The State Coastal Conservancy has undertaken more than 1,800 projects along the 1,100-mile coast and in the San Francisco Bay since it was established by the Legislature in 1976 as a non-regulatory agency to appropriate money to buy coastal land, contribute to habitat restoration and help develop trails and public access. The conservancy was an outgrowth of the Coastal Initiative, known as Proposition 20 at the ballot box in 1972, that led to the California Coastal Act and creation of the Coastal Commission four years later. It is one of 10 conservancies in the state Natural Resources Agency.

An organized effort to protect California’s coastline began in earnest in the early 1960s when PG&E, Northern California’s largest power utility, announced its intent to build a nuclear power plant on Bodega Head, a small promontory on the coast of Sonoma County overlooking Bodega Bay and the Pacific Ocean. That effort was defeated in 1962, but soon after began a series of proposed projects and insults throughout the coast: five power plants with beachfront sitings were in various states of consideration; the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill dumped between 80,000 and 100,000 barrels of crude oil onto the pristine beaches of Santa Barbara and Ventura counties, as well as the coastlines of four northern Channel Islands; the San Elijo Lagoon, a large coastal wetlands area in north San Diego County, had been dumped in and bisected for the building of a railroad and Interstate 5, and new development plans proposed construction of condominiums, a golf course, a marina and a theme park with water rides; plans were drawn up to dredge the mouth of the Russian River for gravel to create a seabed on which to rest the Bay Area Rapid Transit tubes in San Francisco Bay; and wetlands areas throughout Los Angeles and Orange counties were being trampled under by urban development while the beaches were disappearing behind a maze of new home construction.

In the meantime, dumping of toxic waste, diking and filling, and destruction of precious wetlands was taking a heavy toll on San Francisco Bay. Filling—which allowed for expansion of parts of the city of Oakland and San Francisco’s Marina District—had reduced the size of the bay from 787 square miles during the 1849 Gold Rush to 548 miles. In fact, between 1850 and 1960, an average of four square miles of the bay were filled each year.

Against this backdrop came the Sea Ranch development in Sonoma County, which coalesced many of the ecological issues frustrating environments up and down the coast. Local activists were quick to challenge developer Castle & Cooke’s plan to construct a residential development along a 10-mile stretch of the coast. Areas below high tide were and would remain public property, but the plan provided no access through the development to reach it.

Activists organized their opposition into a group known as Californians Organized to Acquire Access to State Tidelands (COAAST), and began circulating a petition for a ballot initiative requiring access to the ocean through all county coastal developments.  According to a report in The Press Democrat, the county administrator called the petition drive “the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of.” Nevertheless, COAAST was successful in qualifying its initiative for the November 1968 ballot as Measure B. But the Board of Supervisors said the measure was inappropriate for an initiative and took it off the ballot. The matter was appealed to the State Supreme Court, which eventually ordered Measure B back onto the ballot. 

Meanwhile, Democratic Assemblymen Alan Sieroty of Los Angeles and John Dunlap of Napa held legislative hearings in Sonoma County on the Sea Ranch development. As they were already forming their own campaign for coastal access, they forged ties with COAAST and urged it to organize coastal access statewide.

According to The Press Democrat, the Sea Ranch developers “mounted a slick and expensive campaign against Measure B,” even enlisting a high-priced San Francisco ad agency to shape their effort. A week before the vote, the developers offered to donate a 120-acre parcel of parkland at the mouth of the Gualala River, including 25 acres of sandy beach, if—and only if—the coastal access measure was defeated. It was.

Sea Ranch is still known as the linchpin that gave the coastal conservation movement a face, a marketable agenda and a talent pool that would carry it forward for several decades.

From the ashes of that defeat was born the coastal conservation movement that would quickly create the California Coastal Commission and the State Coastal Conservancy when roughly 100 local conservation groups similar to COAAST organized to form the Coastal Alliance and took the essence of the failed legislation directly to the voters, in the form of Prop. 20. Among the activists was Peter Douglas, the principal writer of Prop. 20, who would later become an almost legendary figure as the longtime executive director of the California Coastal Commission.

Three years of legislative hearings already had created enough statewide publicity to stir voter awareness. And it helped that then-Secretary of State Jerry Brown got on board and publicly pounded the special-interest groups that were backing the opposition. The referendum was launched by the California Coastal Alliance, whose executive director, Janet Adams, had received the 1969 National Distinguished Citizen Award by the National Wildlife Association and already had consulted on major conservation campaigns in the Central Valley, Santa Clara Valley, and Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties.

The legal effort to protect California’s 1,100-mile coastline kicked into gear with the 1972 passage of the Coastal Initiative by 55% of the state’s voters. The initiative established a state commission of 12 members, who were appointed equally by the governor, state Senate and Assembly. The commission developed the state Coastal Act, which was adopted by the Legislature in 1976, with two important additions: to satisfy local governments, coastal counties and cities were allowed to develop their own coastal plan to meet the criteria of the state Coastal Plan, and the State Coastal Conservancy was created as a non-regulatory agency to appropriate money to buy coastal land, help develop trails, public access and habitat restoration.

Coastal restoration and protection directly affects the state’s economic viability. Two of the country’s five largest metropolitan areas reside on the California coast—the Los Angels Metropolitan Area and the San Francisco Bay Area. In both areas, the coastline is a source of recreation, commerce, security and navigation.  According to the California Beach Restoration Study made by the Coastal Conservancy in 2002, tourism is the third largest industry in the state, and the state’s beaches provide the attraction and recreational infrastructure that drives a significant portion of that industry. At the time this study was made, the state's beaches were California's most popular recreational destination with roughly 550 million visitors coming to the beaches annually—85% were noncoastal residents. Beach-induced recreation and tourism produce more than a half a million jobs and generate over $1 billion in state tax revenue. Almost two-thirds of California’s residents visit one of the state’s beaches at least once a year, generating $61 billion in spending and $15 billion in total tax receipts, of which $4.6 billion goes directly to the state.

How It All Got Started  (California Coastal Trail)

Peter M. Douglas Dies at 69; California Coastal Commission Chief (by Elaine Woo, Los Angeles Times)

History of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC website)

History of San Elijo Lagoon Ecological Reserve (San Elijo Lagoon Conservancy)

Sea Ranch, California (Wikipedia)

The California Coastal Conservancy uses entrepreneurial techniques to purchase, protect, restore and enhance coastal resources, in addition to providing access to the shore. It was created by the Legislature as a unique entity with flexible powers to serve as an intermediary among government, citizens and the private sector in recognition that creative approaches would be needed to preserve California’s coast and San Francisco Bay lands for future generations. It works in partnership with local governments, other public agencies, nonprofit organizations and private landowners to promote its agenda.

The conservancy’s non-regulatory, problem-solving approach complements the work of the Coastal Commission a distinct agency that regulates land use along the coast with the aim of protecting, conserving, restoring and enhancing its environmental and human-based resources.

The conservancy’s official goals are:

·         Protect and improve coastal wetlands and watersheds;

·         Help people get to coast and bay shores by building trails and stairways and by acquiring land and easements. The conservancy also assists in the creation of low-cost accommodations along the coast, including campgrounds and hostels;

·         Work with local communities to revitalize urban waterfronts;

·         Help to solve complex land-use problems;

·         Purchase and hold environmentally valuable coastal and bay lands;

·         Protect agricultural lands and support coastal agriculture;

·         Accept donations and dedications of land and easements for public access, wildlife habitat, agriculture and open space.

The conservancy is governed by a seven-member board of directors who are appointed by the governor and the Legislature. There also are three alternates (currently) and six members of the Legislature—thee from each house—who provide legislative oversight and participate in conservancy activities. The conservancy is headed by an executive officer and two deputy executive officers.

The Coastal Conservancy is headquartered in Oakland and has five regional offices, each headed by an appointed manager.

North Coast: The five-county region extends from windswept beaches in Del Norte County at the Oregon border, south some 370 miles to the spectacular Marin Headlands overlooking San Francisco Bay and the Golden Gate Bridge.

Central Coast: It extends from northern San Mateo County to southern Santa Barbara County and includes some of the most spectacular scenery on the California coast.

South Coast: It extends from Ventura County to the Mexican Border. It is known for its beautiful beaches, moderate climate and rich biodiversity. The region is defined by the coastal plains of several major rivers and is bounded by the Transverse Mountain Ranges.

San Francisco Bay Area: Along with being home to 7 million people, the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area is home to a diversity of wildlife and habitats, world-class recreational opportunities and working farms and ranches. The San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program—which funneled more than $300 million of Coastal Conservancy bond money (leveraged 3-1 in other public and private sectors) to regional projects—marked its 15th birthday in January 2012 on a dour note. “Within two years, the Bay Program bond funding will all be obligated, and we won't be able to take on any new projects, program director Amy Hutzel said. “We are definitely coming to the end of 13 years of bond funding.”

Ocean Protection: In 2004, the Legislature passed the California Ocean Protection Act, establishing the Ocean Protection Council (OPC). The Coastal Conservancy is the staffing agency to the Ocean Protection Council and the Conservancy's executive officer serves as the secretary to the council. The mission of the Ocean Protection Council is to ensure that California maintains healthy, resilient, and productive ocean and coastal ecosystems for the benefit of current and future generations. The Coastal Conservancy implements OPC projects.

The conservancy has six main program areas:

Public Access: Provides capital funds and technical assistance for the construction of public access stairs, trails, limited-mobility-access projects, hostels, interpretive signs and other facilities that serve state and regional coastal access needs.

Resource Enhancement: Makes capital funds and technical assistance available for the preservation, enhancement and restoration of wetlands, watersheds, riparian corridors and other wildlife habitat lands.

Agricultural Preservation: Provides funding and technical assistance to prevent the loss of coastal agricultural lands to other uses by acquiring interests in such lands, installing agricultural improvements and protective measures.

Site Reservation: Safeguards significant coastal resource sites and responds to opportunities to acquire such sites when other agencies are unable to do so.

Urban waterfronts: Provides funding and technical assistance to protect, restore and expand coastal-dependent recreation, commercial and industrial facilities and to expand opportunities for public access and use of urban waterfronts in conjunction with new development.

Nonprofit assistance: Provides capital funds and assistance to nonprofit land conservation organizations to aid them in implementing conservancy projects and in developing cost-effective local management of resource land and public access facilities.

To date, the conservancy has undertaken more than 1,800 projects along the California coastline and around San Francisco Bay. Among the current projects are:

California Coastal Trail: Once completed, the California Coast Trail—which is actually a network of public trails for walkers, bikers, equestrians and wheelchair riders—will run 1,200 miles from Oregon to Mexico. Roughly half of the trail is complete, and its total price tag is estimated at $668,350,000. For more information on the trail, see California Coastal Trail.info.

Napa Sonoma Marsh Restoration Project: The conservancy, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game are working jointly to restore 10,000 acres of wetlands and associated habitats within the former Cargill salt pond complex in the North Bay. The goals of this project are to restore large patches of tidal marsh that support a wide variety of fish, wildlife and plants, including special status mammals and water birds.

Carmel River Reroute and San Clemente Dam Removal Project: The conservancy has partnered with the National Marine Fisheries Services, the Conservation League Foundation and California American Water to remove the San Clemente Dam, which was constructed in 1921. The goal is to stop the erosion of the Carmel River and re-establish a natural habitat for the one-vibrant steelhead trout population, as well as enhance public recreation.

South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project: The project is being headed by the state of California and the federal government to restore 15,100 of Cargill's former salt ponds in San Francisco Bay. The goal is to restore 90% of the former salt ponds to natural wetlands. The restored tidal marshes will provide critical habitat for the endangered California clapper rail and the salt marsh harvest mouse. Large marsh areas also will provide extensive channel systems that will provide habitat for aquatic life and harbor seals.

Western Salt Pond Restoration Project: The conservancy, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System are working to restore and enhance habitat at the San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge to support five federally or state listed threatened and endangered species, including the California least tern, light-footed clapper rail, western snowy plover, Belding’s savannah sparrow and eastern Pacific green sea turtle, in addition to tens of thousands of migratory birds that stop over at San Diego Bay while traveling along the Pacific Flyway. The restoration also aims to restore the habitat of a diverse array of fish, including species important to commercial and recreational fisheries, and other marine organisms.

To achieve its goals, the Coastal Conservancy awards grants to public agencies and nonprofit organizations that qualify under Section 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code and whose purposes are consistent with Division 21 of the California Public Resources Code (commencing with section 31000).

The state Coastal Conservancy awarded $64 million for 79 projects along the coast and in the San Francisco Bay Area in 2011. The money, mostly from bonds, was leveraged with $121 million from the feds, local government and private organizations. The Top 10 awards were:

·        $5.9 million to stem the spread of invasive Spartina cordgrass through the San Francisco Bay. The battle against the weed that threatens native species has been ongoing since 1999.

·        $4.5 million for removal of the obsolete San Clemente Dam that blocks migration of steelhead trout along the Carmel River.

·        $4 million to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for completion of the Hamilton Wetlands restoration in Novato. 

·        $3.4 million to Riverside County and $2 million to Orange County for work on the half-finished, 100-mile Santa Ana River Parkway.

·        $3.1 million to the Solano Land Trust for its purchase of 1,500 acres in the Vaca Mountains.

·        $3 million to the Save-the-Redwoods League for the purchase of 957 acres known as the Shady Dell Creek tract.

·        $3 million to the Trust for Public Land for its purchase of 63 acres that complete its 650-acre assemblage of protected habitat in the Devereux Slough.

·        $2.65 million to the Trust for Public Land to buy 50 acres on a Half Moon Bay bluff and extend the Coastal Trail through it.

·        $2.5 million for the South Bay Salt Ponds Restoration Project in the San Francisco Bay area.

·        $2.5 million for design and construction of nearly three miles of the Bayshore Bikeway and the Coastal Trail along San Diego Bay.

Roughly $11.1 million of the conservancy’s $49.5 million budget for 2012-13 pays its 78 full-time employees: 25 in resource development, 31 in coastal enhancement and 22 in administration.

A significant portion of the rest of the budget, 38.5 million, goes toward infrastructure. Among those items are $1.9 million for public access, $4.5 million for coastal resources and $32 million for specific conservancy programs.

Among the conservancy’s funding sources are: $6 million from the Federal Trust Fund; $8 million through reimbursements; $15 million from the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Fund of 2006; $4 million from the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Fund of 2006; another $4 million from the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Fund; and $450,000 from a specialized state license plate program.

Top 10 Contractors: The conservancy reported that its largest grantees and recipients of funds in 2012 were:

3-Year budget (pdf)

2011 Project Accomplishments (State Coastal Conservancy website)

The Battle over Ballona Wetlands

Environmentalists, developers and politicians have been battling over the Ballona Wetlands in Los Angeles County for more that three decades. Much of the property—once owned by Howard Hughes, and home to Hughes’ manufacturing complex and the Spruce Goose—morphed into Marina del Rey and the rest is evolving into a mega-development called Playa Vista.

Conservationists thought they had saved the last 600 acres of wetlands in 2003 when a $140 million deal brought the property under state control. The Coastal Conservancy, the Department of Fish and Game, the State Lands Commission and the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission are working in partnership to restore the wetlands.

In early 2011, cordial discussions on how to proceed became more contentious as competing ideas generated disagreement and deep suspicions between participants. By May, old passions were being renewed. “It's been like a runaway train,” said Patricia McPherson of the Grassroots Coalition. McPherson complained that the Restoration Commission was ignoring input from groups that had fought for years to preserve the wetlands.

When the Coastal Commission awarded $6.5 million in January 2012 to begin the next stage of restoration, Restoration Commission Executive Director Shelley Luce was ecstatic. “When this restoration is done and they are standing on a rise with beautiful upland and butterflies and bees buzzing around and looking out over a restored wetland with a meandering channel and birds and fish, they'll know what a wetlands should look like,"” she said.

The Sierra Club’s Ballona Wetlands Restoration Committee was spitting nails. In a sharply worded letter the group noted that several rare and endangered species are dependent on the wetlands, including the Least Bell's Vireo, the California Gnatcatcher and Orcutt's Yellow Pincushion. The Sierra Club urged that the state add some land to its holdings, secure the area with fencing and improve its trails. “We do not support approval of this heavily mechanized engineered, bulldozer-driven approach to the Ballona Wetlands,” the letter said.

Conservationists also complained of being left out of the planning process and pointed a finger at developers. “We believe that Playa Vista is involved,” McPherson of the Grassroots Coalition said. “Everything is fishy at this point.”

Environmentalists are pushing for a minimally invasive restoration more likely to include school groups and community members than bulldozers. Rex Frankel, president of Ballona Ecosystem Education Project (BEEP), described the state plan as bulldozing and flooding of the uplands. “They decided they wanted to do this massive ‘let’s just rip it all out’ with bulldozers,” he said.

Luce said the initial proposal includes $100 million to clear out concrete levees, haul away tons of sediment dumped on the property over the years and allow more water to flow in. Giant earthen flood-control berms would be built with bicycle paths atop them, and boardwalks would allow visitors to stroll through the site.

John Dorsey, Loyola Marymount University associate professor of environmental studies, expressed hope that a middle ground could be found. “While I certainly don't want to see bulldozers either, I can certainly see the benefits of letting a lot more water in and trying to bring it back to a lot more natural system,” he said.

Ballona Wetlands May Be at Mercy of “Fishy” State Commission: Sierra Club, Ballona Institute Allege Wrongdoing (by Mars Melnicoff, LA Weekly)

Coastal Conservancy Approves $6.5 Million for Ballona Wetlands Restoration Plans (by Paul Chavez, Culver City Patch)

California OKs $6.5 Million to Plan Ballona Wetlands Restoration (by Tony Barboza, Los Angeles Times)

Wetlands Restoration Presents Unique Opportunity (by Zaneta Pereira, Los Angeles Loyolan)

Public Access, Malibu and the David Geffen Story

Most of the controversies regarding protecting, enhancing and conserving the California coastline directly involve the Coastal Commission, as it is the policy-setting agency that decides the issues and sets an agenda based on the authority bestowed on it by Proposition 20 and the subsequent Coastal Act of 1976. But the issue that has permeated coastal politics the loudest and resonated most intensely since the 1960s protest over Sea Ranch, through media coverage, local government involvement and homeowner participation – and become a cornerstone of Coastal Conservancy activity – is public access.

And nowhere has public access raised its ugly head with more vitriol and fervor than along the beaches of Southern California, where wealthy homeowners have for decades been building homes along the coastline and fighting vociferously to keep the public off their property.

According to a report in the Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles County lags behind every other county in Southern California when it comes to building agreed-upon paths to the beach, and the problem is centered in Malibu. The Coastal Commission said that only eight of the 29 vertical accessways it had acquired there were actually open to the public as of 2011. Overall, 67 of 111 accessways acquired from 1973-2011 by the commission through permit actions were open.  

While the state’s 1976 Coastal Act requires that development shall not interfere with the public's access to the ocean, the commission for many years has tried to strike a balance between development and access by negotiating with property owners what are known as  offers to dedicate (OTD), promises of easements necessary to get to or use the beach.

According to the Coastal Commission’s Public Access Action Plan: “The commission has required OTDs as mitigation of the individual and cumulative impacts of private development upon public access. An OTD is an offer from a private landowner to allow for a future open accessway across his or her property. Turning such an offer into a useable public accessway is one of the commission’s highest priorities and one of its greatest challenges. This is primarily because the commission does not have the authority to directly accept or operate these easements. Thus, in order to fully mitigate the access impacts of previously approved development, the commission must locate an accepting agency to open specific sites. To date (1999), only 36% of the OTDs required by the commission have been accepted and many are nearing their expiration dates. Should OTDs expire, the opportunity to open these areas to the public is lost, probably forever. It therefore is critical to locate accepting agencies as soon as possible.

“The complete OTD process involves three necessary steps. First, the OTD must be accepted by an agency and/or a qualified nonprofit land trust willing to take on the operation, maintenance, and liability for the easement area. Second, physical improvements (e.g. stairs, signs, etc.,) must be constructed in order to make the area useable. Third, the easement must be opened to the public and maintained in perpetuity.”

The great majority of the OTDs have expiration dates 20 or 21 years following their issuance if not accepted by an approved agency or organization, but once accepted, the easements are permanent.

By 2000, the Coastal Commission had negotiated about 1,300 OTDs with property owners along the length of the coastline.  Most of them were for easements that run parallel to the water, but about 10% were for vertical easements, that is, pathways running from the road to the beach. Roughly a dozen vertical easements existed in Malibu at this time, and they had all been blocked by the property owners. Among them was David Geffen, an entertainment mogul who had negotiated in OTD with the Coastal Commission in 1983, giving the state an easement on his beachfront property, which he had purchased in the 1970s for $405,000.  But no local government or group offered to develop or otherwise take charge of the walkway. Therefore, the Coastal Commission did not pursue public access on his property.

In 2002, when Geffen’s OTD was set to expire, Steve Hoye, director of Access for All—a nonprofit group that actively campaigns for great public access to the ocean—offered to supervise the walkway with the help of a state grant. Geffen responded by suing the commission, the Coastal Conservancy and Access for All, claiming that the OTD represented an unconstitutional taking. Geffen was basing his suit on a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, in which the justices ruled that the commission must demonstrate that there is a nexus between the development and in impact on public access before they would be able to require an easement. Geffen’s suit also charged that the state had not performed an environmental review and that Access for All did not have the resources to develop and maintain the walkway.

Geffen’s suit and ongoing battles over his Malibu property made headlines around the world and was even parodied by Garry Trudeau in his daily comic strip Doonesbury.

In April 2005, Geffen settled, agreeing to pay the state Coastal Commission and Coastal Conservancy $300,000 in legal fees, and allow Access for All to develop the walkway to the beach. Geffen agreed to allow access to the beach from dawn to dusk. However, Geffen went ahead and built a deck that the Coastal Commission said intruded into the public easement area over the sand in front of his house. And while the public could get to the beach behind his house, beachgoers had to skirt a 42-foot-long section to get to the public sand.

In February 2007, the commission agreed to a settlement proposed by Geffen to end the dispute. The commission overruled its staff and agreed to forgive Geffen’s construction in exchange for his opening the 42-foot stretch of beach that had been closed to the public.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the commission allowed Geffento keep an improperly permitted wooden stairway to the beach and gave him a 10-foot wide “privacy” buffer so that beachgoers could not legally slip beneath his deck or lean against the concrete bulkhead that divides the beach from a spa, lawn and cluster of Cape Cod-style bungalows.

Hoye,  of Access for All, recommended the Coastal Commission approve Geffen’s proposal, noting that it made the easement uniform across 275 feet of Geffen’s beachfront, which would make it easier for the public to know where they could walk and sunbathe. And he said he agreed with privacy buffers because it was inappropriate for the public to press up against homeowners’ walls.

Geffen also agreed to pay $125,000 into a special state public beach access fund and up to $20,000 to help Access for All build a metal ramp to help the public get from the paved pathway to the sand. The beach had eroded in recent years, leaving a dangerous drop-off to the sand.

“Mr. Geffen and his staff have been excellent with us,” Hoye told the Los Angeles Times. “They listen to us. They take out the trash bins for us. Everyone is learning to live with each other.”

Beach Access Bingo (Los Angeles Times editorial)

Public Access Report (California Coastal Commission) (pdf)

California Fighting to Save Public's Access to Beaches (New York Times)

Public Access Action Plan (California Coastal Commission) (pdf)

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission

Hearst Ranch

For many years, the Hearst Corporation sought to build a resort complex on its 128-square-mile ranch in San Luis Obispo County—home to Hearst’s Castle and spectacular ocean frontage. But first it had to strike a deal with the federal government and three state agencies, including the Coastal Conservancy, to provide protection from development for some of the most coveted land in California.

In September 2004, the conservancy signed off on its contribution of $34.5 million toward the near-final $95 million deal that protects 80,000 acres in exchange for granting Hearst certain development rights.

Many environmentalists and some government officials, including The Nature Conservancy, the Coastal Commission and the state Legislative Analyst’s Office, were critical of the agreement.

“It's been very difficult to support this because Hearst never provided the basic documents on (natural resource inventories), access and protections that we needed to evaluate it,” said Mark Massara, the Sierra Club's coastal program director. He calculated that Hearst would ultimately walk away with $500 million worth of value and “what does the public get? The only thing we know we get for sure is a coastal trail that won't even follow the coast that closely.”

State negotiators said they were pleased with bargaining Hearst down to a 100-room inn and 27 homes from the company’s initial push for several resorts and golf courses. The deal includes construction of 18 miles of coastal trails, conservation easements on 700 acres and a Hearst donation of 1,500 acres west of Highway 1 to the state.

The Nature Conservancy said terms of the agreement were “significantly weaker” than previous such deals and set a bad precedent. The group specifically faulted a failure to ensure that new homes would not fragment key habitat, set standards for protecting rare plants and animals, and allow state monitoring of ranch practices that could harm wildlife.

Proposed amendments that would have toughened conservation easement enforcement, required tougher review of water transfers and allowed more state control of the coastal trail’s contours were defeated.

Conservancy to Pay $34.5 Million toward Hearst Ranch Open Space (by Kenneth R. Weiss, Los Angeles Times)

California Coastal Conservancy Approves State Purchase of Hearst Ranch (Oregon Daily Journal of Commerce)

A Crucial OK for Hearst Land Deal (by Glen Martin, San Francisco Chronicle)

Hearst Ranch Conservation Plan Finalized (Hearst Corporation)

Five Years on, Hearst Ranch Conservation Plan Is Meeting its Main Goal (by Kathe Tanner, San Luis Obispo Tribune)

Climate Change

The state Coastal Conservancy has included climate change as a consideration in projects it funds since at least 2009 and in November 2011 updated its Climate Change Policy and Project Selection Criteria to reflect this growing concern.

The state Senate sought to codify the conservancy’s authority in SB 1066— legislation that “would require the conservancy to fund and undertake projects to address climate change, giving priority to projects that maximize public benefits”—because “existing law does not expressly authorize the State Coastal Conservancy to address climate change or its impacts, despite the anticipated adverse effects on the coast.”

It was hoped that the bill, introduced in February 2012 by Senator Ted Lieu, would facilitate the conservancy’s funding of projects that address climate change and help it apply for federal and non-state funds. 

Calif. Senate Panel Oks Coastal Conservancy Climate Change Plan (Insurance Journal)

SB-1066 Coastal Resources: Climate Change (California Legislative Information)

Coastal Conservancy Climate Change Policy and Project Selection Criteria (Coastal Conservancy)

Legislation Would Authorize State Coastal Conservancy to Engage in Initiatives Designed to Combat Climate Change (by Gary Walker, The Argonaut)

Klamath River Dam Removal

Four dams in the Klamath River basin are planned for removal in an effort to advance restoration of salmonid fisheries of the Klamath basin. Once home to the third-largest salmon run on the West Coast, management of the Klamath basin is the subject of multiple disputes regarding reliable water and power supplies, and declining salmon populations.

The Klamath River has been the site of intense fighting between farmers for more water and fishermen for improved fishing rights. In 2001, irrigation water was turned off to save salmon during a drought. When the water was restored, thousands of salmon died. Critics contend that the dams block salmon and promote disease because they raise the water temperature.

While the Klamath River Hydroelectric Project was considered for relicensing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 2006, a separate Klamath Settlement Group formed to explore future management alternatives, including removal of Iron Gate, J.C. Boyle, Copco 1 and Copco 2 dams.

The State Coastal Conservancy provided approximately $1 million to fund studies to evaluate the feasibility and potential cost of removing these four dams. These studies characterized reservoir sediment, modeled sediment transport following dam removal, and assessed impacts of removal on biological resources and water quality. This information contributed to the development of the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), signed on February 18, 2010. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar were on hand for the dramatic signing of the agreement. Salazar told The New York Times, “The Klamath River, which for years was synonymous with controversy, is now a stunning example of how cooperation and partnership can resolve difficult conflicts.”

The four dams—three in Oregon and one in California—are owned by PacifiCorp and are used to generate electricity for both states. PacificCorp is owned by MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company which, in turn, is owned by billionaire Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. The first dam is scheduled to be removed in 2020, with the remaining three following as soon as possible.

Their removal, however, hinges on congressional approval and the Department of the Interior’s environmental review. Salazar was to decide by March 2012, whether the dams’ removal was in the best interest of the public and would restore salmon to the basin. On February 27, he announced that lack of congressional action prevented him from signing off on the landmark agreement. The bills to give Salazar the authority to rule on the dam removal were stuck in committees with uncertain prospects in an election year.

In the meantime, the Coastal Conservancy has provided matching funds for a water quality study under preparation as part of the KHSA.

The estimated cost of removing the four dams, in 2020 dollars, was $291.6 million. 

More information can be found on KlamathRestoration.gov.

Agreement Reached on Klamath River (by Kristina Shevory, New York Times)

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar Says He Won't Hit March 31 Deadline for Approving Klamath Basin Dam Removal (by Scott Learn, The Oregonian)

Dam Removal Projects Funded by the Coastal Conservancy (Coastal Conservancy website)

Klamath Dam Removal Uncertain (by Linda Baker, Oregon Business)

The Case for Removal

Supporters of removing the dams argue that they are old, expensive and have outlived their purpose, devastate fish populations including salmon, provide relatively little electrical power, impair watershed restoration efforts and are breeding grounds for toxic algae in their reservoirs.

In January 2012, the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce and Interior, released an overview report, DRAFT Klamath Dam Removal Overview Report for the Secretary of the Interior, An Assessment of Science and Technical Information, a detailed examination of the Klamath River and its four dams, and the ramifications of leaving them in place, or removing them. An accompanying press release explains that many of the findings were published in an earlier report, some of which are noted here:

“The analysis and studies describe pluses and minuses to potential dam removal on the Klamath River. They reveal that, over the next few decades, dam removal and the implementation of a related watershed-wide restoration program could significantly increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate the toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures in the river, which is important for salmon.

“Dam removal could also result in some small increases in long-term flood risks as well as a short-term impact on juvenile fish populations from the release of the sediment built up behind the dams. The studies also describe how these risks could be mitigated. The studies estimate that dam removal would result in the loss of some recreational opportunities on the Klamath River reservoirs, and some decrease in property values for landowners nearby. Dam removal will not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses.

“While the dam removal would result in the loss of hydroelectric power generation, which will have to be made up from other sources, and the loss of around 50 jobs from managing those facilities, it would also create a substantial number of jobs – varying in nature, duration, and location – estimated at approximately 1,400 during the short-term.”

California Trout, an organization dedicated to the protection and restoration of wild trout, steelhead salmon and their waters throughout California, cited the scientific evidence in DRAFT Klamath Dam Removal Overview Report in concluding that “dam removal would create an estimated 4,600 jobs over the 15-year life of the KBRA, but more importantly, the privately owned, aging dams would—if retrofitted with fish passage and brought up to code—operate at a $20 million annual loss if relicensed. CalTrout says that loss is why PacifiCorp now supports dam removal over relicensing.

CalTrout further states that dam removal would reinvigorate one of the West Coast’s most-famous steelhead fisheries—and bolster the area’s recreation economy.

And this from Craig Tucker, Klamath River campaign coordinator for the Karuk Tribe:

“When the Copco 1 Dam was constructed on the Klamath River in 1918, it permanently blocked access to more than 350 miles of salmon and steelhead habitat in the main stem of the upper Klamath and its tributaries. Another dam, Copco 2, was constructed just a quarter-mile downstream of the original facility in 1925.

“The aptly named 173-foot-high Iron Gate Dam was constructed in 1962 to re-regulate the wildly varying flows from the upstream Copco dams and run a 20 megawatt power plant. With the construction of Iron Gate, an additional seven miles of spawning habitat in the main stem as well as important tributaries such as Jenny Creek were blocked.  

“Today, all anadromous runs of salmon and steelhead, once abundant in the upper basin, are extinct above Iron Gate Dam. This means over 350 miles of historic salmon habitat is unreachable by fish and much of it buried beneath reservoirs.” 

Draft Klamath Dam Removal Overview Report for the Secretary of the Interior (pdf)

Bring the Salmon Home (by Craig Tucker, Klamath River Campaign Coordinator for the Karuk Tribe)

Independent Peer Review Says Klamath Dam Removal Science “Sound” and “Reliable” (California Trout)

Frequently Asked Questions (Salmon for Savings)

New Reports Show Dam Removal Will Benefit Klamath River Salmon (by Dan Bacher, California Progress Report)

Removal of 4 Klamath Dams Would Lift Salmon Count, Studies Find (by Bettina Boxall, Los Angeles Times)

The Case against Removal

Dam supporters say its removal will raise power rates, result in the release of toxic sediment, cause flooding and cost millions of dollars for a dubious endeavor.

Some even argue that removing the dams will have a negative impact on salmon runs. Liz Bowen at the Pie N Politics blog wrote: “Dam removal will only destroy the wild salmon runs. These Greenies advocate nothing but lies and myths. Their goal is to deceive us into believing dam removal will save fish.”

Bowen wrote that removing the dams will destroy jobs in local communities and be a financial boon for “a few money-grabbing leaders of Indian Tribes.”

The Klamath Bucket Brigade, a website opposed to the dam removal, warns against outside interference in local affairs, spurious studies of water use, bad-faith bargaining by the Klamath Tribe, and the setting of bad precedents. “Dam removal is a hoax, and aside from paying the ‘stakeholders’ billions, will not save the fish. How does the purchase of a 92,000 acre property for the Klamath Tribe save the fish?”

Republican Representative Tom McClintock, who represents the 4th Congressional District in the northeastern part of California, addressed the House of Representatives on September 22, 2011. Following are excerpts of his speech:

“This generation is facing spiraling electricity prices and increasingly scarce supplies. Californians have had to cut back to the point that their per capita electricity consumption is now lower than that of Guam, Luxembourg and Aruba. 

“What is the administration’s solution?

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced yesterday that the administration is moving forward with a plan to destroy four perfectly good hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River capable of producing 155,000 megawatts of the cleanest and cheapest electricity on the planet – enough for 155,000 homes.

“Why would the administration pursue such a ludicrous policy?

“They say it’s is necessary to help increase the salmon population. We did that a long time ago by building the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery.  The Iron Gate Fish Hatchery produces five million salmon smolts each year – 17,000 of which return annually as fully grown adults to spawn.  The problem is, they don’t include them in the population count!

“Mr. Speaker, amidst a spending spree that threatens to bankrupt this nation, amidst spiraling electricity prices and chronic electricity shortages – to tear down four perfectly good hydro-electric dams at enormous cost is insane.  And to claim that this is good for the economy gives us chilling insight into the breathtakingly bad judgment that is misguiding our nation from the White House.”  

Write to Save the Klamath Dams—Today! (by Liz Bowen, Pie N Politics)

Economic Impacts of Dam Removal; I'm Afraid You Have Been Misled (by Steve Rapalya, Klamath Basin in Crisis)

Position on the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (Klamath Bucket Brigade)

In Opposition to Klamath Dam Removal (by Congressman Tom McClintock)

William Ahern, 1998-2001

Steve Horn (interim), 1997-1997

Michael Fischer, 1994-1997

Peter Grenell, 1985-1994

Joseph Petrillo, 1977-1985