The California Assembly voted unanimously Monday to keep control of the fire rings with local cities. The vote countered restrictions on the fire rings imposed last year by the Southern California Air Quality Management District, as well as a potential total ban.

The Press-Telegram reported last July:

“DIAMOND BAR – Despite vocal opposition from some beachgoers, the South Coast Air Quality Management District board Friday approved restrictions on fire pits on Southland beaches.

“The restrictions require fire pits to either be kept at least 700 feet away from the nearest residence. The rings can be closer than 700 feet to residences if the rings are at least 100 feet apart from each other — or at least 50 feet apart if a city has 15 or fewer rings. The measure also includes restrictions on beach fires on high-pollution days.”

A bipartisan effort led to Assembly Bill 1102, co-authored by two Orange County assembly members, Travis Allen, R-Huntington Beach, and Sharon-Quirk-Silva, D-Fullerton. If the bill becomes law, before a city is forced by the AQMD to remove the fire rings from the beaches in Orange and Los Angeles counties, the AQMD would be required to work with local coastal cities and oversight agencies to:

• Prove there will be no loss of beach access;
• Prove there will be no harm to local economies under any AQMD regulations;
• Address  environmental concerns.

2013 resolution

Last year, Allen authored ACR 52, which read:

“This resolution supports the protection of California’s beaches, access to those beaches, and important traditions that are integral to our culture and beach lifestyle, such as fire rings….

“Beach bonfires are a safe and inexpensive recreational activity and are enjoyed by all the members of our community, regardless of socioeconomic class.… Beach attractions result in optimum economic and community activity, from gatherings of family and friends, beach barbeques, community events, and beach sports, and much more.”

After the non-binding resolution passed, it was evident the AQMD was not going to reverse the bonfire bans. So Allen and Quirk-Silva announced AB1102, legislation to officially reverse the AQMD’s actions.

“The fire rings have been an important part of our beach experience for over 60 years,”  the group 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.”

Allen pointed out that banning the fire rings would cut $1 million a year in fees for Huntington Beach and $19 million for all Orange County coastal cities.

Health concerns

The push to ban fire rings originated in Newport Beach from residents who live near the beach and don’t like the smoke wafting into their homes. According to the Daily Pilot:

“Under the rule, Newport Beach, whose application to the California Coastal Commission to remove its fire rings first spurred the AQMD to look into a possible ban, can get rid of its 60 fire pits near the Balboa Pier and at Corona del Mar State Beach.”

Allen also told CalWatchdog.com that those who live along the ocean in many coastal cities don’t like the beach crowds and have complained to local officials about the noise from nighttime bonfires.

Even though the homeowners bought the property knowing it was attached to publicly accessed beaches, residents demanded government regulators ban the fire pits to keep people off the beaches at night.

However, homeowners complaining about people using the beach near their homes would not elicit much sympathy.

Stronger reasons for removing the rings came after the American Lung Association claimed 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. “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.”

Holmes-Gen said particulates in wood smoke are especially dangerous to young, developing lungs. Holmes-Gen said teenagers and young adults, the very people supposedly at the greatest risk from beach fires, are the most frequent attendees at the fire pits.

Yet the bill analysis says, “[T]he greatest health effect from wood smoke exposure originates from the fine particles that can cause health problems ranging from minor irritations such as burning eyes and runny noses to chronic illnesses such as bronchitis.”

Bill proponents also point out beach wind speed is usually high, cleaning the air.

Regulating wholesome, inexpensive fun

“Beach bonfires are an activity enjoyed by people from all across California, including those who cannot afford multi-million dollar beachfront homes,” Allen said in the Assembly Monday.  “This legislation will ensure that every Californian has access to our beautiful beaches through the affordable iconic activity of a beach bonfire.”

“This is just another family fun activity,” said Quirk-Silva. “We wanted it handled at the local level, but that is not to be.”

“This is a symbol of a free people,” Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Hesperia, added. “It should’t be regulated to a privileged few.”

Assemblyman Eric Linder, R-Corona, talked of fond family memories of a sunset on the beach, a bonfire, and roasting marshmallows.

“It would be hard to imagine the Orange County Coast without fire rings on the beach,” Allen said. “Now let’s go burn some wood.”

SACRAMENTO — Two Republican members of the California Assembly recently authored resolutions encouraging Congress to halt the eavesdropping on the America people by the National Security Agency. Both resolutions were smacked down Tuesday in the Assembly Judiciary Committee, whose hearings I attended. The Democratic majority refused even to vote on the resolutions, claiming more information was needed.

“What this says is, ‘We don’t want to error on the side of liberty,’” Assemblyman Tim Donnelly told me. A Republican from Twin Peaks, he authored Assembly Joint Resolution 27 to encourage Congress to pass and President Obama to sign into law the “Limiting Internet and Blanket Electronic Review of Telecommunications and Email Act.”

AJR 26, by Assemblyman Travis Allen of Huntington Beach, calls on the president and Congress to make the protection of civil liberties and national security equal priorities, and to immediately discontinue any practices contrary to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. That amendment allows searches only with a warrant from a judge.

Leading up to the hearing, both bills had bipartisan support, the backing of the American Civil Liberties Union, and a Democratic co-author.

However, Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, chairman of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, removed his name as co-author of Donnelly’s bill, and strongly recommended to committee members they not vote on the resolution.

Donnelly attributed Wieckowski’s change of heart to a case of partisan politics, specifically on orders “from the powers that be.” According to Donnelly, Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles, was not happy Wieckowski had his name on a Donnelly bill.

I called Wieckowski, who is an attorney, to discuss why he removed his name from AJR 27, but did not receive a return call.

What’s this all about?

In June, Edward Snowden, an American computer specialist who worked as a contractor for the NSA, admitted leaking secrets about classified U.S. surveillance programs, along with documents detailing U.S. telephone and Internet surveillance efforts, to the Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper. When the news broke, Americans were in an uproar. Charges of spying on Americans were levied against the NSA by politicians and civil libertarian groups.

The NSA had obtained direct access to Google, Facebook, Apple and other U.S. Internet companies, according to the documents first provided by Snowden to the Guardian.

The NSA’s extensive access was originally enabled by changes to U.S. surveillance law introduced under President George W. Bush following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. And NSA access was renewed under President Obama in December 2012.

The Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment guarantees, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Donnelly called the NSA spying practice “abusive” and “tyrannical,” and said his LIBERT-E Act had bipartisan support from hundreds of groups, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Republican Liberty Caucus.

NSA audit confirms excessive snooping

There have been countless news stories about the NSA collecting and storing Americans’ Internet, phone and financial data, while claiming the information is needed to prevent or stop terrorist activity.

A May 2012 audit of the NSA found 2,776 incidents in the preceding 12 months of unauthorized collection, storage, access to or distribution of legally protected communications, the Washington Post recently reported. “The National Security Agency has broken privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority thousands of times each year since Congress granted the agency broad new powers in 2008, according to an internal audit and other top-secret documents.”

Allen said, “This revelation that the NSA has been collecting these records from unaware American citizens and ignoring court orders to cease their activities is raising questions and distrust amongst the public regarding the constitutionality of the government’s actions. AJR 26 appeals to the federal government to equally prioritize the need for national security against terrorist threats and the protection of every American citizen’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches.”

What’s a government to do?

According to several news stories, more than one billion records a day are collected by the NSA in the name of “national security.” The excuse is that all that data is needed to preempt terrorist attacks.

Yet with all the federal muscle and high-tech surveillance available to the NSA, it was a citizen who found the Boston Bombers after three people were killed, and more than 260 were injured.

Both Allen and Donnelly reiterated to the Judiciary Committee they understand the federal government is responsible for protecting Americans from threats to national security, but must balance that with also protecting citizens’ constitutional rights to privacy.

“Our country was founded on the principles of protecting individual liberties and the inalienable rights of the people from the infringement of overreaching governments,” Allen said at the hearing. “Government should be transparent, strive for the highest level of integrity, and be held accountable to the public.”

But Assemblyman Ed Chau, D-Monterey Park, said there just wasn’t sufficient information for him to be able to make a decision. Other Democratic members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee echoed this sentiment, including Assembly members Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento, Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrence and Wieckowski — all attorneys.