Santa Lucian 1 SANTA LUCIAN - Sierra Club · He didn’t do a lot of fact checking on what came to hand. With each new burst of attempted argument by sanctuary foes, more is revealed

Santa Lucian • September 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 eSanctuary and its foes 2

A dry-farmed fundraiser 3

Let’s trade in Diablo 7

Santa Barbara: No oil trains 5

Classifieds 11

Outings 12

Please recycle

This newsletter printed on100% post-consumer recycled paper with

soy-based inks

September 2015Volume 52 No. 8

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:September 17

Walk Across the Nation:My Story

- page 2

September 11

Coastal Clean-up Day

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

The Power isin thePlan

- page 4

Your city council’sdiscussion of the Phillips 66

oil train project:

Pismo Beach - Sept. 1Grover Beach - Sept. 21Arroyo Grande - Sept. 22

- page 7

Laetitia’s Long GoodbyeHelp the County say farewell on Sept. 10

from Coming Clean, The blog ofExecutive Director Michael Brune,August 3, 2015.

Most of the news we read and watchabout climate change is dark. Bleak,even. Depressing. Many of the tweets,posts, and stories we see reveal theconsequences of government andcorporate leaders’ inaction on climate— in the form of more intense wild-fires, droughts, extreme weather, andmore. But there’s another story that rarelygets told. Our movement is growing. Itis becoming more diverse and morepowerful. Clean energy is becomingcheaper every month and is displacingdirty fuels at an increasing rate. All ofthis momentum is creating a positivefeedback loop: As we become moreeffective at advocating for cleanenergy, the costs of solar, wind, andenergy storage are all plummeting. Asclean energy gets cheaper, it becomeseasier and easier to put fossil fuels inour rearview mirror. Today’s announcement by PresidentObama gives our movement a shot inthe arm. The EPA has at last issued itsClean Power Plan in final form. Untilnow, power plants faced no real limi-tation on how much carbon pollutionthey dumped into our atmosphere. Foran administration with many signifi-cant climate achievements, this is thecrown jewel. The journey to get here started yearsago, in the dark days of the Bushadministration. Twelve states, threecities, and an array of environmentalgroups (including the Sierra Club)brought suit to force the administratorof the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide,methane, and other greenhouse gasesas pollutants under the Clean Air Act.Eventually, on April 2, 2007, theSupreme Court, in a 5-4 decision,reversed an earlier judgement and

found for theplaintiffs. Today we reapthe rewards of thatlegal victory. If theClean Power Planplays out as theEPA expects it to, the net reduction ingreenhouse gas emissions from U.S.power plants by 2030 will be 30percent or more below 2005 levels —a big step toward meeting our currentinternational climate commitments. The genius of the Clean Power Planis that there really is no single plan.Instead the EPA has set individualgoals for each state (except Vermont,which has no power plants that qualifyfor regulation; no wonder my friendBill McKibben lives there). Each goalis calibrated for what that state canreasonably achieve in reductionsthrough measures like retiring coalpower, increasing energy efficiency,and encouraging the growth ofrenewable energy. Yet it’s up to eachstate to determine how it actually willachieve its goal; the EPA will remainhands off unless the state does nothing

at all. To be honest, the EPA has beenconservative in putting this plantogether. Each state is being asked toreach an attainable goal that is not justpossible, but surpassable — and everystate will end up in a better place thanwhere it started. Our economy willbenefit, and so will workers —provided that the federal governmentand the states ensure that training andfunding mechanisms are in place tosupport workers and communities thatpreviously depended on fossil fuels.Important as it is, though, the CleanPower Plan is only a first step in therace to stop climate pollution frompower plants. This plan, by itself, doesnot solve climate change. It doesn’teven reach the potential for carbon

POWER continued on page 4

For over a decade, the LaetitiaAgricultural Subdivision, proposed toscatter 101 homes across the LaetitiaVineyards, has been the poster childfor the biggest problem in San LuisObispo County’s land use policies: adeveloper can turn rangeland intoirrigated cropland, then use the waterrights obtained for that cropland to turnthose crops into condos and ranchettes.It’s not hard to see where that road

County’s General Plan and identifiedfifteen Class 1 – significant andunavoidable – environmental impactsthat would ensue should the project bepermitted.

leads and the ultimate fate of a once-rural county. The Laetitia project, however, hasnow hit a bump in that road, one thatmay portend avoidance of theoverdevelopment that currentpolicies make inevitable. CountyPlanning Staff is recommendingdenial of the Laetitia AgriculturalCluster, based on extensive findingsthat have determined the project isinconsistent with the policies of the LAETITIA continued on page 9

2 Santa Lucian • September 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!

Santa Lucian

EDITORGreg McMillanLindi DoudLinda SeeleySandy SimonEDITORIAL COMMITTEE

The Santa Lucian is published 10 times ayear. Articles, environmental information andletters to the editor are welcome. Thedeadline for each issue is the 13th of theprior 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 CommitteeMichael Jencks (12/15) CHAIRPatrick McGibney (12/17) VICE CHAIRLinda Seeley (12/17) SECRETARYPat Veesart (12/16) MEMBERLindi Doud (12/17) MEMBERGreg McMillan (12/16) MEMBEREmily Miggins (12/15) MEMBER

Greg McMillan COUNCIL OF CLUB LEADERSLindi Doud, Patrick McGibney TREASURERS

Committee ChairsPolitical Michael JencksConservation 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 Morris [email protected]/Kayak openWebmaster Monica Tarzier [email protected] Guide Gary Felsman

Chapter Director Andrew Christie 805-543-8717 [email protected]

Andrew [email protected]

[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

Linda Seeley [email protected]

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

Intergenerational Task ForceVictoria Carranza [email protected]

Sierra Club General Meeting7 p.m., Thursday, September 17th

Steynberg Gallery, 1531 Monterey St., SLO. Info: Joe Morris, 549-0355.

Walking Across the Nation—My Story

From late July through the first weekof August, the opponents of nationalmarine sanctuary protection for theCentral Coast turned the opinion pagesof the Tribune into fertile ground for

Sanctuary’s Foes

often enough and people will thinkit’s true – the transparently obviousfact that national marine sanctuariesare not part of the regulatory regimethat manages recreational andcommercial fishing in state or federalwaters simply became a mountain toohigh to climb. Opponents just lookedstupid when they continued to insiston an allegation that plainly is nottrue. So they stopped. Instead, they nowdwell in the valley of vagueness.Their fallback position, pacePeschong, is to intone ominouslyabout “regulations that could poten-tially be influenced” by sanctuaries,or to attempt gymnastic locutionsabout sanctuaries whose “influence ispowerful enough to persuade over-regulation.” They’re having an equally hardtime trying to deny the undeniablesanctuary proscriptions against oiland gas drilling. Some have tried tofloat a scenario whereby Congressand the President might decide torevoke the ban against drilling insanctuary waters, and then NOAAwould initiate the legally required andvery public process to revoke thatban, and the entire state of Californiaand all the environmental groups inthe country would sit back and let ithappen. Peschong avoided becoming part ofthat hilarity by instead pretending thatChumash Sanctuary proponents claima sanctuary would have avoided theRefugio oil spill because “they firmlybelieve that a national marine

students of sophistry, fans of fallaciesand trackers of tortured logic. The competition was tough, but, as isnow customary, local pundit JohnPeschong took home the prize. Mr. Peschong expressed his disap-pointment that the Northern ChumashTribal Council has revised andresubmitted their nomination for aChumash Heritage National MarineSanctuary despite the wish of Mr.Peschong and his friends that they notdo so. Starting from his customarygeneral premise — government is badand all government programs aretyrannical usurpations of freedom —Peschong cast about for support forspecific allegations against theNational Marine Sanctuary Program.He didn’t do a lot of fact checking onwhat came to hand. With each new burst of attemptedargument by sanctuary foes, more isrevealed about the nature of thatopposition, in ever more stark contrastwith the nature of support for thesanctuary. Basically, it’s the differencebetween sunlight and shadow. Let’s drill down:

The opposition is ever-shifting. Notlong ago, the centerpiece of all anti-marine sanctuary attacks was the claimthat a national marine sanctuary willimpose new regulations on fishing.While opponents dutifully followed thePropaganda 101 rule – repeat a lie FOES continued on next page

After 40 years teaching atCuesta College, anthropologyprofessor Bill Fairbanks set offon a coast-to-coast trek in2009. Over five years and 5,600miles, he talked to hundreds oflocals, visited small towns andlarge, attended communitymeetings, and viewed awesomelandscapes. Bill’s stories abouthis experiences and his reflec-tions on how our country haschanged, accompanied by slides,will make for a remarkableevening. Conservation newswill begin the meeting.

Medicine Creek under Missouri State Highway 6,east of Galt, Missouri, one of many midwesternwaterways carrying silt, fertilizer and pesticidesto the sea.


Would You Like a Deduction with Your Donation?

sanctuary would stop accidents fromoccurring.” But nobody believes that.We’ve said that if a sanctuary had beendeclared off Goleta before the oil rigswent in, that spill would not havehappened because the rigs that pumpedthe oil into that ruptured pipe wouldnot be there. To clinch his argument against theargument that nobody’s made, Mr.Peschong pointed out that a faultyvalve recently resulted in a 220,000-gallon sewage spill into the Mon-terey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.“The sanctuary status of Monterey Baydid not prevent raw sewage fromreaching the ocean,” he concluded,thus making the point that a nationalmarine sanctuary is not a magic marinesanctuary. Virtually all of the current crop ofcriticism mentions the economic studywhich found that our region would seea likely benefit from the establishmentof a national marine sanctuary in theform of at least $23 million addedannually to the local economy and upto 600 new jobs. Sanctuary opponentsmust attack this report because, unlessthey can mount a credible challenge toit, they know it would be pretty tough

to find a local elected official any-where who would vote against a $23million boost to the local economy and600 new jobs. So let us underscore this point: Therehas been no credible challenge to thestudy of the economic impacts of anational marine sanctuary on thecentral coast. The one formal attemptto challenge it was mounted by anuninformed and unqualified individualin the form an opinion piece thatcontained significant errors and madeconclusions based on mistakenassumptions, invalid comparisons andgroundless opinions. The conclusion of the economicstudy stands. And that does indeedmean that if you oppose the CHNMS,you are opposing a likely $23 millionannual addition to the local economyand 600 new jobs.

The opposition says things thataren’t true but sound like they mightbe true. It’s a national marine sanctu-ary, so that means we’d lose localcontrol, right? Decisions would bemade by “far-flung governmentbureaucrats” in Washington DC, right?Wrong. Decisions would be made bythe local superintendent and SanctuaryAdvisory Council, comprised of abroad group of local stakeholders.

When members of a particular eco-nomic special interest group complainabout “loss of local control,” it isnecessary to translate: they’re notafraid of a loss of local control; they’reafraid of too much local control, sharedwith local stakeholders other thanthemselves who may feel that they, too,have an interest in the ongoing healthof our local ocean. Mr. Peschong claims the livelihoodsof fishermen would be somehowthreatened by a marine sanctuary, andsupports this claim with a citation ofone of those mistaken assumptionsfrom that aforementioned uninformedcommentary attacking the economicstudy. Again, the attempt is to paint apicture of fishermen thrown out ofwork by theoretical future fishingregulations to be imposed by a marinesanctuary that would impose noregulations on fishing.

The opposition is frequentlyanonymous. The report on theeconomic impacts of a national marinesanctuary on the central coast ofCalifornia was commissioned by SierraClub California. It says so on the firstpage. In the opinion piece that triedand failed to debunk it, the authorcoyly declined to identify who asked

her to write an attack on the economicstudy. Furthering the cause of anonymity,Mr. Peschong writes that “other fishingcommunities all along the Californiacoast, whose ports and harbors havefallen into national marine sanctuarywaters, have spoken out about theconstricting overreach in the name ofpreservation.” Really? Do these communities “allalong the California coast” havenames? Have they spoken out likeMarin and Sonoma Counties did earlierthis year when they successfullypetitioned to expand the nationalmarine sanctuaries off their coastbecause they wanted even more ofwhat they already had? Have they spoken out like CaptainAlex Brodie, Fleet Manager for IslandPackers in Ventura? He said: “Theresearch, outreach and educationprovided by the dedicated employeesand volunteers of Channel IslandsNational Marine Sanctuary help to putour business on the map. Businesseslike ours reap direct and indirecteconomic benefits from the presence ofChannel Islands Marine Sanctuaryworth millions of dollars for our localeconomy.”

Foescontinued from previous page

FOES continued on page 5

As you may know -- per the wordingthat appears on every Sierra Clubmembership form and website --contributions, gifts and dues to theSierra Club are not tax deductiblebecause they support our citizen-basedadvocacy and lobbying efforts. However, we also do plenty of thingsthat aren’t strictly a matter of legisla-tion or weighing in with electedofficials (supporting the nomination of

a national marine sanctuary, organizingresistance to a potentially disastrousoil-by-rail project and opposing therelicensing of Diablo Canyon, to namethree), which can be funded with tax-deductible dollars. If you want to support the work ofthe Chapter and take a deduction offyour taxes next April, here’s how:

Write your check to “The Sierra

Club Foundation”Write “Santa Lucia Chapter Fund”in the Memo sectionMail to Sierra Club, P.O. Box15755, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406. That’s it. You have successfullymade a tax-deductible donation to theSierra Club, and you will receive therequisite acknowledgment letter to thateffect for the edification of the IRS. We thank you!

Richard AlbertsJesse ArnoldJohn BecciaValerie BentzFrancois & Ellen BeraudElizabeth BettenhausenSheila BlakeDavid & Naomi BlakelyRay & Sonya BrackenDuane & Sharon BudgeMahala & David BurtonJoan CarterDavid & Linda ChippingPhilip ChristieSarah ChristieCarol ChubHarvey & Kathy CohonJohn ConnerleyDavid CoxKenneth CurtisThomas Cyr<Maryell DannenbringKathleen DeragonMyra & Steven DouglassDeborah FosterCal FrenchNorma & Thomas FreyDavid & Carol GeorgiRichard Giffin

Henriette GrootMarvin GrossMarilyn HansenLynne HarkinsSue & Richard HarveyEdward & Holly HofferVL HollandJames & Charlene HoppStacey HuntMichael JencksRichard & Prisila JohnsonJerry KellyRandall & Sally KnightPenny KoinesSally & Eugene KrugerGeorge LewisSteven & Jan MarxCarl Meissner Service ElectricPatrick McGibney & Lindi DoudGreg & Linda McMillanVita MillerJoe MorrisRichard & Carol MortensenChristine MulhollandDenny & Kitty MynattMichael & Donna PhillipsLinda PoppenheimerWilliam & Deborah PowerBarry & Dona Price

Roy ReevesSharon & Thomas RippnerWilliam & Sandra Rumbler

Gar & Elizabeth SalzgeberCarla & David SaundersJohn & Julia SchutzLinda SeeleyFrederick SeykoraJerry SpruillLeslie StanleyJerry StoverBert & Elaine TownsendCharles TribbeyKalila VolkovBonnie & Dirk WaltersWilliam WaycottAlice WelchertLyn Wickham/Steve VandagriffMary Lou WilhelmKeith & Beth WimerEmily Worrell

It All Counts From 10-year-old Joseph’s five-dollar contribution to save forests to thesustaining contributions of our Cal French Circle members, for the Santa LuciaChapter to keep doing what we do, we need the support of all our members. Become a member of the Cal French Circle of supporters by signing up for amonthly contribution of at least $20 a month or one annual donation of at least$240. Go to www.santalucia.sierraclub.org, click the “Donate” button andeither donate $240 or select an automatic monthly contribution of at least $20. Or you can set up a monthly donation through your bank’s free “bill pay” service.

A Dry-Farmed Fundraiser With the water issue in North County taking a lot of space in the news -- andirrigated agriculture taking 80 percent of the water -- we think it’s time to geteducated on the issue. Since the growing of grapes is considered the main playerin this problem, we thought a talk with those dry-farm vintners and growers whoare not part of the problem would be in order. Dry land farming in the NorthCounty is seeing a growing renaissance. We’re going to spend a day dropping inon these visionaries and hearing how it works. A bus will leave San Luis Obispo mid-morning, with stops in Atascadero andTempleton to pick up you “over the hill” folks. We will spend the day visitingseveral of these growers and vintners, capping it off with a locally sourced dinnerby Chef Spencer Johnston at Ambyth Winery (not only dry farmed but grownusing biodynamic methods), just east of Templeton. The buses will then headback south. Plan to spend the day with friends, tasting wine and enjoying a splendid dinnerin an amazing place. Drop a note to [email protected] and we’ll put youon the list to receive more information as plans progress.

The Honor Roll: Cal French Circle Members, September 2015

Save the date: November 7, 2015


Nowhere to run PG&E is in the process of gathering beautiful photos for next year’s calendar,which they send to each household in the county. Along with this very lovelycalendar is included safety information and an evacuation map letting everyoneknow where to exit their community just in case there might be an alert sounding. The map looks very plausible and neat on paper, but in reality it just might posea few problems. The map has not changed in 35 years, nor have the two-laneroads leading in or out of each coastal town. But what has changed is the popula-tion. It has probably tripled since Diablo Canyon’s permits were first okayed bythe NRC. Following their evacuation plan would most probably cause total gridlock on allroads east, north and south within 15 minutes of an alarm sounding. What to do? My first thought is to stock up on large rolls of duct tape and beprepared to seal myself in. If I’m apt to die, I’d rather be in my home than in mycar with no way to flee the scene. I say, shut it down! Now!

Nancy Ruhl, Los Osos

Who controls local control? In the forty years I have been a Sierra Club member, I have occasionally—notoften—seen the Club’s leadership take the wrong stand, and support some actionthat is not the best choice to protect the environment. The Santa Lucia chapter’s Executive Committee has made such an error, in myjudgement, by choosing to support the County Flood Control District (FCD) asthe best option to balance the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin. For 45 years, the FCD (comprised of the five County supervisors) has beenhalf-hearted and ineffective at limiting pumping in the Basin. It has resistedasking any extractors to report their usage, let alone to cut back. Even the 2013Urgency Ordinance, designed as a moratorium on irrigated agriculture, wasgutted by the FCD with a long list of “vested rights.” More than a thousand acresof irrigated crops have been planted since then. A much better choice is the new Local Water District. Its ground-breaking nine-member board reflects the unique mix of residents and agriculture in the Basin:five board seats represent residents (both landowners and renters) and smallfamily farmers; two seats represent owners of mid-sized properties; and two seatsrepresent owners of larger land holdings. The Local District board are all unpaid volunteers, and must live over theBasin. The FCD board members are professional (paid) politicians, none ofwhom lives in the proposed district. My neighbors—rural residents, smallfarmers, retirees—are strong in their convictions that this local volunteer boardcan stabilize the Basin, while County management will only bring more of whatwe have now. The County has calculated that the costs for either approach arevirtually equal. Local demand management, local supplemental water, local recycling and reuseprojects—all require committed management by Basin residents who rely on asustainable rural water supply.

Michael Baugh, Paso Robles

The Sierra Club replies: To clarify, the Sierra Club supports several potential management options forthe Paso basin, including County management, State management and adjudica-tion. Anything, that is, but a “hybrid” water district with a built-in 6 to 3 majorityfor agricultural interests over non-land owning residents. Mr. Baugh praises this “ground-breaking” district structure while neglecting tomention the reason why the Sierra Club — and a dozen other public interestgroups statewide – are opposed to the proposed water district. We are all opposedbecause the public’s right to a voice in governance should not be based on howmuch land you own. County Supervisors are elected based on one person, onevote. Not so, the directors of the proposed Paso Robles Groundwater Manage-ment District. Acreage-based voting is an undemocratic feudal notion that letslandowners translate their land holdings into votes. No matter how one tries to sanitize the voting structure of the proposed districtby partitioning landowners into separate classes of voters, the fact remains thatthe proposed voting structure will dilute and negate the voice of rural non-landowning residents. Mr. Baugh’s letter attempts to reframe that discussion as a choice between a do-nothing County and “local control.” Let’s review how that dynamic has playedout in the recent history of this issue. In the fall of 2012, concerned North County rural residents began attendingmeetings of the Board of Supervisors and the Paso Basin Blue Ribbon Committeeto comment on the declining water levels in their wells and the explosive growthof irrigated agriculture over the basin. As rural residential well levels fell andimplications became clear, the residents started to gain traction with the supervi-sors. Just as the Board was moving to deal more aggressively with fallinggroundwater levels in the Basin, the economic interests that would benefit themost from a lack of management jumped to propose “local control” via a PasoRobles Groundwater Management District — an irrigation district that wouldessentially place control of the basin in the hands of agriculture, cutting out thevoice of the residents. Pressed by residents, in August 2013 an urgency ordinance was adopted by theBoard of Supervisors, but only after it had been significantly watered down underpressure from irrigated ag interests. Those same interests then pressed for last-minute state legislation to form their special water district. The public voicessupporting the district since 2013 have been largely coming from the irrigated agcommunity, which is responsible for pumping most of the water from the basinevery year. This same power dynamic could be seen in 2007 when the county embarked ona long overdue reorganization and update of the General Plan’s Conservation andOpen Space Element. The initial draft had numerous policies addressing water

LETTERS continued on next page

LettersSend to: [email protected], or Sierra Club, P.O. Box 15755, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406.All letters become property of the Sierra Club and may be edited for space.

savings in the electric sector — we willmeet and exceed this goal. But there’s a saying among marathonrunners that nothing affects youraverage speed like zero miles per hour. The Clean Power Plan officially getsthis country moving on the path to acarbon-free economy; we can andalmost certainly will pick up the pacelater. In fact, polls consistently showthat, across party lines, Americansstrongly support cutting carbonpollution from power plants. And ajust-released poll from NextGenClimate of voters in presidentialelection swing states found that 70percent of voters had a favorablereaction to a goal of at least 50 percentclean energy by 2030. And while cutting carbon emissionsis definitely great news for our climate,it also has profound benefits for ourhealth, the environment, and consum-ers. The EPA estimates that by 2030,

electricity costs under the Clean PowerPlan will drop by 8 percent, owing tothe greater efficiency of renewableenergy. What’s more, creating thismore-efficient system for powergeneration has the potential to createthousands of new jobs in construction,manufacturing, and other sectors. Meanwhile, the cleaner air thatresults from reducing our use of dirtyfuels will save thousands of lives andenable millions of Americans to leadhealthier, longer lives. Many of thepeople who will be helped the most arethe ones who need it most. Powerplants that emit carbon pollution andother toxic pollutants disproportion-ately harm nearby low-income commu-nities and communities of color. The real beauty of this plan is that itenables us to achieve all of these thingssimply by committing to do what wealready know is achievable to reducecarbon pollution. That may not be theultimate solution to climate disruption,but it certainly is a sensible place tostart.

Powercontinued from page 1

DIABLO continued on page 6

On August 5, the Santa Lucia Chap-ter filed comments on the NuclearRegulatory Commission’s notice ofintent to prepare an EnvironmentalImpact Statement for the licenserenewal of Diablo Canyon NuclearPlant Units 1 and 2. That evening, Chapter DirectorAndrew Christie delivered a three-minute summary version at the NRCscoping meeting held at the SLOCourtyard Marriott. We noted that in 2009, the NRC’sGeneric Environmental Impact State-ment for License Renewal of NuclearPlants attempted to evaluate theenvironmental impacts of energysources that may serve as alternativesto license renewal. It said “To serve as a source ofcommercial power, photovoltaicsystems and concentrating solar powersystems would need to work in con-junction with energy storage systemssuch as batteries.” It also said, “Historically, photovol-taic systems have not been used forcommercial power generation, but havebeen used to power appliances andhomes in remote locations that cannotbe easily connected to the transmissiongrid.” On that basis, the NRC dismissed

renewable energy as a viable alterna-tive to the relicensing of a nuclearpower plant. We pointed out in our comments onthe 2009 GEIS what was actuallyhappening with solar power in Califor-nia at that time, that in fact Californiadoes not consist primarily of homes inremote locations that cannot be easilyconnected to the transmission grid, that“the GEIS’s version of wind and solarpower and renewable energy storagetechnology was cursory, severely out ofdate or wholly lacking, and of no use inan alternatives analysis that shouldevaluate the viability of nuclear powerplants over a 20-year period that willbe marked by increasing costs of plantmaintenance and repair, simultaneouslywith smart grid and renewable energystorage technologies coming on line, asthe price of solar and wind powercontinues to drop, all pointing towardthe potential commercial obsolescenceof nuclear power within the relicensedperiod.” Six years later, we had to point outessentially the same problems with thenew proposed Environmental ImpactStatement. The NRC has replaced its circa-1975

Diablo is a Trade-InThe Nuclear Regulatory Commission is out of excuses

Tough room The NRC heard overwhelming public testimony against the renewal of DiabloCanyon’s operating license at its August 5 meeting in SLO.


management and metering groundwater pumping, which would have laid thefoundation for sustainable basin management. Most of those safeguards weredeleted or seriously weakened at the urging of many of the same voices that arenow pushing for “local control” as a panacea for a “do-nothing County.” For themost part, it was those “local control” folks who turned out en masse to gut anyeffective provisions in the 2013 Urgency Ordinance and extort a long list of“vested rights” with threats of lawsuits. They got crucial oversight and safeguardsdeleted from the ag water offset program requiring that water use for newplantings be offset by conservation of the same amount of water elsewhere. There is little evidence that the big pumpers pushing for the Paso Robles WaterDistrict, once having achieved that goal, would do anything differently than whatthey have been doing all along: lobbying to minimize oversight and management. It is naïve to deny the realities of electoral politics. Control of water in Califor-nia is a high-stakes game. More than half the land owners over the Paso basindon’t live there but will gain a substantial voice in management of water therewith an acreage-based vote under the banner of “local control.” An acreage-basedpie relegates rural residents to a permanent underclass. Real local control is basedon one-person, one vote. Supporters of local control for real should be pressingfor a one-person, one-vote water district that levels the playing field for the ruralresident and small landowners. The “do-nothing” County has been doing plenty: it’s been acting at the behest ofthe same powers that are proposing a water district as the solution to the Pasobasin’s problems. The fact is that if the local irrigated ag community went to theSupervisors right now and pleaded for metering, well monitoring and demandmanagement policies, a majority of supervisors would vote for those policies. Ultimately, we expect it will be up to the State of California and vigorousenforcement of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act to save the countyfrom itself.

Letterscontinued from previous page

Central Coast Bioneers and the San Luis Obispo Interna-tional Film Festival are collaborating on a screening of thedocumentary “Wrenched” which exams the colorful life of“The Monkey Wrench Gang” author Edward Abbey. Abbeywas a novelist referred to as the “Thoreau of the AmericanWest.” Infamous for his views on the environment and hiscriticism of public land policies, Abbey emerged from theearly sixties conservationist writers with a uniquely sharp witand sardonic sense of humor. His stories warn about theconsequences of over-development, particularly in theSouthwest. His fight continues to sustain the last bastion of the Ameri-can wilderness - the spirit of the West. The film will screen at 7:00 pm on Wednesday, September16 at the Palm Theater, 817 Palm Street. Tickets are $10 foradults and $8 for students and can be purchased at the door.Advance tickets on sale at www.slofilmfest.org. A q&a session will be held after the film.

Have they spoken out like TedBalestreri, President of the CanneryRow Company? He said: “For the fourmillion annual visitors to CanneryRow, the health and beauty ofMonterey Bay National MarineSanctuary is priceless. We simplywould not have the vibrant economyand visitor experience we currentlyenjoy were it not for a clean andaccessible marine environment. Thehotels, restaurants, shops, and othervendors along Cannery Row under-stand and appreciate this connection.” How about Captain Joe Nazar, ownerof San Francisco Whale Tours at Pier39 in San Francisco? “Gulf of theFarallones National Marine Sanctuaryis one of the earth’s most uniqueecosystems,” says Captain Nazar. “Weare incredibly blessed to not only livenext door to this ocean treasure, but torun a business whose success hingeson a healthy and well protectedsanctuary.” When sanctuary opponents pop up inour local media, they like to claim thatthey are among “hundreds of individu-als and organizations” opposed to theChumash Heritage National MarineSanctuary. Sanctuary supporters makethe same claim about hundreds ofsupporting individuals and organiza-tions. The difference: those hundredsof supporters can actually be listed byname, and have been (www.nominate.noaa.gov/nominations). All sanctuary opponents like toguide the curious reader to the websiteof the Our Protected Coast Coalition.As we’ve previously noted, OPCC is astudiously anonymous website, acollection of links to anti-sanctuarypolitical hit pieces going back decades.The first name ever to be publiclylinked with the OPCC was that ofAmber Johnson, the proprietor ofPacific Coast Strategies, Mr. Pesch-ong’s political stablemate and fellowp.r. professional, whose main claim tofame is serving as field director of theoil industry-funded campaign thatkilled Santa Barbara’s anti-frackingballot initiative. And finally:

The opposition is inexplicable. Tohis credit, Peschong refers to “anec-dotes” and “anecdotal accounts,”making it clear where he’s getting hisfactoids. To this realm belong paranoidfantasies about loss of “local control,”fishermen thrown off the water, and thetorture of the English languagenecessary to proclaim sanctuaries“powerful enough to persuade over-regulation” of fishing...without, youknow, regulating fishing.

Congress passed the NationalMarine Sanctuaries Act in 1972 inresponse to the 1969 SantaBarbara oil spill. Fourteensanctuaries have been designatedin US waters since. They haveeverywhere fulfilled their missionof public education, increasedresearch, and implementingecosystem-based management ofour shared ocean heritage,providing protections that noother state or federal system ofregulations can provide. The facts about national marinesanctuaries are clear, plentiful andreadily available. The nationalmarine sanctuary system has been aboon and a benefit across the socioeco-nomic board. A strong case can bemade that the primary recipients ofthese benefits have been commercialfishermen. Sanctuaries have protectedmarine habitat and assured the viabilityand continuance of fisheries. Coast tocoast, the catch of fishing fleets in thewaters of national marine sanctuarieshas brought hundreds of millions ofdollars to local coastal economies. But the likes of Mr. Peschong andthe folks pulling the strings at theOPCC can reliably count on an abilityto whip up a number of commercialfishermen by preying on ignorance andphantom fears and selling the notionthat a national marine sanctuary wouldmean the end of them. And their most amazing trick of all:The Refugio Beach oil spill shut downthe fishing industry in two counties.Fishermen were thrown off the water.They have sued the oil company forlost income. In other words, the oilspill did in reality what marine sanc-tuaries do only in Peschongian fanta-sies, and has also likely permanentlyaltered the marine environment off thecoast of Santa Barbara. Only a marinesanctuary can stop new oil and gasdevelopment off our coast and protectour fisheries from another Refugio. And yet. Even after this very recentreal-world example of what canhappen in the absence of marinesanctuary protections, some of thepeople who should be fighting hardestto gain that protection for the fisheriesthey depend on are fighting the hardestagainst it. This remains a mystery. We will continue to cite the factsabout national marine sanctuaries andthe fact of communities and businessesthat feel incredibly blessed to haveone. Mr. Peschong and his cohort willsurely continue citing anecdotes,hurling charges, making vague,sweeping statements with nothing toback them up, and dropping oldarguments and switching to new oneswithout acknowledging that they aredoing so.

Foescontinued from page 5

Sept. 16: Edward AbbeyDocumentary at the Palm

En el Camino

Hiking the Camino de Santiago At our July general meeting, Outings Leader MikeSims and fellow peregrinos told a packed house at the Steynberg Gallery what it’s like tohike Spain’s 12th-century pilgrimage trail.


Tesla trauma triggers nuclear nullity The NRC is hoist on its own petard and its 2009 attempt to dismiss renewables as analternative to nukes because “to serve as a source of commercial power, photovoltaic systems...would need to work in conjunctionwith energy storage systems such as batteries.” Now they do.

assessment of renewable energy with anew exclusionary strategy: A require-ment that any replacement for DiabloCanyon’s power be just like DiabloCanyon: A utility-scale, stand-alonesource of always-on baseload power.Dr. Mark Cooper, in the new reportPower Shift: The Deployment of a 21stCentury Electricity Sector and theNuclear War to Stop It (see “NewReport: It’s Time for Nukes to Go,”July), notes this “failure of the NRC toadjust to the changes in the electricitysector,” and states that “in the currenttechnological and economic environ-ment this focus is tantamount to anirrational baseload bias and a utility-scale fetish that is out of touch withreality.” Dr. Cooper points out that PG&Eechoes the NRC’s utility-scalebaseload fetish in its own AmendedEnvironmental Report, with a focus on“stand-alone” energy sources. “PG&E also assumes that a signifi-cant amount of natural gas generationwill be needed to replace the amount ofelectricity generated by DiabloCanyon. But there are a large numberof possible combinations ofmany resources that canmeet the need for electricityin a low carbon environ-ment. PG&E has chosen asingle combination thatrelies on a large amount ofgas, which increases theenvironmental impact of

that alternative. More renewables,distributed generation, geothermal, andefficiency would achieve the sameoutcome with a much more environ-mental and consumer-friendly impact.” Dr. Cooper notes that: “one needonly compare PG&E’s AmendedEnvironmental Report with theCalifornia Energy Commissiondocuments PG&E relies on. PG&Erejects the option of geothermal energybased on the assumption that a singlenew geothermal plant would be built inPG&E’s service territory. Making theconservative assumption that thePG&E service territory includes halfthe geothermal resources in the state,geothermal resources are twice as largeas Diablo Canyon’s capacity. Adding inefficiency and other distributedresources, the alternative energycapacity would be four times thecapacity of Diablo Canyon.” Further, “PG&E’s analysis of thesupply-side of the California electricitysector also obscures a simple fact: non-hydro renewables, i.e. wind and solar,have increased dramatically and arepoised to surpass nuclear generation,which has been in decline.” We trust the EIS alternatives analysiswill take note of this fact, as well as the

fact noted in Power Shift that “nuclearpower and central station generationare at a severe economic disadvantageas the technologies of distributedgeneration continue to develop anddeploy.” The EIS should analyze and contrast“short-term operating costs, long termtotal resource costs, including effi-ciency as a resource, identify theimplications of the dramaticallydeclining cost of renewables, andrecognize the economic problems ofaging reactors in wholesale marketswhere renewables and efficiency areputting downward pressure on prices.” The EIS should incorporate PowerShift’s assessment that the economicsand necessity of Diablo’s reactors arebeing undermined by a: 40 percent increase in the operatingcost of aging reactors;40 percent decrease in the cost ofwind; 60 percent decrease in the cost ofsolar; low-cost energy efficiency technolo-gies that have taken a bite out of loadgrowth; demand response that has become anincreasingly valuable and effectiveresource; huge investments in storage tech-nologies that are on the brink ofredefining the value of intermittentresources; and advanced information and controltechnologies that transform the

approach to reliability. The NRC’s alterna-tives analysis shouldincorporate Dr.Cooper’s findingsthat “aging reactorsare more costly than

efficiency, wind, gas, and some solar inthe near-term. In the mid-term, moresolar becomes competitive with agingreactors as do several other generationsources, including biomass, geother-mal, micro- turbines, and even offshorewind.” In view of the fact that the NRC’s2009 GEIS insisted that “to serve as asource of commercial power, photovol-taic systems and concentrating solarpower systems would need to work inconjunction with energy storagesystems such as batteries,” the alterna-tives analysis in the EIS shouldacknowledge the April 2015 introduc-tion of affordable residential andindustrial battery storage systems; theimplications of this technology’s im-mediate, widespread demand andacceptance; and its projected growth tobecome a $19 billion industry by 2017,the year the final EIS is scheduled tobe released. If the EIS does not incorporate ananalysis of this new information, wewill know that the NRC has againchosen to remain strategically out ofdate so as to exclude viable alterna-tives to license renewal. Finally, the EIS should dispense withPG&E’s argument that Diablo Canyonis needed to meet the goals of carbonreduction. Recent projections by theDepartment of Energy’s EnergyInformation Administration (EIA)based on multiple scenarios for carbonemission reductions found that nuclearpower does not help achieve greatercarbon emission reductions. Per Dr. Cooper, “pointing out that60% of our current low carbongeneration comes from nuclear as abasis for suggesting that nuclear mustplay a central role in the futuredecarbonization of the electricitysector is simply wrong as a matter offundamental economics and totallyirrelevant to policy making. Theexistence of nuclear power is a veryold sunk cost…. In the mid- to long-term, none of the existing nuclearreactors will make any contribution todecarbonization. They will all have tobe replaced, and their future costs,compared to the available alternatives,are all that matters.” In its Clean Power Plan, the EPAconcurred, rejecting a proposal toallow states to count six percent ofexisting nuclear generation towardclean energy goals. In its final rule,EPA states “We believe it is inappro-priate to base the BSER (Best Systemof Emission Reduction) on elementsthat will not reduce CO2 emissionsfrom affected electric generating units

below current levels…. Existingnuclear generation helps makeexisting CO2 emissions lower thanthey would otherwise be, but willnot further lower CO2 emissionsbelow current levels.Accordingly… the EPA is notfinalizing preservation of genera-tion from existing nuclear capacityas a component of the BSER.” The Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission must replace its datedalternatives assessment with thecurrent state of the art in renewable

energy when it drafts its EnvironmentalImpact Statement on the proposedrelicensing of Diablo Canyon.

Diablocontinued from page 4

CoastalCleanupDay isSept. 19

The CaliforniaCoastal Commis-sion will sponsorthe 31st AnnualCalifornia CoastalCleanup Day onSaturday, Septem-ber 19, from 9 a.m.to noon. In SanLuis ObispoCounty, the day’sefforts will be

coordinated by the EnvironmentalCenter of San Luis Obispo (ECOSLO). The 31st Annual California CoastalCleanup Day will bring hundreds ofvolunteers out to the beaches,shorelines, and inland waterways ofSan Luis Obispo County to clear awaydebris deposited over the past year. Statewide last year, 66,844 CoastalCleanup volunteers collected 1.1

CLEANUP continued on page 8


On June 28, the City of SantaBarbara became the latest Californiamunicipality asking the County of SanLuis Obispo to deny the Phillips 66 oilby rail project. The first speaker at that city councilmeeting turned out to be the first andlast person at the hearing who spoke in

favor of the project. He ticked off the Phillips 66/BarnettCox p.r. talking points, then introducedthe specter of legal action against theCity should the council make a “hastydecision” to opposed the project. Mayor Helene Schneider turned tothe city attorney for clarification of thiseyebrow-raising remark. The cityattorney assured the council that thelaw provides “overwhelming supportfor public agencies that wish toexercise their First Amendment rights,”including by such means as sending aletter to county planners. Assemblyman Das Williams’representative urged denial, noting that

Santa Barbara SaysNo to Oil by Rail

speed limits in urban areas Also, “theSan Luis Obispo Planning Commis-sion will be very hard pressed to turnthis down, as there would be no justi-fication in land use law.” To help out councilmembers Hotch-kiss and Francisco: Tar sands oil trainsexplode because the chemicals neededto dilute the crude sufficiently to pourit into a tank car are highly volatile.Far from being an indicator of value,this is a graphic illustration of just whytar sands crude has earned its rep ascheap and dirty “extreme oil:” it’sbarely even oil. Per those “absolutely minimal” risks,at current levels of oil transport, theDepartment of Transportation esti-mates 15 derailments and spills peryear, and one “Lac Megantic levelevent” (a large portion of a city incin-erated, mass casualties) every twoyears. As for councilmember Francisco’sassurances that the new rules will saveus: Old tank cars won’t be off the railsand retrofits will not be complete for 8to 10 years. Retrofits will have thinnerwalls than new tank cars. The newspeed limits apply only to a few “high-threat urban areas” (i.e. not us). Andthe new rules gutted requirements forgiving the public and emergency

“we just had a devastating spill on ourcoast, and that was a pipeline, andpipelines are safer than trains. SenatorHannah-Beth Jackson’s representativeconcurred that the project poses adirect risk to Santa Barbara’s publicsafety and environment, and theRefugio Beach oil spill “has reminded

us how vulnerable weare.” Fred Shaw, Vice Mayorof Carpinteria, told thecouncil why his city haddecided to oppose theproject. Ken Huff (left) ofthe Santa Barbara CountyAction Network delivereda 15-page report delineat-ing the risks posed by theproject throughout thecounty. Aside from the “you’llget sued” guy, the onlyother project supportersin the room appeared tobe councilmembers DaleFranciso and FrankHotchkiss.

Hotchkiss allowed that “it’s true thiskind of oil is more explosive; thatprobably contributes to its value,” buthis constituents should “take somesolace in knowing the risks areabsolutely minimal.” And: “Weshouldn’t tell other planning commis-sions what to do.” Francisco assured attendees that thefeds have total control because thisproject involves interstate rail trans-port; cities and counties have no say.He offered the encouraging word thatnew safety rules were put in place bythe Department of Transportationearlier this year, assuring “newer andstronger” tank cars and mandatory

responders advance notification of oilshipments and routes. As far as how the SLO County Plan-ning Commission could justify turningdown this project, it will have availableto it at least eleven justifications underland use law. They are called Class Ienvironmental impacts — significantand unavoidable — and they are alllisted in the project’s EnvironmentalImpact Report. Even more justificationcan be found in the fact that the EIRminimizes or simply omits othersignificant impacts altogether in anattempt to obscure the full scope of theproject’s harms. Any deliberative bodythat issued a permit for a project basedon an EIR as deficient as this onewould be in violation of state law. And then there’s the ultimatejustification, as articulated by SierraClub Santa Barbara Chapter ChairKatie Davis in her remarks to the citycouncil: “There would be zero benefitto us from oil trains moving throughSanta Barbara to prepare crude oil tobe refined for export.” As another speaker put it, and as allother speakers — with one exception— agreed, the council “should placethe health and safety of residents overthe profits of private industry.” So they did.

The County should be required to notify everyone within one mile of the railline of the potential dangers associated with oil trains

By Charles Varni, Ph.D., South SLO County coordinator for protectslo.org. Thisis an abridged version of an article that appeared in the Santa Maria Sun.

The Phillips 66 oil train terminal project proposes to bring mile-long oil tankertrains, each carrying 2.4 million gallons of toxic, flammable, explosive tar-sandscrude oil from Alberta, Canada, through our county and communities, five times aweek for the next 20 years. The imported oil is refined primarily for export sale toAsia. The U.S. Department of Transportation has formally designated a “blast andevacuation zone” of 1 mile running parallel to the tracks in case of an oil trainderailment (six so far this year in the U.S. with five of them exploding): 30percent of the population of SLO County and 40-plus public and private schoolsare in this blast zone. In some communities it is much more (Paso Robles, 45percent; San Luis Obispo, 71 percent; Grover Beach, 78 percent; Oceano, 88percent). More than 95,000 people in the county are directly impacted, yet veryfew of them even know it. The populations of Santa Barbara County and all theother counties along the rail line will be affected as well, yet there has been noformal notification to blast-zone residents by any governmental agency. Why? Because the Phillips 66 project, for government purposes, only consistsof the oil train terminal at the Nipomo Mesa refinery. It doesn’t include the manythousands who every week for the next 20 years will be subjected to the threat ofderailment, fires, explosions, massive amounts of new air pollution from dieselengine exhaust and toxic, carcinogenic fumes vented from the tank cars carryingthe dirtiest crude oil on earth. Local citizens have taken it upon themselves to begin canvassing the blast zonesthroughout SLO County with factual information fliers, which inform people ofthe potential dangers to themselves and their property. What we are finding is thattypically upward of 90 percent of residents and business owners we talk to havenever heard any specifics about the Phillips 66 project. A colleague and I recentlycanvassed within one block of the train tracks running through Oceano. Only fourof the approximately 100 persons we contacted knew anything about the project.Not surprisingly, after we briefly shared the facts of the project, the majority ofthem were opposed to it. It is easy to see when your community is being put at

Civil Rights in the Blast Zone

RIGHTS continued on page 10

Send a Message to Your City Council

What does the Santa Barbara City Council know that your city council doesn’t? Quite a lot, it would seem, if you live in Pismo Beach, Grover Beach or ArroyoGrande. They still haven’t managed to make a peep on the Phillips 66 project, butthey’ve finally agreed to discuss it: Pismo on Sept. 1, Grover on Sept. 21 andArroyo Grande on Sept. 22. Attending those meetings to let your council members know they need to domore than just talk about the project, they need to ask the County to deny it. Ifyou’ve already used this handy Sierra Club alert to sent them that message, feelfree to do so again. Go to: sc.org/Phillips66.

Atascadero, Paso, Pismo, Grover, Arroyo Grande: Are you listening?

sc.org/Phillips66


: the Pope vs. David Brooks

Upshot: David Brooks’ theory of the virtues of greed wasrefuted 23 years ago at the very end of a documentary film on thecareer and influence of a very different public intellectual, whoaddressed the idea that “Individual material gain… is accepted aslegitimate, even praiseworthy, on the grounds that private viceyields public benefits, in the classic formulation. It’s long beenunderstood very well that a society that is based on this principlewill destroy itself in time. It can only persist, with whateversuffering and injustice that entails, as long as it’s possible topretend that the destructive forces that humans create are limited,that the world is an infinite resource, and that the world is aninfinite garbage can. At this stage of history, either one of twothings is possible: Either the general population will take control ofits own destiny and will concern itself with community interests,guided by values of solidarity and sympathy and concern forothers, or alternatively there will be no destiny for anyone tocontrol…. The conditions of survival, let alone justice, requirerational social planning in the interests of the community as awhole, and by now that means the global community. In thispossibly terminal phase of human existence, democracy andfreedom are more than values to be treasured; they may well beessential to survival.”

-- Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent, Zeitgeist Films, 1992

Summary: On June 18, Pope Francis issued his historic encyclical making the moral caseagainst climate change and in defense of the planet. Because he took aim at the mindset forwhich “maximizing profits is enough,” conservative pundits arose as one to tell the pope to shutup. None rushed to the defense of the status quo with more fervor than the New York Times’David Brooks.

“Fracking and the Franciscans,” by David Brooks, The Tribune, June 25, 2015.

Taking Issueproblematic environmental coverage & commentary in our local media

[The pope] neglects the obvious truth thatthe qualities that do harm can often, whencarefully directed, do enormous good....Moral realists, including Catholic ones,should be able to worship and emulate aGod of perfect love and still appreciatesystems, like democracy and capitalism,that harness self-interest.

“Brookscites anentire onesentencefrom thereligiousleader’ssweeping, 138-page encyclical on ‘care for ourcommon home’ and deems the entire documenttoo…Catholic.” -- Lindsay Abrams, Salon.com, 6/23/15.

“What he’s referring to is theconception of natural gas as a“bridge fuel”: the idea that,leaving aside the water and air

pollution and the earthquakes and the other potentialhealth risks arising from the drilling process, gas is anet good because it’s better than coal. It is true, as hewrites, that when burned, natural gas contributes lessto global warming than does coal, although thatequation quickly changes when natural gas leaksstraight into the atmosphere — methane, as agreenhouse gas, is many times more potent thancarbon dioxide. Even if we could prevent all of thoseleaks, one recent study found, natural gas is stilllikely to have minimal impact on our emissions overthe coming decades; worse still, it can prevent usfrom investing in truly green energy (one technologythe pope absolutely does endorse). It’s a strategy thatthe study’s author likened to “dieting by eatingreduced-fat cookies.”-- Lindsay Abrams, Salon.com, 6/23/15.

“And thus begins themost confusing and ill-informed part of avery confusing and ill-informed rant: in thepope’s critique of aneconomy that ‘acceptsevery advance in

technology with a view to profit, without concern for itspotentially negative impact on human beings,’ Brooks readsan implicit condemnation of hydraulic fracturing. And yetthe EPA, Brooks informs us, found that fracking isn’tcausing widespread harm to the nation’s water supply — anincredibly limited interpretation of an incredibly limitedstudy that actually had the agency confirming, for the firsttime, that fracking can pollute drinking water.”-- Lindsay Abrams, Salon.com, 6/23/15.

...there’s someevidence thatfracking is a netenvironmental plus.

“The biggestdespoiler of thenatural commons,of course, is ourconstant pumpingof greenhousegases into theatmosphere,which the popeacknowledges inscientificallybacked detail.

Brooks ignores it to a comical fault.”-- Lindsay Abrams, Salon.com, 6/23/15.

“Has it really cometo this? Is it nowconventionalwisdom to admon-ish the CatholicChurch for under-appreciating thecontributions ofChinese totalitarian-ism toward ‘humandignity?’ It’snauseating enoughwhen Westerneconomists laud theChinese ‘economicmiracle,’ as ifthere’s some deepsecret involved in using slave labor to hoardmountains of manufacturing profits. Butasking us to appreciate the ‘gains in humandignity’ offered by a society without freedomsof speech, assembly, political choice, religionor labor organization is beyond absurd.”-- Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone, 6/27/15.

Hardest to accept, though, is the moralpremise implied throughout the encycli-cal: that the only legitimate humanrelationships are based on compassion,harmony and love, and that arrange-ments based on self-interest andcompetition are inherently destructive.

“Thatincludesyou, leaderof theRomanCatholicChurch!Add somebalanceinto yourreligious teachings, for God’s sake. And just to be sure that wearen’t overlooking the irony, this is David Brooks, theanointed preacher of How to Live and How to Think, tellingyou not to speak from an exclusively moralistic standpoint —apparently, it’s only okay to do that if Brooks agrees withwhat you’re saying.” -- Lindsay Abrams, Salon.com, 6/23/15.

A raw and rugged capitalism inAsia has led, ironically, to agreat expansion of the middleclass and great gains in humandignity…. Pope Francis is awonderful example of how tobe a truly good person. But ifwe had followed his line ofanalysis…there’d be noawareness that althoughindustrialization can lead tocatastrophic pollution in theshort term (China), over thelong haul both people andnature are better off withtechnological progress....

A few years ago, a team of research-ers led by Daniel Esty of Yale lookedat the environmental health of 150countries. The nations with higherincome per capita had better environ-mental ratings. As countries get richerthey invest to tackle environmentalproblems that directly kill humanbeings (though they don’t necessarilytackle problems that despoil thenatural commons).

“The ‘catastrophic pollution’ caused byChina’s industrialization, he writes, is a‘short term’ problem. It’s strange,because Brooks isn’t a climate denier.And yet there’s really no way to makethat argument with a straight face unlessyou’re somehow unaware that the verysame coal-fired industry that’s making it

hard for people in China to breathe has also made itso that the country is responsible for some 30percent of the world’s emissions (or that the U.S.,despite having more breathable air, is the world’ssecond-highest emitter). Far from short-term, somehave gone so far as to call that existential.”-- Lindsay Abrams, Salon.com, 6/23/15.

You would never suspect, fromthe encyclical, that over thepast decade, one of the mostcastigated industries producedsome of the most importanteconomic and environmentalgains. I’m talking, of course,about fracking.

over 800 sites on California beaches,bays, rivers, and creeks. In SLOCounty, you can choose one of the 30sites that ECOSLO manages. CallECOSLO, The Environmental Centerof San Luis Obispo, at (805) 544-1777for exact locations and other site-specific information. For further detail,visit the ECOSLO web site atwww.ecoslo.org.How: To sign up to volunteer forCoastal Cleanup Day, go to http://theecoslo.ivolunteer.com/. If interestedin helping lead this event, sign up as aSite Captain. There are just a few spotsleft and we need your help! Call oremail ECOSLO for available locationsand Site Captain Orientation dates:(805) 544-1777 [email protected].

million pounds of trash and recy-clables. In San Luis Obispo County,volunteers clear 30 beach sites andpick up thousands of pounds of trasheach year. ECOSLO provides supplies at everysite (gloves, buckets, bags, pick upsticks). However, if Cleanup volunteersbring their own bucket or reusable bagand gloves from home, this assureseveryone will have the equipmentthey need. When: Saturday, September 19th,2015 from 9 AM to noon at a beachnear you! Where: Cleanups will take place at

Cleanupcontinued from page 6


: Diablo vs. Email

Dr. Gibson’s chagrin at PG&E’s bypassingof review by the CPUC’s appointedIndependent Peer Review Panel wasjustified, and is now documented. A March19, 2014, email from a top PG&E legaladvisor verifies that PG&E has promisedthey would share drafts of the report withthe IPRP:

“See slide 3 from Feb 2013presentation that says we’re sending draft technical reports on Irish Hills to the IPRP inFebruary 2014. I’ve rec’d nothing to send them... but clearly we indicated we were goingto share drafts.

Two days later, a top PG&E geoscience manager lays out the plan:

No meeting is currently scheduled. We are issuing a final report June 30th. Iexpect meetings after we issue the report based on when the CPUC/IPRP requests them. Ifa meeting is scheduled for any reason, I will let you know.

Less than two weeks later, the IPRP staff liaison asks PG&E again to see a draft of thereport:

I’m hearing that PG&E plans on submitting a report of its results and findings tothe NRC in June 2014. The IPRP would like to see a draft before then ... the sooner thebetter ... so that any comments or suggestions we might have could be incorporated intoyour report. (ellipses in original)

And an engineering director then explains PG&E’s refusal to Ed Halpin:

….Our sense is they [IPRP] will not be happy not getting an advanced reviewbefore we issue but we really have no choice at this point…

Halpin issued an internal report on July 3, 2014, that stated “We believe we have answeredall of the questions posed by the IPRP of the PUC but will work with them to answeradditional questions throughout the summer once the report is issued.”

Summary: On July 14, 2015, the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility (A4NR) filed testimony in a case before theCalifornia Public Utilities Commission in which PG&E will attempt to claim the remainder of the ratepayer funds taken forits “AB 1632” seismic studies. The studies were released on September 10, 2014, as the California Central Coast SeismicImaging Project. A4NR’s testimony, relying on 2,400 internal PG&E emails, paints a picture of obfuscation and stonewall-ing in the course of preparing the $64 million study. In short, had these emails been available when the study was releasedlast fall, the headline in the Sept. 11 Tribune might have looked very different.

“Diablo Canyon can endure quakes, latest study finds” by David Sneed, The Tribune, September 11, 2014.

Taking Issueproblematic environmental coverage & commentary in our local media

So said ChiefNuclear Officer EdHalpin. But internalemails tell anotherstory. From a June24, 2014, emailbetween the geoscience directors:

... [Mr. Halpin] reviewed the Executive Summary that waspresented in the recent webcast… He specifically asked aboutthe last set of ground motion curves in the presentation where itshows us using the 86th percentile for a deterministic evalua-tion that links Hosgris [sic], San Simeon, and Shoreline andshows exceedance both at low frequency and high frequency.

Halpin was still concerned on September 2, 2014, just a weekbefore the report was released:

…as I reread the executive summary section of the report andgo to the last page that summarizes old vs new data/assump-tions, it seems the majority of the data has worsened and notimproved. The optics look bad. If I was to color code thesummary sheet and show all data in red that’s worse in regardto assumptions it would not look good….

At issue is the matter of deterministic evaluations—i.e., theworst that could happen. This is what the California EnergyCommission specifically requested from the AB 1632 report—and PG&E found that the deterministic news was grim.Instead, Halpin chose to report on the probabilistic results—i.e., how likely is it to happen? It’s been determined that if theearthquakes occur, they will be stronger. Of course, the“probability” of the Fukushima disaster was one in a million.

“Nothing exceeds the engineering andother designs of the plant,” he said.

Summary: It took filing as legal intervenors for A4NR to discover the trail ofemails that contradict PG&E’s claims in the Tribune when the study was originallyreleased. It validates Dr. Gibson’s concerns that the IPRP was ignored. And it can onlyreinforce in the public’s mind that PG&E is continuing to show the kind of badcorporate behavior that earned them a federal indictment for obstructing the investiga-tion that followed the San Bruno explosion. The entire A4NR testimony, with allemails, can be read at: http://a4nr.org/?p=3476

[Gibson] said it is unfortunate that PG&Echose to release the study to the publicbefore releasing it to the panel. “It wasour expectation that the data sets wouldbe released to the IPRP, so we wouldhave a chance to analyze them beforereleasing them to the public, but I guessthat was not PG&E’s plan” he said.

Those impacts include loss ofimportant farmland, air pollution, peaktraffic on Highway 101, land useconflicts with existing agriculturaloperations, and damage compromising169 coast live oak trees and 14 acres ofnative oak woodland. Looming over all is the debate overthe accuracy of the developer’sestimate of how much water the projectwould need, and where that water’sgoing to come from. The Sierra Club has commented thatthe applicant’s claim of sustainablewater use is based on the assertion thateach home will not use more than 0.44acre feet of water per year, but theproject plan lacks enforceable condi-tions to limit water use. Monitors areproposed to gauge water use, butmonitoring is not mitigation. The nature of the local aquifer is alsoproblematic. County agriculturalresource specialist Lynda Auchinachiehas pointed out that “It does seemuncertain that there is enough water tosustain agricultural production.” The County Planning Commissionheld their first session on the project onAugust 13. They will resume delibera-tions, and vote to permit or deny theproject, on September 10. “I would hope that, if the LaetitiaAgricultural Cluster can be disposedof, staff and decision-makers wouldfeel empowered to challenge thecurrent policies and ordinances underwhich such clusters come forward,”wrote local land use watchdog EricGreening. “Although AgriculturalCluster Subdivisions were sold to thepublic as a way to contain the damageof developing sprawling ‘antiquatedsubdivisions’ in their original locations,the ordinance was written not only toallow moving old parcels around, butto allow the creation and clustering ofnew parcels, based on minimum parcelsizes for various agricultural uses. Thiscreates an incentive for puttingrangeland under irrigation to increasebuilding entitlements.”

Laetitiacontinued from page 1

In June, the Sierra Club filed a Coastal Commission appeal ofthe Harbor Terrace project in Avila Beach due to its likelyimpacts on the Harford Pier fish cleaning station — where fishoil rains down on hungry pelicans, producing the same effect ontheir life expectancy as an oil slick. (See “One For the Pelicans,”April.) The Tribune soundly scolded us for potentially holdingup the beloved Harbor Terrace project and heaved a brickbatour way. In August, when we withdrew our appeal of the HarborTerrace project, the Tribune bestowed a bouquet upon usbecause it believed we withdrew the appeal due to a suddenrealization that Port San Luis is “taking steps to make fishcleaning stations safer for marine life.” Yes, it is. Right after we filed the appeal, the Port San LuisHarbor Commission, which had previously been in no greathurry on this issue -- mostly spending its time arguing withrepresentatives of the Sierra Club, SLO Coastkeeper, MorroCoast Audubon, Willow Tree Wildlife and Pacific Wildlife Care-- suddenly snapped into action, accelerating the pace of short-term protective measures at the station. Our appeal became theonly topic of conversation at the Port’s ad hoc committeemeetings on the fish cleaning station. We got near daily phonecalls and emails from staff seeking withdrawal of the appeal.When the Port finally took the step of approving a full suite ofnear- and long-term measures, with dates and dollar amountsattached, we withdrew our appeal. Coastal Commission staff, who were unaware of the problemprior to our appeal, reported to the Coastal Commission at theirAugust 14 meeting that they will now be engaging in activeencouragement and support of efforts to resolve the issuesaround the Harford Pier fishcleaning station. Thanks to our brick-battedappeal, matters were expe-dited, the Coastal Commis-sion was alerted, and the Portnow must deliver on thepromises it’s made.

Of Brickbats, Bouquets & Pelicans


Rightscontinued from page 7

great risk simply for the profits of theseventh biggest corporation in the U.S.There’s no significant benefit to us;just a lot of huge risks and, for sure,negative health consequences (not tomention huge economic and environ-mental risks). When a multinational oil-refiningcorporation proposes a project thatputs your health, property, businesses,schools, economy, and environment atrisk, do you think you have a right toknow about it? Why was Phillips 66not directed to send a letter to every

residence and business in the blastzone across the entire county? Thecounty is requiring Phillips 66 toinform every parcel within 300 feet ofa new oil pipeline being laid along OldOak Park road in Arroyo Grande andPismo—and oil pipelines are therelative safest mode to transport crudeoil. The most dangerous mode is mile-long oil trains, but the many thousandsimpacted by these disasters waiting tohappen get no official word. Thecounty planner in charge of the oil trainproject said the local media and countywebsite provide sufficient publicity,and they will do no more than theminimum required by their attorneys. A quick search of the Tribune showssix news stories regarding the P66project in 2015. Local televisionstations have had virtually nothing tosay about the project and featured abrief and distorted piece, about the July11 rally and march in SLO. This is a civil and human rightsissue—the right to know that some-thing of this magnitude and impact isplanned for your neighborhood shouldnot be the responsibility of citizenvolunteers. This is a fundamentalresponsibility of government—toinform us of significant risks to life andproperty so we can be part of thedecision-making process if we sochoose. To not require specific publicnotification of all persons living in theblast/evacuation zone is a cleardereliction of duty and keeps the publicuninformed and thus, uninvolved. Wholikely benefits from that?

By Ethan Buckner, ForestEthics

What a week it was. Throughout theweek of July 6, more than 5,000 peopleparticipated in 100 events during thisyear’s #StopOilTrains Week of Action,amounting to the largest protest againstoil trains in history. Across the US and Canada, commu-nities took to the streets, held memorialvigils, blockaded the tracks, hostededucational events, hung banners,canvassed neighborhoods, and spokeout at public hearings. This effort - ledby grassroots leaders and communitiesmost impacted by oil train transport -sent ripples across North America. Highlights from the week of actionare too numerous to count. Nationalpress coverage included pieces inMSNBC, Democracy Now, EcoWatch,The Hill, AP, & VICE - alongsidedozens of local print, TV, and radiopieces. In Lac-Mégantic, Ontario, site of the

Phillips 66 is Spending Big in SacramentoWonder what that’s about?

On August 3, the Sacramento Bee published a list of who’s been spending themost money lobbying Sacramento officials this year, according to disclosuresfiled with the California Secretary of State’s office. Phillips 66 is spending slightly less than Comcast and slightly more than theCity of Los Angeles:

COMCAST CORPORATION AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES, INCLUDING NBC UNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC: $523,722.96

PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY: $506,780.16

LOS ANGELES; CITY OF: $506,373.33

Read all about it at http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article29886748.html#storylink=cpy.

Stop Oil Trains: TheWeek ofAction

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.

Speaking out SLO Mayor Jan Marx told a crowd of 500 in Mitchell Park why thePhillips 66 rail spur project must be denied at the local Week of Action event, July 11.

had an impact, from gatherings of 5 to500. No matter where or how youparticipated, you were a part ofsomething extraordinary. We’ve come a long way, but weknow we can’t and won’t stop here.across North America, big oil willcontinue to push for new extreme oil

first and worst oil train disaster, theweek started with a beautiful, bold andsomber march that drew hundreds ofpeople to the tracks. The week con-tinued with a banner hang and guerrillaprojection actions in California, pow-erful infrastructure blockades in NewYork and Oregon, creative rallies inAlbany, Baltimore, Milwaukee,Richmond, Minneapolis and DC -- justto name a few. Over the weekend,action picked up with a jazz funeralprocession in Philadelphia and a die-inin Seattle. On Saturday, thousandsattended coordinated protests acrossCalifornia, including rallies that drewhundreds each in San Luis Obispo,Richmond, Los Angeles and SanJose to call on decision-makers acrossthe state to reject new oil train infra-structure proposals and shut downexisting operations. There are count-less more to name, and every action

infrastructure despite its impact oncommunity health and safety and theclimate. Our movement will continueto grow and fight for our communitiesand our climate, so thanks to all whomade the 2015 Stop Oil Trains Weekof Action a powerful step along theway.

Stone Soup Gets aDash of Activism

get involved at

protectslo.org

Staffing the marketplace of ideas Sierra Club and Mesa Refinery Watch Groupteamed up to get the word out on the Phillips 66 oil train project to attendees of theStone Soup Street Faire in Grover Beach over the weekend of August 22.


ClassifiedsNext issue deadline is September 14. 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

All 5 Morros Hike On top of Islay Hill.

Sat., Sep. 5th, 10 a.m. City Walk:SLO’s Secret Past. A guided, explor-atory stroll to reveal the original site ofthe Mission, the 1860s stagecoachstop, home of SLO’s first millionaire,the last remaining city gas light, aforgotten WPA project, and otherhidden landmarks in the historic coreof SLO. Duration about 1 1/2 hrs.Meet at NW corner of Nipomo andDana Sts. Leader: Joe Morris, 549-0355.

Sun., Sep. 6th, 10 a.m. Quarry TrailTrekking Pole Hike. “Polecats” hiketo model and practice the benefits ofusing trekking poles. This hike nearCerro Cabrillo is 2 miles long, with320 ft. of elevation change. Meet attrailhead for Quarry Trail. From Hwy1 in Morro Bay, take Los Osos/Baywood Park exit, driving 1.4 milessouth on South Bay Blvd to trailheadparking lot on the left. Leader: DavidGeorgi, 458-5575 [email protected].

Thurs., Sep. 17th, 7-9 p.m. Bi-monthly Meeting: Walking Acrossthe Nation—My Story. After 40 yearsteaching at Cuesta College, anthropol-ogy professor Bill Fairbanks set off ona coast-to-coast trek in 2009. Overfive years and 5,600 miles, he talkedto hundreds of locals, visited smalltowns and large, attended communitymeetings, and viewed awesomescenery. Bill’s stories, accompaniedby slides, about his experiences andhis reflections on how our land haschanged will make for a remarkableevening. Conservation news willbegin the meeting. Meets at SteynbergGallery, 1531 Monterey St., SLO.Info.: Joe Morris, 549-0355,

Sat., Sep. 26th, 8:30 a.m. Cruik-shank to Soda Springs Hike. Stren-uous, nine-mile, 2,500 ft. gain, hike insouthern Big Sur, with stunning coastalviews from upper elevations. Poison

oak on trail. Meet at Washburn DayUse area in San Simeon State Park,about one mile north of Cambria, for acar shuttle between the trailheads.Extreme heat will postpone hike to alater date. Leader: Carlos Diaz-Saavedra, 546-0317.

Sat.-Sun. Sep. 26th-27th Serviceand Hiking in the Carrizo Plains.Opportunity to visit and assist at anoutstanding, lesser known nationalknown national monument. Saturday isNational Public Lands Day, and wewill join other volunteers on severalmaintenance projects. Car camp withpotluck and campfire on Saturday nightwith Sunday tour of historic, prehis-toric, and geological sites in theMonument—details to be determinedby group consensus. Leader: CraigDeutsche, [email protected] 310-477-6670 CNRCC DesertCommittee.

Advance notice: October 2015

Sat., Oct. 3rd, 9 a.m. Bird and PlantWalk and ID at Montana de Oro

Join with leaders of Audubon andCalifornia Native Plant Society to lookfor shorebirds and coastal dune plants,featuring a look at Snowy Ploverhabitat and discussion of thisspecies recovery. Walk is 4 miles,along ocean side of the dunes, thencrossing to the estuary side. Bringwater, snacks/lunch, binoculars, sturdyshoes, sunscreen, hat, and jacket. Meetat parking lot at the end of Sand SpitRoad in Montana de Oro State Park—the first road on the right, 3/4 milefrom park entrance. Restrooms arethere. Leader: Bill Waycott, 459-2103or [email protected].

Thur.-Sat., Oct. 8th-10th DeathValley Wilderness Restoration. Helpto restore wilderness values in thisbeautiful and remote national park bycleaning up a marijuana grow site inHunter Mt. area. 4WD is required,though carpooling is possible (contactleader for info). Meet Thursdayafternoon at junction of Hwy 190 andSouth Saline Valley Rd. Work Thurs-day afternoon and all day Friday.Saturday, we will do either

more cleanup or be free to enjoy thepark. Camping is primitive, so youneed to bring all the food and wateryou will need for the weekend, plus atrowel for personal needs. Leader:Kate Allen, [email protected] or661-944-4056. CNRCC DesertCommittee.

Sat., Sep. 12th, 1-2:30 p.m.Favorite Fruits of the CentralCoast at SLO BotanicalGarden. The central coast is arich and diverse area foragriculture. The California RareFruit Growers share theirfavorite unique fruits to grow inthe central coast without agreenhouse. Find the perfectfruit for your yard! Enjoyrefreshments and mingling withCRFG members. Presentation at1:30 p.m., docent led tour of theGarden at 2:30. $5 Gardenmembers / $10 public. More infoat slobg.org/fruit.

Sat., Sep. 26, 1-3 p.m. FamilyHerbal Laboratory at SLOBotanical Garden. Discover the usesof herbs growing in the SLO BotanicalGarden and central coast. This classwill incorporate herbal knowledge, aswell as, a hands on harvesting and

creating workshop where you will getto take home your creation. We’ll learnand make basic herbal preparations,herbal blending, infusions, syrups, and

Sat., Sep. 19;Sat., Oct. 17,12:30-2 p.m.Learn to Cookwith the Sun!Solar Cooking is afun, easy, nutri-tious, efficient and cost effective wayto prepare home-cooked meals evenwhile you’re away all day at work orplay! Come to learn about this excitingmethod now used all over the world.Solar cooking saves trees, saves livesand builds communities! Free. Thereare the last two monthly demonstrationclasses of the year. Watch for addi-tional demonstrations offered aroundthe county or request a demonstrationfor your group of 6 or more. Volunteersand donations always appreciated.Davies Farm, 5015 Jesperson in SLO.Contact: Marcia Alter 458-1241,[email protected], or PhyllisDavies 440-9346, [email protected].

more. For students 9 years old and up.Limited class size. $5 Garden members/ $10 public. More info and RSVP atslobg.org/herb-lab.

Gary Felsman

Documents

Santa Lucian 1 SANTA LUCIAN - Sierra Club · He didn’t do a lot of fact checking on what came to hand. With each new burst of attempted argument by sanctuary foes, more is revealed