By Katy Grimes

Whenever environmental or social justice activists want something banned, they create a health or safety reason supporting their policy.

This is the case with the attempt by the South Coast Air Quality Management District to ban fire rings and bonfires on Southern California beaches.

‘Bonfire of the Vanities’ refers to the burning of objects that are deemed to be occasions of sin. With beach bonfires, they are occasions of joy, happiness, family and friends. Apparently occasions of joy, happiness, family and friends are offensive to some.

Say goodbye to beach bonfires – and memories

The SCQMD proposed amendments to Rule 444, which would ban open burning in beach areas.

“The fire rings have been an important part of our beach experience for over 60 years,”  ‘Save the Southern California Beach Bonfire Rings’ explains on its website and Facebook page. “They provide an affordable means of gathering family and friends on Southern California shores to celebrate our outdoor beach lifestyle with s’mores and hotdog roasting under the stars, all while enjoying the glow of a warm fire.”

So why would anyone want to put an end to this wholesome, inexpensive, family fun?

There are several reasons. But the primary reason really driving the bonfire ban is area home owners. Those who live along the ocean don’t like the crowds, and have complained to local officials about the noise from the night time bonfires. Even though they bought the property knowing it was attached to publicly accessed beaches, homeowners have demanded government regulators ban the fire pits to keep people off the beaches at night.

And that’s how it always works. Regulations anymore are rarely about real health or safety issues, and almost always are sponsored by special interest groups seeking to either kill a competitive business, or by a group of people wishing to limit the activities and rights of others.

However, that  makes the home owners look as if they are being spoiled whiners. So they got the American Lung Association to claim the fire pits are a health hazard.
 
“’Fire rings are creating hazards in communities that are damaging to one’s health and to the health of residents who live nearby,’ said Bonnie Holmes-Gen, senior director for policy and advocacy for the American Lung Association in California,” a recent story at Heartlandnews.org explained.

“We’re very concerned about the impact of the smoke, … and it contributes to asthma attacks, strokes, a number of respiratory illnesses, and it can even cause premature death.”

The Wood Smoke Health website, “advocates for clean air,” concurs.

This is a real “are you kidding me?” moment.

To answer the absurdity, as well as the loss of a treasured beach activity, Assemblyman Travis Allen, R-Huntington Beach, introduced ACR 52, honoring California’s beach lifestyle, and supportive of continuing access to California’s beaches and the enjoyment of beach bonfires in fire rings.

Allen is a resident of Huntington Beach and a surfer. “I am honored to commemorate California’s beaches and access to those beaches,” Allen said after introducing his resolution. “Activities such as beach bonfires are a beloved pastime that is a safe and inexpensive recreational activity enjoyed by all the members of our community. I look forward to joining my fellow legislators in honoring our beaches and the timeless community pastimes that our beaches provide.”

Environmental justice

Bonfires on the beach are one of the remaining low-cost activities for Southern California beach visitors. But the bonfire ban has a long history thanks to the fairly recent bans on stove and fireplace fires. SCAQMD’s Rule 444, “Wood-burning Devices & Open Burning,” also names the pesky wood fires are an unsafe and dangerous activity. It was natural for the environmental justice crowd to eventually go after beach bonfires.

Sacramento banned the use of fireplaces on “spare the air” days, and encourages neighbors to rat out their wood-burning neighbors. This is particularly stupid given that Sacramento is located on two massive rivers and the Delta, and enjoys daily breezy winds and the famous “Delta Breeze.”

In Sacramento we suffer from allergies thanks to the abundant agricultural valley in which we live; wood fires, not so much.

Ironic is the silence from the environmental justice crowd about the very real health and safety issues from wildfires – a subject rarely addressed by the Environmental Protection Agency, air quality districts, or environmental justice seekers.

Loss of revenue

The state and local governments earn significant revenue from beach visitors.

Banning bonfires has the potential to cut $1 million annually from parking revenue for the City of Huntington Beach.

The California State Parks of Orange County receives more than 11.9 million visitors annually, resulting in $19 million dollars in revenue.

A survey by the California State Parks found they could lose as much as 50 percent of the current revenue from camping, if bonfires and fire rings are banned.

“The negative economic impact on the many hoteliers, restaurateurs, grocery, retail and concessions that rely on visitor spending would be astounding. This does not even include the impact it would have on cities such as Newport Beach, Dana Point, and Los Angeles,” the petition to stop the SCAQMD from banning bonfires says.

Beach bonfire cheerleader

Allen has been hosting bonfires on most weekends for the community, to bring more focus to California beaches and the local community in Huntington Beach.

“California has a wonderful history and beach culture that is deeply woven into our communities, especially in Southern California,” said Assemblyman Allen. “Beach bonfires are an essential part of the beach lifestyle that has helped define California around the world.  ACR 52 further highlights a lifestyle that has brought people together for generations.”

The SCAQMD will vote on the regulations for the Southern California beach bonfires, and many bonfire supporters will be in attendance — Friday, July 12 at 9:00 a.m., at the SCAQMD Headquarters, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765.

By Katy Grimes

Lawmakers are notorious for responding to tragedies and accidents with often unnecessary legislation. It’s a Kodak moment none seem to be able to resist, especially over environmental issues.

It happened again Wednesday in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. Several bills were passed by the committee, including SB 691 by state Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, a bill targeting large businesses for air quality accidents.

Despite facing legitimate legal and technical challenges, the committee ignored protocol, and allowed the bills to move on with the proviso that work would continue to be done on the bills.

Penalizing business over accidents

Taking aim at Chevron over the August 2012 refinery fire, SB 691 is put forth as the solution to a big problem. It would dramatically increase fines and penalties for businesses which have pollution accidents and air quality violations. Hancock said the bill would “incentivize” air quality compliance. And she added, “incentives are better than mandates.”

Hancock’s bill would quadruple the civil penalties large polluters must pay for air quality regulation violations. But what Hancock did not explain is that local air quality districts will be able to fine businesses for violations to air quality regulations, then pocket the money. The “incentives” appear to be on the side of the government.

“I am introducing this bill because current penalties are far too low for polluters who cause thousands of people to suffer,” Hancock said in a news release.

Under current law, penalties are assessed per day. Hancock said her concern was that, for a one-day violation like the Richmond fire, Chevron may only face a minimal fine.

“Single-day violations of air quality regulations that affect entire communities lack adequate financial consequences,” she explained. “Current penalties are simply inadequate to ensure compliance with the law from large polluters.”

Sponsored by the Bay Area Quality Management District and Breathe California, SB 691 would only “increase the penalty ceiling, and not necessarily the penalty,” Hancock said.

“One-day violations disrupt entire communities,” Tom Addison with the BAQMD said. He concurred that only the penalty ceiling would be increased, not the penalties.

Nuisance or dangerous?

Ed Manning, representing the Western States Petroleum Association, challenged Hancock’s charge of malicious negligence by large companies when an industrial accident occurs.

Specifically, Manning took issue with this wording of Hancock’s bill:

“Prohibits a person, except as specified, from discharging air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance or endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety to any considerable number of persons, or to the public.”

“Nuisance is not non-compliance,” Manning said. He explained what constitutes a “nuisance” is different in every air quality management district in the state. A “triggered event” can be as small as one household complaining, he said. And air quality districts do not have to prove there was a violation for an official “nuisance” to have occurred.

“The reason nuisance penalties are so low is because the burden of proof is so low,” Manning said. Nuisance claims triggered by a complaint also are a problem for small businesses. “Penalties up to $10,000 are difficult for very small businesses.”

Sen. Ted Gaines, R-Rocklin, asked Hancock, “What about a real accident?” He explained that financially penalizing a business for an actual accident, which is not deliberate or intentional, is not right.

Hancock largely ignored Gaines’ question and Manning’s concerns, and instead just repeated, “It’s a huge public safety problem.” She claimed there appeared to be consensus on the bill. “I look forward to working with the opposition as the bill moves forward,” she said. “I think the bill is really needed, very, very much.”

By Katy Grimes

Wednesday the Senate Environmental Quality Committee passed three bills, despite all three bills receiving credible legal and technical challenges. The committee ignored protocol, and allowed the bills to move on with the proviso work would continue to be done on them.

Taxing vehicles for alternative fuels technology

SB 11, by Sen. Fran Pavely, D-Agoura Hills, SB 483 by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, and SB 691 by Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, were passed from the Environmental Quality Committee despite gaping flaws and legal problems.

Claiming SB 11 is “a major piece of public health and clean energy legislation, Pavely’s said her bill would merely prevent a vehicle “fee” from expiring.  Despite promises of a sunset date from the fee back in 2007 in the original bill, Pavely justified the “fee” extension because the money goes to funding alternative fuel and vehicle technologies.

The fund was created with a tax on vehicles, car and boat registrations, as well as smog abatement, and goes into the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program, for another ten years.

The Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program is run by the California Air Resources Board, which no doubt, doesn’t want to lose this gravy train of money.

“My SB 11 will help create jobs and attack air pollution, too,” Pavely famously Tweeted when the bill was announced. But I prefer the response Tweet she got:  “‪@SenatorPavley Your SB 11 is a job killer and do nothing about air pollution. Please,stop passing laws, I beg of you.”

Technical, good government bill bills

Beware whenever a lawmakers says “It’s just a technical, good government bill.” Chances are, it’s not.

Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, introduced her bill, SB 483, and said, “it’s a technical bill for dealing with hazardous waste.”

There’s nothing simple or minor when the California Environmental Protection Agency is knocking on the door of a business making inquiries about hazardous waste.

“This makes it easier for agencies to do their work,” Jackson said.

And that’s the crux of the bill – it makes it easier for the CalEPA to harass California businesses.

“This bill would revise and recast the area and business plan requirements and, among other things, would require instead that a unified program agency enforce these requirements,” the bill says.

Jackson’s bill would add onsite inspections of businesses, and bump up the paper reporting requirements businesses have to the EPA.

Interestingly, each of the witnesses who testified in support of SB 483 used similar or the same language as Jackson.

“It is not a very glamorous bill,” said a representative from the California Association of Environmental Health Administrators. And he said they were working through the existing government codes for “good government.”

“It’s a technical bill,” the California Fire Chiefs Association representative said.

The bill clearly needs work given the even farther reach of the EPA into private business.

Be sure to read my story today about Hancock’s SB 691, which would exponentially increase the penalties on business for air quality violations.

All three of the bills passed, including Hancock’s SB 691, needing extensive work. But Democrats will continue to pass the bills along through the committee process, ignoring opposition and legal challenges.

And that’s the way it’s done when the Democrats are in charge.