Comment Archives: stories: News: Eco Watch
Re: “Drakes Bay Oyster Company Tied to Oil Drilling”
This whole thing smells fishy, excuse the pun!
Thank you Robert Gammon, for keeping our eyes open. Very interesting.....
Re: “Divesting From Dirty Energy”
Plug your Tesla S, electric car into your household, solar array.
Re: “New Tests for Beach Bacteria”
States might have the ability and knowledge to run beach water testing programs but they don't have the financial resources without continued federal assistance. Plus without EPA's federal beach grants their is no incentive to use national water quality standards so we could see water quality standards relax and public health protection slip.
You can ask Congress to restore funding for EPA's Beach Act Grants that pay for water testing across the country here: http://www.surfrider.org/
Re: “The Damage Wrought By Dianne Feinstein”
Mary,
Despite the current claims by McCloskey and Burton, the 1976 Point Reyes Wilderness Act, which designated Drakes Estero as "potential" wilderness, contained no mention of a special exemption for the oyster farm. If McCloskey and Burton had truly wanted the farm's lease to be renewed in 2012, they could have easily written that into the law. But they didn't.
Instead, the 1976 federal law was written just like every other wilderness law enacted by Congress over the years. It contained no provision for renewing of leases of so-called "nonconforming uses" like an oyster farm in potential wilderness areas. As a result, the 1976 law, which remains in effect, is clear: the oyster farm's lease was not to be renewed because doing so would mean that Drakes Estero could not become a wilderness area.
Even Feinstein recognized that fact. That's why she wrote the "notwithstanding" clause. She knew that federal law and policy, including the 1976 Point Reyes Wilderness Act, prohibited the park service and Salazar from renewing the oyster farm's lease. So she included in her amendment a sweeping provision -- the "notwithstanding" clause -- that allowed Salazar, if he chose to do so, to ignore all laws and renew the oyster farm's lease.
So to contend that it was the "intent" of the 1976 Point Reyes Wilderness Act to provide an exemption for the oyster farm, does not comport with the facts, regardless of Burton and McCloskey's claims. And that's why both Salazar and federal Judge Gonzales Rogers ruled that no such exemption or "intent" actually exists.
Re: “The Damage Wrought By Dianne Feinstein”
Mr. Seal: For just one: http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20120…
I'm sure with a quick Google search you can find more.
"A recent Close to Home submission (“Feinstein risking our Point Reyes heritage,” Sept. 2) argued that the Drakes Bay Oyster Company’s lease should not be renewed because the original intent of the enabling legislation for the Point Reyes National Seashore was to terminate the oyster farm lease in 2012 and declare the area wilderness. This is not true, as affirmed in a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in 2011 from former Assemblyman Bill Bagley and Reps. John Burton and Paul 'Pete' McCloskey, who played a significant role in the creation of the park and the Wilderness Act.
"This letter encourages Secretary Salazar to 'grant a Special Use Permit for the continuance of the Drakes Bay Oyster Company in the Point Reyes National Seashore when its present Reservation of Use and Occupancy expires in November 2012.'
"The letter notes the Wilderness Act assigned a portion of the park to wilderness 'but retained the 20,000 acres of ranchlands to be operated by lease to private ranchers and the oyster farm to continue to operate as a prior, non-conforming use.'
"Just prior to creation of the park in 1961, National Park Service Director Conrad Wirth’s words to Congress and to the people of Marin County were specific: 'Existing commercial oyster beds and the oyster cannery at Drakes Estero ... should continue under national seashore status because of their public values. The culture of oysters is an interesting and unique industry which presents exceptional educational opportunities for introducing the public, especially students, to the field of marine biology."
Re: “The Damage Wrought By Dianne Feinstein”
Ms. Eisenhart, please provide links to support your argument regarding the 'intent when the land was deeded to the feds'. Thanks.
Re: “The Damage Wrought By Dianne Feinstein”
Mary and Kurt,
Former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is no "environmental purist," nor did he "overreach." He's an ex-rancher, who is generally considered to be a political moderate. But he correctly understood that renewing the oyster farm's lease would have set a national political precedent -- one that then could be used in the future by Republicans to renew leases of other commercial enterprises operating on public land. That's precisely why he chose not to renew the lease.
As this story points out, the fault here lies entirely with Dianne Feinstein. In her desperate attempt to keep the oyster farm open, she chose to use sweeping legal language that could create the precedent that Salazar tried to avoid.
As such, blaming this on Salazar and environmentalists is absurd. The simple fact is, if Salazar or the National Park Service had renewed the oyster farm's lease, it would have established the same type of national precedent that we're now facing as a result of Feinstein's badly worded amendment.
Re: “The Damage Wrought By Dianne Feinstein”
So environmental purists have succeeded in giving Republicans a vehicle for their nefariousses. Wasn't that predictable? And how many serious offenders will be able to make use of this, either way. Berkeley's rent control collapsed when ideologues started targeting small black property owners. Mistake. Mr. Gammon bears some blame in this, I think.
Re: “The Damage Wrought By Dianne Feinstein”
Dianne Feinstein and her Hedge Fund manager have wrecked far more than an Oyster bay. The degree of the State land valuations transfered are 1000s of times greater. She is a carpet-bagger of old.
Re: “The Damage Wrought By Dianne Feinstein”
And to think all this could have been avoided if they had just left the oyster farm alone, as was the intent when the land was deeded to the feds, per many people involved at the time, such as Pete McCloskey. Instead, by overreaching, they brought this down on themselves.
Re: “Drakes Bay Oyster Company Tied to Oil Drilling”
Thanks to Robert Gammon for keeping track of all this, a true journalistic service. I disagree with Rob Gendreau's characterization of Gammon's reporting as an example of guilt by association. The presence of right wing support is never mere happenstance.
Re: “Drakes Bay Oyster Company Tied to Oil Drilling”
John,
Alice Waters was joined in her legal brief in support of the oyster farm by Hayes Street Grill in San Francisco, Marin Organic, Food Democracy Now, Alliance for Local Sustainable Agriculture, the California Farm Bureau Federation, Marin County Farm Bureau, Marin County Agricultural Commissioner, Sonoma County Farm Bureau, and Tomales Bay Oyster Company.
Re: “Drakes Bay Oyster Company Tied to Oil Drilling”
It would be useful to know which organic foodies, in addition to Alice Waters, are supporting Drakes Bay. I would certainly make an effort to boycott their products.
Re: “Drakes Bay Oyster Company Tied to Oil Drilling”
Rather weak argument, that some rightwingers agree with Alice Waters and the oyster farmers therefore it must be bad. Judge it on its own merits.
Applying the same logic would lead one to conclude that Mr. Gammon is a proto-fascist developer flunky because some develpers (hiss!) happen to agree with him on CEQA reform.
Reasoned decisionmaking often goes out the window when dealing with the sacred cows of True Believers. I remember when Pt Reyes Nat'l Seashore was created; a selling point was that it allowed for things like the oyster farm, and grazing. That won it support. Now because of a wilderness designation (a legal and aesthetic judgment, not a biological one) we lose an example of agriculture that is perhaps more significant than what will replace it. It's at least worth discussing, but we can't because of irrational slippery slope arguments and guilt by association.
And beware: a very resonant argument in localities where efforts are being made to limit development is that the feds, in particular, are so heavy handed that they must be opposed at all costs. Meanwhile, groups like the Nature Conservancy are able to prevent development by working with locals, rather than against them. It may come to pass that this oyster controversy may set back preservation efforts.
Another example of the unintended consequences of immutable preservation laws cum scripture is what's occurring in Yosemite, with the somewhat unforeseen downstream repercussions of designating the Merced in the Valley as "wild and scenic" (maybe one, but not the other).
Heaven forbid we should ever change an enviromental law; they must have been enacted by a higher power.
Re: “Toxics in the Womb”
The very best treatment for breast cancer would be prevention. Unfortunately, we know very little about why most cases occur. While I'm grateful for the treatments we have for breast cancer patients, thanks to the efforts of research scientists, doctors and patient volunteers, I wish we would invest more in understanding the causes of breast cancer.
Re: “Big Organic Joins Monsanto in Fighting Prop 37”
Agent Orange, GMOs, what's the difference?
Re: “The Oyster Farm Goes to Court”
Wilderness? Politically maybe, biologically nope.
While much of what Gammon says is true, it's a bit myopic. The NPS did behave badly, and will probably never accept something like the oyster farm. I'd be willing to be they'd love to get the dairy farms outta there as well.
In retrospect I think we were wrong to support a national seashore of this type in West Marin. Sustainable agriculture has become more important than wilderness preservation in that area, and frankly the NPS' mission doesn't mesh very well with that. And once a place becomes a "park" or "wilderness" every decision is judged on what precedent it will set and on political grounds, which makes the loudest shouters the winners in most cases. Too bad.
Meanwhile groups like the Nature Conservancy and others, working with local people, have preserved lots of land using innovative methods (buying development rights, e.g.) and then letting that land, in some cases, be used to showcase sustainable agriculture. The NPS is more prone to just turning W. Marin into a museum.
Re: “The Oyster Farm Goes to Court”
Please read this for the facts of the matter: http://bit.ly/10USv0r
Re: “The Oyster Farm Goes to Court”
Oh, how my heart weeps for Mr. Lunny and his deep-pocketed Tea Party allies. Why, he's only known for the last forty years that this might happen.
Re: “Oakland Officials Withhold Air Pollution Plan”
Good coverage, a well balanced article.