conservation

By Frank Landis, Chair Conservation CommitteeFor whatever reason, this month seems to be about water issues. The big one, which those on the CNPSSD Discussion Group have already seen, is a proposal to run a pipe from Imperial to San Diego. I’m not sure when the idea first surfaced, but it’s been mostly associated with Jim Madaffer, a director of the San Diego County Water Authority, and it has been around since before 2017. But as with all creeping projects in our area, it’s surfacing again.The idea is for San Diego to become “water independent” by getting water directly from the Colorado River. Well, directly from Imperial Irrigation District, meaning directly from the All American Canal. The problem is they are trying to solve is not that San Diego doesn’t get water from the Colorado River via the IID (we do), but that it flows through pipes controlled by the Metropolitan Water District, whom our Water Authority has issues with.The outline of this “crazy idea” (per Madaffer, https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/science- environment/pipe-dream-bring-colorado-river-water-san-diego-re-emerges/) is to pump water from the All American Canal, up over Anza-Borrego State Park, through the Cuyamaca Mountains (Madaffer is purportedly partial to the idea that Elon Musk’s Boring Company would drill this tunnel, because he’s a Musk fan), using 47 miles of canals, 39 miles of pipeline, and 47 miles of tunnel, for a mere five billion dollars. Probably we’d need to build a billion-dollar desalination plant, too, because Colorado water is the effluent from many saline farms upstream.

By Frank Landis, Conservation Committee ChairMaking the halfway reasonable assumption that civilization doesn’t fall apart in the next 90 days, I wanted to bring up a problem that has started cropping up this year and which, I suspect, will cause years, if not decades, of heartburn for the conservation community.The problem is what conservation means in current politics. In the last few months, I have seen multiple examples of planners and agencies ready and willing to develop lands set aside for conservation. There seems to be a notion that lands are to be used for conservation only until a better use comes along. At that point, the conservation agreement can be scrapped and the land can be developed.The problem is that this is the route to extinction. If 90% or 99% of a species’ habitat is destroyed, the remaining few percent have to be preserved basically forever if we are to accomplish the goal of saving that species. Unfortunately, that’s not the way politics work. If there’s a problem, generally the answer is seen to be either a compromise—something along the lines of save “half the site” and give the other half to some really important use. Or, alternatively, the politicians count noses at events or emails on topics, and go with whoever has the most, whether they make a good case or not. Or they follow the money.

By Frank Landis, Conservation Committee ChairNews (and retreads)Otay Ranch Village 13 has been put off until maybe October. In August (after I wrote the last article) they launched a few thousand words at the environmental community in the service of convincing us that following established protocols to someday buy carbon offsets through established registries instead of on the open market would somehow make it all legitimate. I just turned in my comments on this, with help from others in CNPS (thanks again!). The comments were rather pointed.There are two fundamental problems with the idea of carbon offsets, aside from serious questions about whether they work, whether the registries double or triple book the carbon being sequestered, and whether paying to grow trees in northern California and keep them alive for a century is a viable concern, given all the terrible wildfires they’re dealing with. Beyond these utterly practical problems, I’d point to two conceptual issues. The first is the notion that there’s an endless market of carbon offsets available to the discerning developer, and that they can therefore pay someone else to deal with their little emissions problem. Hopefully you know the punchline to this: if the world had an endless supply of places to take greenhouse gases out of the air, we would not have a climate crisis in the first place. Unfortunately the opportunities are increasingly limited (some are literally up in smoke as we speak). Therefore, each of us has to do our share, wherever we are, and limit our use of what sequestration opportunities remain.The other problem is that most of our decision-makers appear perfectly willing to add more carbon emissions to the county, persuaded by promises of future sequestration that really don’t stand up to much scrutiny. This increased burden is being shared by all of us, in the form of weird weather, smoky air, increasingly unstable water and food supplies, and increased fire threats. One would hope that new developments, at least, wouldn’t add to the problem, but they still do.

By Frank Landis, CNPS-San Diego Conservation ChairYES on A, NO on B in the March 3 ElectionIt’s only two more months, less if you’re a mail-in voter who will see your ballot about the same time you read this.Hopefully you know the drill. Vote YES on Measure A, for SOS, aka Save Our San Diego. Vote NO on Measure B, against Newland Sierra. These are part of the same package, to strongly encourage county supervisors to follow the General Plan, realizing that if they do not, their decisions will face the voters.To do a bit more ad debunking...if you’ve watched the TV recently, it’s hard to avoid ads for and against Measure B,because both sides have deep pockets. One ad states that the General Plan allows more retail space than Fashion Valley, with the implication that Newland Sierra is more sensible.It isn’t.

By Frank Landis, Conservation Committee ChairOn September 6, 2019, without much notice, the California legislature passed SB 632. This little bill said the following: “SECTION 1. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that many of the most destructive and deadliest wildfires recorded in California’s history have occurred in the last two years, and the proposed program environmental impact report for a vegetation treatment program serves as an important public safety component to reduce the risk of loss of life and property from high-intensity wildfires. “(b) The Legislature therefore intends that the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection complete the proposed program environmental impact report for the vegetation treatment program as soon as practicably feasible and that the report be used to complete priority fuel reduction projects to protect communities vulnerable to wildfires. 

By Frank Landis, Conservation Committee ChairThe next eight months are going to be a bit of a rocky ride for everyone, as the political din of the 2020 election season drowns everything else out. Here’s a round-up of major events from the last two months and what to, erm, look forward to. And more importantly, what to act on.First off, CNPS has joined Endangered Habitats League, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, Chaparral Institute, and Preserve Wild Santee in suing to decertify the County’s 3-2 approval of the Otay Ranch Village 14 development, now renamed Adara. We’re specifically partnering with EHL on a suit. Along with Newland Sierra, that makes two cases our society is involved in.Second: on August 5, the San Diego City Council voted 6-3 to approve The Preserve at Torrey Highlands, a 450,000 square foot office building on the eastern edge of Del Mar Mesa. I and two other CNPSers were there, along with 52 other environmentalist speakers. We are deeply disappointed with the result. Kudos to Councilmembers Gomez, Bry, and Montgomery for voting against it, and brickbats to Ward, Campbell, and Moreno for voting for it. Protect Our Preserves (protectourpreserves.org) spearheaded the fight against The Preserve, and if you want to help them, go to their websiteand donate. I’ve been actively involved helping them. Since The Preserve property didn’t have any listed plant species onit, CNPS won’t litigate. That doesn’t mean the project won’t further trash Del Mar Mesa, which is why I’m personally fighting it, but state CNPS, the organization which actually sues, has fairly strong guidelines for when we do and do not get involved in cases. In any case, Protect Our Preserves needs your help.