been made fully aware ofthe conference agenda. She insistedthat CCA never again be a topic at anyfuture public meeting sponsored by

Choicecontinued from page 3

CHOICE continued on next page

told us of the“need to look inbefore lookingout,” said Worth.“House by house,block by block,neighborhood byneighborhood... Itwas very much‘let’s to it here, do

it in our back yard, do it our way.’ Thatspeaks for an overall theme of keepingit locally distributed….” For the last six months, the residentsof this county have been telling us thatthis is the energy future they want. OurCounty Supervisors have the opportu-


SEA Change, and that the formation ofa CCA be eliminated as a policy goalof the coalition…. From that day for-ward, CCA was never again discussedat any coalition meeting, and was neverallowed to be a topic as a sponsoredevent, let alone advocated as a meansby which our community can chooseour own electric provider and sourcesof electricity. Let’s underscore this point: theexistence of a state law, passed withthe intention of allowing communitieslike ours to increase the amount ofrenewable energy produced in Califor-nia and achieve statewide greenhousegas emission reduction goals, could notbe mentioned. Uttering the words“CCA,” “Community Choice,” or “AB117” was forbidden by PG&E.

November 2012: From “CCAMakes Hay” This year’s Central Coast BioneersConference, convened at SLO’sMonday Club over the weekend ofOctober 19, was host to a powerhousepanel on Community Choice Aggrega-tion (CCA)…. Andrew Christie,director of the Santa Lucia Chapter ofthe Sierra Club, was joined on thepanel by Paul Fenn, the father ofCommunity Choice and author ofCalifornia’s CCA legislation andsimilar bills across the country over thelast twenty years; Sean Marshall ofLEAN (Local Energy AggregationNetwork) and a board member of theMarin Energy Authority, the firstoperational CCA program in Califor-nia; and Lane Sharman, co-founder ofthe San Diego Energy District Founda-tion, which has the goal of forminglocal energy cooperatives in SanDiego…. Christie concluded with a whirlwindtour through the last six years of theSanta Lucia Chapter’s CCA activism, acampaign that introduced localresidents to the concept and succeededin getting the evaluation of CCAprograms written into the County’sGeneral Plan update and the ClimateAction Plans for both the City andCounty of San Luis Obispo.

June 2013: From “Taking Issue:PG&E Files to Lobby AgainstStart-ups” [PG&E states that it “expects that atsome time it will wish to express tocustomers or governments its views onCommunity Choice programs that canonly be expressed through an indepen-

dent marketing division....] The PG&E filing is a bold declara-tion that they intend to become a“marketing utility.” What this means isthat they are holding out the possibilityof mega-bucks public marketingcampaigns designed to kill CCAprograms in local communities. Thelaw requires utilities to “fully cooper-ate” with a community’s desire toimplement CCA. But PG&E’s anti-CCA marketing campaigns have beenanything but cooperative — they aredamaging and pervasive. If PG&Eprevails, other investor-owned utilitiescould follow suit.

May 2014: From “We Oppose AB2145, the Energy MonopolyProtection Bill” The most serious threat to the futureof clean, renewable energy in Califor-nia in years is heading to its first hear-ing in the Assembly…. Assembly Bill2145 (Bradford) will essentially killexisting and new Community ChoiceAggregation programs. In the name ofeliminating competition for PG&E….AB 2145 will undo progress inincreasing renewable energy andenergy efficiency, and curtailCalifornia’s progress in reducinggreenhouse gas emissions.

September 2014: From “Commu-nity + Choice = Clean Energy +Local Control” On July 24, with an assist from theSanta Lucia Chapter, SLO CleanEnergy held a key forum in the long-term effort to bring Community ChoiceAggregation (CCA) to the CentralCoast. Cordell Stillman, chief engineer forthe Sonoma Water Agency, came to theSLO City Library to tell attendeesabout the benefits of CCA…. SonomaClean Power has already cut thecounty’s greenhouse gas emissions by30 percent, delivering 33 percentrenewable energy, 1.5 times more cleanpower than PG&E, at 5 percent lowerrates (a percentage that’s bound togrow as PG&E’s rates are set to headskyward over the next three years).

The state’s first CCA program, MarinClean Energy, encountered “vicious”resistance from PG&E, said Stillman,showering their prospective customerswith trumped-up CCA horror stories,but a law was subsequently passed“saying you can’t do that anymore.” With the success of the Marin andSonoma programs, getting a CCA upand running has become easier, fasterand cheaper.

October 2014: From “CommunityElectricity Wins Big” On August 30, David beat Goliath inSacramento. Senator Darrell Steinberg broughtdown the gavel at 3 a.m. on thatSaturday morning to close the 2013-14legislative session with no vote onAssembly Bill 2145. That bill, mono-poly utility-driven legislation aimed atcrushing locally based clean energyefforts known as Community Choiceenergy programs, immediately died. A new statewide coalition, Califor-nians for Energy Choice, defeated theutilities’ attempt to undermine competi-tion from emerging local programs. In 2010, PG&E spent over $46 mil-lion pushing Proposition 16, whichwould have ended Community Choicein California. Voters soundly defeatedthe measure. Organizers then joinedwith scores of new activists to form thenew coalition that beat back the latestattack on Community Choice…. Senate President Pro Tem DarrylSteinberg, Minority Leader Bob Huff,Senate staff, labor unions, cities,counties and local government officialsaround the state saw through the misin-formation put out by lobbyists for AB2145 and added their voices to theeffort that defeated the bill. Thosevoices included the City of San LuisObispo and SLO County Board ofSupervisors Chairman Bruce Gibson,alerted by the Sierra Club to weigh inwith the Assembly and Senate in oppo-sition to the bill. Both the City of SLOand the County have approved ClimateAction Plans that include provisions toevaluate the implementation of Com-munity Choice programs.

Choicecontinued from previous page

Sanctuarycontinued from page 5

that the City of MorroBay inform NOAA that itis opposed to the desig-nation of a ChumashHeritage National MarineSanctuary. It was the mixture asbefore, a formula thathad worked for years...but not this time.Sanctuary supportersshowed up, shootingdown the perpetualgripes, misinformationand flat-out lies ofopponents like a game ofwhack-a-mole. Afterthree hours of publiccomment, the citycouncil, noting the hastewith which the item hadbeen brought before themand the short time frame,decided it did not have enoughinformation to take a position pro orcon, and turned down the harborboard’s recommendation. Instead, theyresolved to ask NOAA to come to thecity and give a public presentation so

that the council – and the public – canunderstand what national marinesanctuaries are and what they do. The decision to get their informationon sanctuaries straight from the horse’smouth instead of via the distortions on

tap from sanctuary’s bitter opponents,thereby breaking with a long-standingMorro Bay tradition, was a sea changefor the city by the bay. We wish them a safe voyage goingforward.

How many? David Georgi of Surfrider showed the Morro Bay City Council the list of supporters of theChumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary: over 600 individuals, organizations, businesses and electedofficials throughout the Central Coast.

January 2015: From “On Jan. 13:One Evening’s Effort = Maximumreturn” On January 13, from 6 to 9 p.m., theCity of SLO will hold a communityforum at the Ludwick CommunityCenter. The basic agenda for this eventinvolves public comment on a varietyof potential priorities, followed by“dotocracy,” wherein all those presentvote with colored dots to rank priori-ties captured on sheets of paper affixedto walls around the room. The Citywants to hear from everyone aboutwhat its goals should be for its nextfiscal year. …. SLO is the only city in the countywith a Climate Action Plan thatincludes a commitment to study thefeasibility of Community Choice…. Sohere’s the deal: Enough green dots inthe right place on that sheet of paperwill make Community Choice apriority project for the City of SLO,which will then seek CommunityChoice partners among its sister citiesand the County.

April 2015: From “CCC OMG”by David Roberts. (Published inGrist, Feb. 25, 2015.) CCA provides not just an economicand environmental but a civic counter-weight to utilities. It enables electricityconsumers to organize on behalf oftheir interests and values. Why, youcould almost call it democratic. Naturally California utilities hatethis. Just hate it.... For all the samereasons utilities hate CCA, I love it. Itcompletely cuts through the utilityGordian knot — the tangle of restruc-tured and unrestructured regions,corrupt PUCs and broken businessmodels, obscure political maneuveringand big-money deals — and putspower directly in the public’s hands. Itopens up opportunities for all the talkabout Utilities 2.0 to become reality, tostart experimenting in the real world. Most of all, it enables citizens whowant clean energy to get it. That seemslike the kind of thing Americans couldrally around.


Solar is a GreatCaliforniaSuccess Storyand We Want toKeep It ThatWayby Susannah Churchill, West Coast Regional Director, Vote Solar

This year, regulators at the California Public Utilities Commission will decidewhether or not to change our net metering program, one of the most importantstate policies for empowering Californians to go solar and save. This clean localpower reduces the need for expensive, polluting utility infrastructure, whichdelivers health, environmental and economic benefits throughout California’scommunities. But big utilities are lobbying to rewrite the net metering rules to protect theirprofits by adding unfair fees and making rooftop solar a bad deal for theircustomers. We can’t let corporate greed keep our families, schools, and busi-nesses from going solar. Join us for the lunchtime rally nearest you, and urgethe utilities to stop blocking solar progress and start acting in the interest of theCalifornians they are supposed to serve. California solar supporters will beholding raucous rallies in October at the headquarters of California’s threebiggest utilities to demand rooftop solar progress. Help us tell PG&E, SCE andSDG&E: “Dont block the sun!”

* SDG&E Rally in San Diego, Wed., Oct. 7, noon - 1 p.m. * PG&E Rally in San Francisco, Wed., Oct. 14, noon - 1 p.m. * SCE Rally in Rosemead, Wed., Oct 21, noon - 1 p.m. Sign the petition to urge Governor Brown and the Commission to stand strongfor rooftop solar by protecting our successful net metering program. Go tohttp://action.votesolar.org/page/s/ca-nem-2-osr Visit OurSolarRights.org to learn more about the fight to keep solar shining inCalifornia.

Thanks, Bill

We remember Sierra Club President Alison Chin congratulated Cal and Letty French onreceiving the Club’s William Colby Award in September 2008.

Our thanks to Bill Wagnerfor his donation of a copy ofthe handsome 1976 reissueof John Muir’s West of theRocky Mountains, acollection of essays by Muirand others that he compiledin 1888, creating, as thepublisher put it, “the firstlarge-scale attempt topresent to the Americanpeople a thorough descrip-tion of the mountains,forests, deserts, wildlife, andthe people of the westernhalf of the nation.” Bill passed it on to us afterthe passing of its previousowner, his friend andlongtime Sierra Clubmember, John Lewis.

mean they suffer any less by beingdeprived of a natural habitat and thecomplex social structure to which theyare physiologically and psychologi-cally adapted. Orcas are large, highlyintelligent mammals with a complexand very strong family structure in thewild. That social bond, so important tothe lives of this species, is damagedand often destroyed in captivity. Furthermore, orcas live shortenedlives in captivity and suffer stress andphysiological damage. Male dorsal finscollapse (which occurs only rarely inthe wild), but captive orcas also breakand wear their teeth by chewing onconcrete tank walls and metal gates,requiring drilling and intensive dentalcare that still may result in infection,are highly medicated and fed gallons ofgelatin daily to keep them hydrated(since frozen fish lose water whenthawed), may be administered anti-depressants to help deal with multiplebehaviors associated with depression,anxiety and possibly psychosis, just toname some of the concerns. Addition-ally, they exhibit abnormal levels ofaggression in captivity notobserved in the wild. As anindication of the stress theyare under and their underly-ing resistance to mitigatingtreatment, orcas in captivityhave killed four people.There are no historicalrecords of orcas killinghuman beings in the wild. Perpetuating the captivedisplay of orcas for profitdrives the continued needto capture more whalesfrom the wild, as newgenetic stock is requiredregularly to preventinbreeding. Indeed, Russia

has taken up the practice of capturingwild orcas for display in that countryand China, capturing at least 10 since2012. Under the circumstances it isdifficult for the United States todenounce this practice. The Commission has the ability to setan example for the rest of the world. Itcan state clearly that it is time to stopthe unethical practice of using theocean’s greatest predator for entertain-ment purposes. While not prohibitingSea World from continuing to displaythe orcas currently in their possession,prohibiting the breeding and transfer ofthese whales will mean that eventuallythe exhibition of captive orcas will bephased out. If you decide to approveand not deny, we urge you to conditionyour approval to prohibit the captivebreeding or artificial insemination oforcas in captivity, prohibit the sale oroffer for sale, trade or transfer for anyreason other than transport to a sea penany orca intended for performance orentertainment purposes. This willcontinue the Commission’s proudtradition of showing concern for thetreatment and conservation of marinemammals.

Orcascontinued from page 6

Remembering Letty French Maybe it was those late ‘forties summer trips with her mother and brother in theChevy towing a tiny tear-drop trailer, going from one Western national park toanother. Or maybe it was the youthful hikes in the San Gabriel and San Bernardinomountains in Southern California. Somehow the spirit of wild places got intoyoung Letty Maurer and never left until she died on July 4th at age 79. Letty had many sides: an honors student in high school and at Stanford Univer-sity; a lover of the arts—literature, music, painting, sculpture; a critical care nurseand first-aid instructor for outing leaders; a member and supporter of at least adozen environmental and progressive organizations; an avid player of tennis,pickleball, word games, and cards; and an organizer and leader of outings andwork parties to wild places that need restoration. But it was wild places, theuntamed lands and their plants and animals that she held close to her heart. A fifty-year member of the Sierra Club, she explored the mountain ranges of theWest, kayaked and rafted its rivers and bays, taught mountaineering, and ledbeginners into the wilderness. Married to Cal French for 58 years, she was also awoman devoted to her family and home, rearing her two daughters and supportingher husband in his own endeavors. She enjoyed awarding others, serving on theClub’s chapter, state, and national awards committees for many years. In fact,seeing that this chapter had no awards program, she started one, and conceived theKathleen Goddard Jones Award as our highest honor. As program chair of the Santa Lucia Chapter, she invited Marlene Braun, thenew BLM manager at the Carrizo Plain, and Alice Koch, local pronghorn antelopespecialist with California Fish and Game, to talk about conservation issuesinvolved with the survival of the pronghorn. Finding out about Alice’s one-womanremoval of fences so the antelope could roam more freely, Letty started a programleading Sierra Club volunteers to remove miles of barbed wire on Fish and Gameand BLM lands. This was typical of her: seeing a need, developing a plan, and organizingvolunteers to make a positive difference. These work parties continue today withnew leaders and new volunteers. She enjoyed working behind the scenes, givingcredit and recognition to others. That quality, a spirit of inclusiveness and her cheerful, optimistic personalityblessed her with many friends.

Thank You, Joan Many thanks to longtime Sierra Club member and friend of the Chapter JoanCarter for her donation in memory of her son Kent.


ClassifiedsNext issue deadline is October 15. To get a ratesheet or submit your ad and payment, contact:Sierra Club - Santa Lucia ChapterP.O. Box 15755San Luis Obispo, CA [email protected]

CYNTHIA HAWLEYATTORNEY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONLAND USE

CIVIL LITIGATION

P.O. Box 29 Cambria California 93428Phone 805-927-5102 Fax 805-927-5220

Current Crop - Grass Fed BeefEstate Grown Extra Virgin Olive Oil

Available Now-Delivery AvailablePlease Get in Touch For More Information

Greg and Linda McMillan

805-238-4820 [email protected]


Outings and Activities CalendarSeller of travel registration information: CST 2087766-40. Registration as a seller of travel does not constitute approval by the State of California.

This is a partial listing of Outingsoffered by our chapter.

Please check the web pagewww.santalucia.sierraclub.org for

the most up-to-date listing ofactivities.

All our hikes and activities are open to all Club members and the general public. Please bring drinking water toall outings and optionally a lunch. Sturdy footwear is recommended. All phone numbers listed are within areacode 805 unless otherwise noted. Pets are generally not allowed. A parent or responsible adult must accompanychildren under the age of 18. If you have any suggestions for hikes or outdoor activities, questions about theChapter’s outing policies, or would like to be an outings leader, call Outings Chair Joe Morris, 549-0355. Forinformation on a specific outing, please call the listed outing leader.

Activities sponsored by other organizations

Now taking orders for the

2016Sierra ClubCalendar

Accept no substitutes. Yourdesk will thank you. Your wallwill thank you. Your friendsand family will thank you. Andwhen you buy direct from theChapter, you support the SierraClub’s conservation work inSan Luis Obispo County. Wethank you.

10% off!wall calendar: $13.50desk calendar: $14.505 or more: 15% off!

To order, call:805-543-7051

Fri., Oct. 2nd, 10-11:30 a.m. His-toric Walk of SLO Railroad HistoricDistrict. Easy, guided stroll pastfifteen sites in the old commercialdistrict, depot area, and century-oldboardinghouses. Hear stories aboutthe heyday of the Southern Pacificduring the steam age, the 1890s to1950s, when the SP dominated publiclife in SLO, transforming it from acow town to a boomtown. Durationabout 90". Meet at Gus’s Grocery,corner of Osos and Leff Sts. Leader:Joe Morris, 549-0355.

Wed., Oct. 14th, 9 a.m-noon.Quarry Trail Maintenance. Join usin trimming back shrubs and somepoison oak along a forty-foot sectionof Quarry Trail in Morro Bay StatePark. Strenuous, but rewarding work.Call ahead or email if you can helpand for more instructions to Leader:Vicki Marchenko, 528-5567 [email protected].

Sat., Oct. 17th, 8:30 a.m. BlinnRanch Rd. to Sapwi Camp Hike.Although Santa Margarita Lake is dryat the east end where we begin, it stillyields a scenic walk. This hike of 9 1/2 miles, 700 ft. elevation gain, is amoderate one, most of it on a dirt road.Poison oak will be present, butprobably avoidable. Meet in SantaMargarita in front of the PacificBeverage Co. A hot day will postponethis hike to a later weekend. Leader:Carlos Diaz-Saavedra, 546-0317.

Sat., Oct. 24th, 8 a.m. Tanbark TrailCoastal Traverse Moderatelystrenuous 8-10 mile hike, 2000 ft.elevation gain and loss, to exploreJulia Pfeiffer Burns State Park and BigSur coastline. Trip starts on Tanbarktrail past giant redwoods and creek,then a steep ascent up canyon to theTin House for lunch. Then we traverse

ridgeline to Ewoldsen Overlook anddescend into Julia Pfeiffer Burns StatePark, with a possible exploration ofMcWay Falls. Bring lunch, water,sturdy hiking shoes and dress forvarying weather. Meet at WashburnDay Use Area in San Simeon StatePark, on Hwy I about one mile north ofCambria. Trailhead is about an hourdrive north of meeting location. Eatsafter for those interested. For details,call Leader: Gary Felsman at 473-3694. Rain cancels.

Sun., Oct. 25th, 10 a.m. Eagle RockTrekking-Pole Hike. Two-mile, 400'elevation change, hike with Polecats, agroup dedicated to demonstrating theadvantages and effective use oftrekking poles. For Eagle Rock trail-head, go to locked gate past BotanicalGardens, across Hwy 1 from CuestaCollege, in the parking lot to the left.Parking fee may be required. Leader:

David Georgi, 458-5575 [email protected].

Sun., Oct. 31st, 8:30 a.m. Salmonand Spruce Creek Trails to DutraFlat. Moderate, 8.4 mile, 2500 ft.elevation gain, hike in Silver PeakWilderness. Enjoy both Halloweenand the last day of Daylight SavingsTime. We will be hiking above SalmonCreek and through Spruce CreekCanyon, beholding good views ofSilver Peak. Trail opens up to brushland before getting to Dutra Flat campfor lunch. Possibility of ticks andprobability of poison oak on trail, sowear long pants. Meet at Washburnday use parking area of San SimeonState Park, on right side of Hwy 1,about 3 miles past fourth Cambriastoplight (Main & Moonstone Beach).There will probably be a refueling stopfor eats afterward. For info, callLeader: Chuck Tribbey, 441-7597.

Wed., Oct. 7, 8:00 pm. Dr.Laurie Marker Lecture at CalPoly. Don’t miss this rarechance to hear Dr. Marker, theJane Goodall of cats, a TimeMagazine “Hero for the Planet.”Dr. Marker is a world-renownedexpert on cheetahs and thethreats they face — fromhuman-wildlife conflict and lossof habitat to the illegal pet trade.Saving the world’s fastestanimal — already endangered— is a human imperative. Moreinformation at cheetah.org/event.

Sat., Oct., 10, 1-3 p.m. Bats:Beyond Legend at the SLOBotanical Garden. Do batsgive you the heebie-jeebies?Acquaint yourself with a

friendlybat fromPacificWildlifeCare andlearn whatbats doand don’tdo. Greatpresenta-tion for allages. Freedocent-ledtour of theGarden at2 p.m. andkids canenjoy story-time and making their ownBat-Book from 2 to 3 p.m. in theChildren’s Garden. $5 forGarden members / $10 public / kidsfree, but donations will be accepted forcost of book-making project. Moreinfo at slobg.org/bat.

San Luis Obispo Botanical Garden3450 Dairy Creek Rd., SLO 805.541.1400 x304www.slobg.org

Sat., Oct. 24, 10 a.m.-1 p.m. FallPlant Sale Fundraiser at SLOBotanical Garden. The rainy season ison its way and there is no better time tostart thinking about gardening here onthe Central Coast than right now. Setyour new plants into the ground, thenstand back and let “El Niño” get yourplants off to a good start. MotherNature will do her part and the Gardencan help set you up with great newdrought-tolerant plants. Everything willbe tax-free. Sales benefit the non-profitBotanical Garden. More info atslobg.org/sale.

Documents

Santa Lucian • October 2015 1 SANTA LUCIANSanta Lucian • October 2015 3 The world’s most democratic environmental organization (us) needs you! Yes, Santa Lucia Chapter member,