Wednesday, November 19th 2014, at 2 p.m. at the Whittier Narrows Nature Center (1000 Durfee Ave. South El Monte, Ca 91733 ~ Phone 626 575 5523)  the Nature Center's Docents docents will have a meeting with the representatives of the parties who manage the Natural Area, the water in the aquifer, the sanitation district,  the Regional Water Control Board, the Army Corps of Engineers,  the Greater Los Angeles Mosquito and Vector Control, and Mark Stanley of the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy over the plan to build a 100+ car parking lot and an artificial wetlands where the Aedes sp., has been found, which is a public health issue for the communities of the County especially near the Natural Area.  The Public is welcome to attend.

Faustinos says programming is 'meat and potatoes' but continues to push for big box water museum

The former head of the San Gabriel River Discovery Center Authority and the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, Belinda Faustinos, delivered a report from the water museum's foundation to the authority board at the latter's July 11 meeting.

The report was revealing in the contrast between what even she concedes is of highest value at Whittier Narrows and what she insists is the unchanged goal of the authority.

Judging from the lack of emphasis on the fundraising accomplishments of the foundation -- ostensibly its raison d'etre -- it's clear that the organization has secured little, if any, funding beyond what the project received out of ratepayer and taxpayer dollars years ago -- and which has by now been spent with little to show for it.

Instead she emphasized two other things.

First, she emphasized the foundation's support for programming at the wildlife sanctuary, which she called the "meat and potatoes."

It is through programming that "children in the community" are helped to understand that which they vitally need to understand regarding nature and natural resources, she said.

It was truly heartening to hear Belinda Faustinos, champion of the big box water museum, say that.  

But then . . .

She returned to the actual reason for the foundation's existence -- and perhaps the reason for her continuing involvement: construction of the 14,000-square-foot big box water museum.

It's tragic. She cites Richard Louv's theory of "nature-deficit disorder" to prop up the goal of replacing trees, shrubs and soil, and the fauna they support, with a building that no one wants -- apparently not even the authority board, which is exploring far smaller alternatives.

Perhaps she mis-hears herself when she speaks and thinks Louv was concerned about "building-deficit disorder."

People who suffer from that ailment are called developers.

National recreation area: When the person behind the desk doesn't match the name on the door

A recent article in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune noted that backers of a national recreation area for the San Gabriel Watershed are trying to build support among area cities for a larger recreation area than the one proposed by the National Park Service in April.

Without getting into the merits of a national recreation area, large or small, for the area, the park service's plan leaves open the question: "Who will be in charge?" With the park service offering at most coordination services and planning assistance (per the agency's own documents), the public should be concerned.

The likeliest candidate appears to be the state's Rivers and Mountains Conservancy -- and this should raise alarms, both for the agency's own history of questionable financial practices and for the financial wrongdoing that appears widespread among agencies of its parent, the state Natural Resources Agency.

The RMC was taken to task in a 2009 state audit for the conflict of interest inherent in the fact that the same people staffed it, a grantor agency, and the Watershed Conservation Authority, the grantee. "This lack of arms-length separation compromises the state's oversight of bond funds," said the Department of Finance.

But such bad behavior isn't unique to the RMC. It appears endemic to the Natural Resources Agency, of which the conservancy is part.

In January, the Los Angeles Times reported that the state attorney general had determined that the California parks department had "deliberately stashed away" $20 million. According to the paper, the AG's report said officials made a "conscious and deliberate" decision not to reveal the existence of the extra money.

Later that same month, the newspaper reported that "the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [Cal Fire] hid $3.6 million rather than depositing it into the state's cash-strapped general fund as required, interviews and documents reviewed by The Times show."

Another question that should be top of mind for residents and taxpayers: "Who will pay for the national recreation area -- and how?" Will the new boss turn to the lucrative method used in the Santa Monica Mountains by the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority: stop-sign cameras?

In 2005, before the cameras went in, MRCA rangers wrote 315 tickets total. In 2008, after installation of the cameras, the authority issued 13,004 failure-to-stop violations -- a truly massive increase.

One anti-camera activist, speaking to the LA Weekly, described the executive director of the MRCA as being "like one of those Southern sheriffs who set up speed traps."

Again, this is not about the merits of a national recreation area. This is about governance and accountability -- and the fact that crucial questions are being deferred. And it all boils down to that question raised during the age of Rome: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Indeed: Who watches the watchmen?

State Sen. Ron Calderon sets up legal defense fund -- which, unlike a campaign, has no limit on giving

The Sacramento Bee reported June 21 that state Sen. Ron Calderon, who represents the Montebello area, has set up "a legal defense fund to cover expenses related to his 'public corruption investigation,'" according to a letter he filed with the secretary of state.

The FBI raided Calderon's Sacramento office June 4 and carted off several boxes. Although the agency has not said what it's investigating, it appears that the issue involves the senator's relationship with Central Basin Municipal Water District, for whom his brother Tom, a former state legislator, worked as a consultant.

Central Basin is a member of the San Gabriel River Discovery Center Authority.

Calderon's letter, the Bee continues, says that the funds "will be only to pay the attorney's fees and other legal costs related to the defense of the candidate as well as administrative costs directly related to compliance with recordkeeping and reporting requirements."

This isn't the senator's first experience with a legal defense fund, as the Bee noted.

He raised more than $150,000 after the legal issue was resolved, and his "expenditures from the account included more than $10,000 at the Bandon Dunes golf course in Oregon, $11,000 at the Edgewood golf resort at Lake Tahoe and $400 on restaurant tabs in Hawaii."

The rules were later changed, but one great irony remains regarding defense funds for elected officials: Unlike campaign contributions, "donations to legal defense funds remain free from the limits on how much individuals and interest groups can give to political campaigns."

In politics, money = influence.  And when the amount a contributor can give is unlimited, and the issues in play are whether the official will be found guilty of a crime and possibly go to jail? That, dear reader, is the potential for massively corrupting influence.

And all through a tool intended, in this case, to help an official defend himself in a public corruption investigation.

It's a looking-glass world.

ad more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/06/california-ron-calderon-sets-up-legal-defense-fund.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/06/california-ron-calderon-sets-up-legal-defense-fund.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/06/california-ron-calderon-sets-up-legal-defense-fund.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/06/california-ron-calderon-sets-up-legal-defense-fund.html#storylink=cpy

Judge halts Whittier Hills oil drilling project; FBI raids local state senator's Sacramento office

Here at the Friends we follow events that impact the environment or governance, locally and beyond. Last week brought news of two events, one a long-hoped-for court decision on a local environmental matter, the other an unexpected federal law enforcement action targeting a local state representative. 

The environment . . . 

It appears the plans of the city of Whittier and its petroleum company partners to exploit taxpayer-purchased open space in the Whittier Hills for oil and profit will not go forward.

"When the parties say we want this for open space, that is inconsistent with having an oil derrick on it." -- Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant

The Whittier Daily News' Steve Scauzillo reported June 6 that Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant "halted the controversial oil and gas exploration project under way in the Whittier Hills, ruling the city of Whittier is acting against the wishes of Los Angeles County voters who paid for the land to be preserved in perpetuity as open space."

"When the parties say we want this for open space," Scauzillo reported the judge saying from the bench, "that is inconsistent with having an oil derrick on it." 

Scauzillo reported that local opponents celebrated the decision. The project had been opposed by organizations and officials such as Whittier Hills Oil Watch, conservation groups, the county, and the state attorney general since 2008.

The decision could leave things hot and contentious for Whittier leadership. Scauzillo reported June 7 that the city may have opened itself to lawsuits stemming from the decision.

WHOW representatives said the plaintiffs might sue for damages, and the city's oil industry partners might also sue.

WHOW representatives also said their group was looking at the possibility of a recall of city council members. 

. . . and the FBI raid 

Also last week, the FBI raided the Sacramento offices of state Sen. Ron Calderon, who represents the Montebello area and is part of an influential political family dynasty. 

The family has financial ties to one of the San Gabriel River Discovery Center partner agencies, Central Basin Municipal Water District.

The feds are keeping tight-lipped on the raid and investigation. The Los Angeles Times reported June 4 that a FBI spokesperson "said all information related to the nature of the search was sealed and the agency could not discuss it."

On Monday, the Times reported that Calderon had broken his silence regarding the raid, saying that he would focus on doing his job. 

"My intention at this point is to do my job that I was elected to do," he said, "attend my hearings, get my bills passed out of committee to the floor, and do the work of the state."

Based on information from other Southern California officials, the Times said it was possible the investigation was looking at "a group of healthcare companies that have fought restrictions . . . and have paid Calderon's brother Tom, a former lawmaker himself, tens of thousands of dollars in consulting fees since leaving the Legislature."

The paper also said "officials have said they've been interviewed by the FBI about contracts that had been awarded by the Central Basin Municipal Water District to Tom Calderon."

$25 billion for state's proposed water fix

Last month here we discussed the politicking required to put a pork-laden $11 billion water bond before the voters. Last week, the Los Angeles Times' Bettina Boxall reported that the larger plan of which that bond is part is projected to cost $25 billion.

The state proposal to make dramatic changes to the "hub" of California's water system, Boxall writes, "calls for habitat restoration and the construction of two enormous tunnels to divert water from the Sacramento River and carry it under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to southbound pumps."

The costs--as currently projected--and who will bear them seem clear. As the San Jose Mercury News reported last week, "About 68 percent of the new Delta plan would be covered by water users through higher rates, while about 15 percent would come from taxpayers by way of two future water bonds, including one set for 2014."

Really, the 68-percent and 15-percent figures should be added together since they point to the same pocket. Which means that the ratepayer/taxpayer should expect to end up footing almost 85 percent of that $25 billion bill--if there aren't any cost overruns.

And, according to critics of the project, urban water users--that would be most people in the state--should expect to bear a bigger percentage of the costs than has been projected. That's because agriculture won't be able to afford its share. 

"They're irrational costs for a subset of San Joaquin Valley farmers to bear," said Jeffrey Michael, director of the Business Forecasting Center at the University of the Pacific in Stockton. "Urban users are going to pay much more for this than they've been told and the usual cost overruns will just make the problems worse."

Who stands where on this proposal? The Mercury News reports that supporters "include farm and business leaders, along with labor unions and many of the state's largest water districts, from the Metropolitan Water District in Los Angeles to the Westlands Water District in Fresno." Opponents "include environmentalists, fishing groups and a dozen Bay Area members of Congress."

Perhaps the most interesting note in the Mercury News story was the suggestion that Gov. Jerry Brown may be suffering from "administration envy" and entertaining "hopes of going down in history as prolific as his governor father in creating lasting, visible signs of his political craftsmanship on California's landscape."

Clearly, it's not just questions of policy that get addressed when policy is debated and made. 

--

Useful links

• California plan to overhaul water system hub to cost $25 billion (Los Angeles Times)
• Delta tunnels: Firmer cost estimates spelled out for Gov. Jerry Brown's water plan (San Jose Mercury News)

Water legislation according to the dodo principle: 'Every legislator has won, and all must have prizes'

Even as California voters and taxpayers are staring down the barrel of a controversial $11 billion water bond scheduled to appear on the 2014 ballot, legislators gathered May 10 to discuss the possibility of pushing for yet another water bond.

State Senator Fran Pavley led a Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee hearing on the campus of Pepperdine University to discuss what the Malibu Times called "a number of regional water solutions and a possible statewide water bond."

We have to ask what the senator and other legislators are thinking in trying to get the public to support even more borrowing while they've kept slapping away the hand of the public on the $11 billion bond. (The legislature has postponed putting the bond before the people a number of times since 2009.)

What does the public get for its money with these bonds? That perhaps is the wrong question. The better question is what legislators get for their votes in support of them. 

In 2009, the Los Angeles Times' Patrick McGreevy reported that of the $11 billion in borrowing for that bond, "more than $1 billion of the money is earmarked for projects that have little or nothing to do with quenching the state's thirst.

"The bond proposal includes funding for bike paths, museums, visitor centers, tree planting, economic development and the purchase of property from land speculators and oil companies -- all in the districts of lawmakers whose key votes helped it pass the Legislature."

One legislator who voted against the bond said that "so many pet projects were put in that it has just created a Christmas tree out of this bond, and most of them don't produce one drop of water."

What those pet projects sometimes do is threaten or destroy the very resources the public is told will be protected through these bonds.

It's water bond money that the RMC and the Discovery Center Authority have been gulping down in their effort to build their nature-destroying "Discovery Center" in the Whittier Narrows Natural Area.

It was water bond money that State Parks used to demolish Malibu Lagoon and completely remake it--nature as man intended.

In the end it seems that the point isn't good governance, it's chalking up a legislative win.  And to do that it takes the wisdom of the dodo in Alice in Wonderland. Legislators must be convinced that "everybody has won, and all must have prizes."

That our state, its resources and its people might all come out losers seems to be beside the point.

The Friends in the community--an evolving mission

Jim Odling is the president and chair of the Friends of the Whittier Narrows Natural Area. He recently sat down with RFTC to talk about the organization, its current activities, and what the future holds.

The Friends and its mission have evolved over time, Jim said. The organization was started specifically as a community response to the problematic nature of the San Gabriel River Discovery Center water museum project--destructive of the very thing it was supposedly intended to showcase, driven by agency agendas rather than community needs. But since then, Jim continued, the mission has evolved to prioritize also the public's access to outdoor recreation and to protecting the public's money from wasteful spending. 

Many on the group's board and among its supporters are longtime volunteers at the Whittier Narrows Natural Area and Nature Center, or simply enthusiastic visitors. Yet much of the group's work has extended to uncovering and bringing to the attention of government officials the more troubling details of the project that its proponents, perhaps out of their own enthusiasm or perhaps at times from more cynical motives, have glossed over.

For example, the Friends alerted State Parks officials to the grave inaccuracies in the Discovery Center Authority's application for $10 million in bond money for nature education projects--which would have thrown away on the ill-conceived water museum. Jim and others believe that it was the Friends' communication with State Parks--in combination with the Friends' lawsuit at the time--that convinced State Parks to reject the application and send the money to other, more worthy and promising projects.

Today, because of the efforts of the Friends, as well as others,the public still enjoys free access to the natural area and to the cherished nature center. The wildlife sanctuary, recognized by groups like Audubon and the county as a rich and important biological resource, is, as Jim says, "close and free, and the trails available to the public as long as the gates are open."

It's important for people, especially kids, "to get dirty, to see things that are not repeatable," Jim says. Judging by the numbers of student groups--including even preschoolers--that have been visiting the natural area and nature center recently, the community may be experiencing just those things.

As for the future, Jim said that the group is continuing its efforts to protect the natural area. A proposal made by the volunteer docents association for a renovation of the existing nature center or a new center of the same size was well received by county recreation department officials, he said. And the group continues to communicate with local and state officials about the problems with the current Discovery Center proposal.

And the group is also engaged in the processes surrounding other proposals tied to nature and outdoor recreation that could have significant impacts on the local community. These include the Emerald Necklace trails project and the National Park Service's San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains Resource Study.

Involvement on the part of the Friends in such conversation is the common thread that ties the organization and its priorities to the community and its well being.  

After federal turf battle, Park Service proposes 'skim-milk' national recreation area for local area

The National Park Service announced April 10 that it was recommending to Congress that it adopt a "national recreation area" designation for the San Gabriel foothills, San Gabriel River, Rio Hondo, and Puente Hills. Missing from the recommendation were the hundreds of thousands of acres of the San Gabriel Mountains/Angeles National Forest--an area that more than 95 percent of public comments received for the San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study recommended including in the NRA.

 As the Pasadena Star-News' Steve Scauzillo reported, the "Forest Service won the jurisdiction battle. The largest urban-interface forest in the country still would be managed only by the U.S. Forest Service, a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture."

The Los Angeles Times' Louis Sahagun summed up the larger effort and the way it fell short: "The National Park Service spent nearly a decade researching alternatives, conducting public hearings, developing a 316-page report and evaluating 12,000 public comments that led to Wednesday's announcement."

Including the national forest, he said, "would have emphasized recreational use and brought new environmental protections to a region now designated as a national forest charged with managing multiple uses including mining, hunting, logging and other activities. The 655,000-acre portion of the Angeles National Forest suffers from illegal campfires, crime and pollution."

Whatever your feelings about the proposed national recreation area--and we at the Friends continue to have significant concerns about the authority that agencies other than the park service would have under the new designation--it's pretty clear that the park service has proposed (to borrow from a Supreme Court justice) a skim-milk national recreation area for the San Gabriel Mountains and Valley.

But the process isn't over. Former Secretary of Labor and U.S. Rep. Hilda Solis, who launched the study in 2003, said that the NRA boundaries could change as the proposal works its way through Congress. We hope that also means that the roles of various partners could be clarified and the overall values that would guide management of the national recreation area would be made clearer.

No, not over by a long stretch of the imagination.
--
Useful links

• San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study
• National Park Service recommends scaled-down recreation area for San Gabriel River, Puente Hills
• Details about new plan for San Gabriel Mountains raise questions

It's not just about bicycle trails and horse paths -- it's about democracy and accountability too

A scoping meeting April 3 reintroduced Southern California's proposed Emerald Necklace project to communities near the San Gabriel and Rio Hondo rivers. According to environmental reporter Steve Scauzillo, the proposal was greeted with some skepticism.

The project is a plan for "interconnected bike, running and equestrian paths along the two rivers, from Peck Road Water Conservation Park in Arcadia on the north end to Whittier Narrows Recreational Area on the south end," Scauzillo writes. 

Such greening of heavily industrialized areas it can be agreed is, in and of itself, a good thing. So, Scauzillo asks, "how can people be against connecting bike lanes to river trails? Or adding a small park near the San Gabriel River?" 

He wonders whether the resistance he observed was a matter of "people conditioned to being against everything in CEQA." 

We at the Friends have tremendous respect for Steve, his reporter's eye, and his great writing. But in this case we wonder if he missed the larger issue at play -- that of concerns about democracy, transparency and accountability to the people.

People have come to understand -- rightly, in our experience with the Discovery Center project and other environmental matters -- that the CEQA process and other such meetings are often little more that ways in which government serves the interest of the powerful while either taking advantage of communities or tossing them a few easy scraps.

The Emerald Necklace is a project of the Watershed Conservation Authority, one of four supposedly independent agencies all run by the same individual. The state's department of finance criticized such arrangements in 2009 in these same agencies but the situation hasn't changed. Except to show a lack of accountability and consequences.

But the WCA and its parent Rivers and Mountains Conservancy are only two examples of power getting farther and farther away from the people. As Kevin Uhrich, of the Pasadena Weekly pointed out regarding the powerful county MTA, it is "but one of many such boards that make monumental decisions, recommend spending lots of money and forward critical recommendations to other governing boards, yet are populated by nothing but already elected officials, who are paid stipends and other perks for their 'extra service.'"

More paths along these rivers is a good thing, but you could hardly do further damage to the rivers at this point, encased as they are in concrete for much of their courses.

Not so for natural stretches of the Santa Clara River in the north, which developers and their allies in government want to channelize so they can build more houses, make more profit, and exchange more campaign and lobbying dollars for access and influence.

The question isn't "Why are people opposed to bike trails?" The question is, as Uhrich wrote, "how to use the instruments of democracy that we have available to make our present system stronger, more inclusive and representative, and better.

We wish the Emerald Necklace project great success. And we wish the communities it is supposed to serve the representative and responsive government that is so often lacking.

County DA looking into potential wrongdoing at Discovery Center Authority and parent agency

The Los Angeles County District Attorney is looking at allegations of wrongdoing by Rivers and Mountains Conservancy staff.

In January, the Friends sent a letter to the state attorney general, copied to the county DA and the state office of audits and evaluations, outlining the numerous likely illegal and unethical activities of RMC staff.

Last month, the Friends received a reply stating that the DA's Public Integrity Division is "reviewing the allegations and submitted documents to determine if further investigation is warranted."

In our January letter we outlined our concerns--and backed them up with numerous public, official documents produced by RMC and the Discovery Center Authority.

For example, we drew attention to the troubling likelihood that RMC and the Discovery Center Authority--one and the same, really--had spent $100,000 in state bond money on ineligible fundraising costs.

We also brought attention to the fact that the RMC/authority have been claiming to have 11 acres of federal land leased for the Discovery Center project--but the RMC director has known for at least a year that the responsible federal agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, has not approved the project or the lease of land.

We'll be posting these letters to our website soon, so check back.

Even more troubling is that the questionable activities at the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy seem to fit and extend a growing pattern of wrongdoing under its parent, the state Natural Resources Agency.

The LA Times reported in January the state attorney general found that state parks officials had for years deliberately hidden $54 million from the state officials "until it was exposed by a new staff member who described a culture of secrecy and fear at the department."

And later that same month, the paper reported that its own investigation revealed that "the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection hid $3.6 million rather than depositing it into the state's cash-strapped general fund as required."

Given such a pattern, two conclusions can be drawn. First, it suggests that RMC activities have crossed a line--as they have at State Parks and Cal Fire. Second, it suggests that the problems being identified are not isolated occurrences. Instead, they might indicate a problematic and troubling culture within the larger agency.

That too might need some scrutiny by officials.

Land grabs: Monied interests and their government allies turning public lands into private gold mines

It's easy to get so caught up in your own community's fight to protect its resources and quality of life that you forget that the problems you perceive locally are sometimes part of something much larger.

Recent news items put plans to build a water museum in the Whittier Narrows Natural Area into what looks like a campaign by monied interests and their allies to turn public lands to private benefit.

In west Los Angeles, the Ballona Wetlands Ecological Reserve has been selected by the Annenberg Foundation as the site for a pet adoption center and interpretive center. If that sounds familiar, it's because the foundation had originally selected public land in Rancho Palos Verdes for its project. Annenberg withdrew its project after opposition from the community and federal officials.

In the east, areas of wildlife habitat -- purchased with county tax dollars for parks and open space --  were being cleared by Texas-based Matrix Oil and the city of Whittier, for a proposed drilling project in the Whittier Hills even though the project is facing lawsuits and there are questions regarding Whittier's authority over the land and whether the city would see any money from the deal.

What all these stories -- Whittier Narrows, Ballona Wetlands, Whittier Hills -- have in common is the exploitation of public lands for what is essentially private benefit.

In the case of the Whittier Narrows wildlife sanctuary we see agencies, which have little or no background or interest in place-based nature education, seeking to build a monument to themselves. The better to announce to everyone -- the public, their rivals and partners, their superiors and subordinates -- that they are powerful and influential.

The Ballona case is an almost pure example of rent-seeking. Here we have a powerful organization, which is already receiving preferential tax treatment as a 501(c)3 charitable organization, seeking valuable public land at little or no cost to itself, for a project that, by rights, belongs in a heavily trafficked urban area. But that, of course, would entail buying or leasing land at market rates.

Take note, reader: Not only would Annenberg get precious public land for a song, but in the process it would deny a local city and its residents a legitimate contribution to the common good.

What is clear in all these cases is that powerful interests and their allies in government -- sometimes they are one and the same -- are trying to turn our public lands into their own private gold mines. 

Which seems like not such a new story at all. 

--
News links: 

• $50 million interpretive center planned for Ballona Wetlands

• Judge halts grading at Whittier hills oil site

Army Corps destruction in SF Valley preserve a preview of agency treatment of Whittier Narrows?

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the land management agency ultimately in charge of most of the Whittier Narrows Natural Area, including most of the 11 or 12 acres the Discovery Center Authority needs for its water museum project. The corps' clear-cutting last month of 43 acres of land rich in plant life and wildlife in the San Fernando Valley's Sepulveda Basin wildlife preserve offers a cautionary tale for those of us concerned about the fate of our own wildlife sanctuary on the San Gabriel River.

As Los Angeles Times journalist Louis Sahagun wrote on Dec. 29: "An area that just a week ago was lush habitat on the Sepulveda Basin's wild side, home to one of the most diverse bird populations in Southern California, has been reduced to dirt and broken limbs — by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers." 

Sahagun reports that the corps had reclassified the preserve as a "vegetation management area," with a new mission to replace existing plants with new vegetation in order to "improve access for Army Corps staffers, increase public safety and discourage crime in an area plagued by sex-for-drugs encampments." The agency declared that no environmental impact report was necessary,  posted a Finding of No Significant Impact to its website for 15 days of public comment, but according to the Sierra Club "informed no one of its existence."

By Dec. 28, Sahagun wrote, "nearly all of the vegetation — native and non-native — had been removed. Decomposed granite trails, signs, stone structures and other improvements bought and installed with public money had been plowed under."

Reaction was swift and utterly predictable -- except by the corps apparently. Local chapters of Audubon, Sierra Club, the Native Plant Society, local neighborhood groups, state and federal representatives all voiced their shock, disbelief and disapproval of the corps' actions. And while the attention brought to the destruction of wildlife habitat and recreational resources and the failure to consider, inform and include the public in any meaningful way won't bring back those 43 acres, it might help to prevent such destruction of other areas managed by the corps and by other agencies.

That includes the Whittier Narrows wildlife sanctuary.

San Gabriel River water museum threatens lands sacred to generations of Gabrieleno Indians

One of the great tragedies of the San Gabriel River Discovery Center water museum, planned for the Whittier Narrows wildlife sanctuary, is that it risks so much for so little.

"Our families hold the proposed land sacred because it is where our own grandfathers and great grandfathers survived. Our existing families are determined to uphold, respect, and honor the remaining lands where their bones and relics lie to rest."     -- Andrew Salas Teutimez, Gabrieleno Mission Indians Chairman

Many will be familiar with the expected cost of the project to the taxpayer: $22 million to build and untold amounts to run and maintain. And familiar with the destruction of wildlife habitat -- including nearly 200 trees, many of which are decades old and heavily used by native birds. And, of course, the planned demolition of the much-loved Whittier Narrows Nature Center.

But a story that may be less familiar but must be told is the threat the project poses to lands held sacred by the original inhabitants of Southern California, the Gabrieleno Indians.

The Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians, also known as the Kizh, have long opposed construction of the museum in the wildlife sanctuary because it would be built on the site of a former Gabrieleno village and would likely disturb cultural artifacts and human remains.

As chairman of the Gabrielenos, Andy Salas Tautimez, wrote in a letter reiterating the group's concerns to Discovery Center project head Mark Stanley, the Gabrielenos "hold the proposed land sacred because it is where our own grandfathers and great grandfathers survived. Those relatives of the past experienced far worse circumstances than we do today, so our existing families are determined to uphold, respect, and honor the remaining lands where their bones and relics lie to rest."

Like the Friends, the Gabrielenos are not opposed to a San Gabriel River Discovery Center per se -- they are opposed to a museum that destroys the very values it's supposed to promote. As Andy continues in his letter, the Gabrielenos are opposed to the construction on the selected location but also "welcome any opportunity to share our culture with the public and a Discovery Center with a Gabrieleno Cultural Center attached would be an ideal contribution to the public."

Andy closes by recommending the Duck Farm as an alternative location. 

The Duck Farm project, only a stone's throw from the wildlife sanctuary, is another water education project and park being promoted by the same officials behind the Discovery Center. Really the only elements missing from the Duck Farm are the controversy, the destruction, and the disrespect for Native American heritage. 

We at the Friends hope officials come to their senses before they create another expensive outrage like the Plaza de Cultura y Artes -- with native remains desecrated and millions of dollars wasted. 

If officials insist on developing a San Gabriel River Discovery Center, the Duck Farm would be the perfect location.

Critics of $22M Discovery Center water museum now include members of parent agency board

It's late fall and change is in the air, including for everyone's least favorite water museum project.

You may be familiar with the way support for the $22 million San Gabriel River Discovery Center project, planned for the Whittier Narrows wildlife sanctuary, has been crumbling in recent years.

For example, the state's rejection of the Discovery Center Authority's application for $7 million in bond money for nature education; the opposition of the Gabrieleno Indians, based on the location and the threat it poses to traditional native lands; and even the recent opposition to the project by a project board member.

Now, his voice has been joined by some on the board of the parent agency, the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy.

The RMC board met Nov. 23, and members Margaret Clarke, a Rosemead City Councilmember, and Dennis Bertone, a San Dimas City Councilmember, led the board's criticisms of the project.

Clarke said she'd never seen a project with so much opposition and was critical of the authority's approach to the matter, which she characterized as something like  "Ignore the public, build the project."

Bertone pointed out that the people closest to the project are objecting--and asked about the project's cost. Not the construction bill--the cost to run and maintain the facililty.

And that is a crucial question.

Along with opposition to the destruction of habitat and recreation land, and the cost to the public to build the project, the matters "How much will it cost to run?" and "Who will pay for it?" are big.

We should all learn from the experiences of Santa Barbara's troubled Watershed Resource Center, a similar but far smaller facility.

A nonprofit director close to the project said, "Everyone was excited to build it and there was a lot of enthusiasm at first," but the officials at the various agencies grew reluctant to devote the funds needed to keep it going.  (From the LA Weekly.)

Today, the WRC is open to the public one day a week for five hours.

Lots of trees in neighborhood = WEALTH

So, then, if there are fewer trees does that mean there is LESS WEALTH?


According to a study by Zhu and Zhang (Auburn University, AL., School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences; University of Southern California School of Policy, Planning and Development).."The empirical findings suggest that the demand for urban forests is elastic with respect to price and highly responsive to changes in income."


More on this topic...and very cool articles, I might add...




So, in other words.... poor communities have few trees and wealthy communities have lots of trees. And apparently, urban forests fight crime!  Lots of trees in the community also brings healthier newborns! Trees reduce stress, clean the air, provides shade, and a whole host of other positives..... so, WHY IS the County of Los Angeles trying to reduce the number for trees by building a giant building and parking lot for the water agencies in the ONLY OPEN WILD SPACE with MATURE TREES (???) which serves the communities of El Monte/South El Monte/Rosemead/Montebello/Whittier/Baldwin Park/ East Los Angeles/Temple City (mostly Latino, Asian)? 


The proponents of this Discovery Center Project, which includes the Los Angeles County Parks and Recreation, the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, and the various water agencies.... believe the communities around the Whittier Narrows Nature Center and Sanctuary need educating...especially about water. But why? you ask. 


Question: "So, if the community that surrounds the Whittier Narrows Sanctuary which has many many trees, but is of the low to lower median income bracket and has less trees then say, Santa Monica or Beverly Hills, WHY WOULD THE COUNTY WANT TO REMOVE THEIR TREES AND MAKE THEIR COMMUNITY WORSE????


The Los Angeles County (probably Supervisor Gloria Molina) and the RIvers and Mountains Conservancy (a state run 'conservacy' that doles out our -tax- bond money) think the community needs educatin'.... Rather rude folks, I would say...


Here is a group that has been around before the Los Angeles County Parks and Recreation's Discovery Center Project began... The Water Education Foundation. Here is a link where you can find out where your water comes from in any city in California...


And here is a study by the USGS in 2000 on the use/overuse of water per state.


But in REALITY..... if we just stop to think and ask ourselves..... who DOES USE MORE WATER ->>> RICH PEOPLE or NOT RICH PEOPLE???? 


1) A person/family with a) a large property b) lots of green grass c) swimming pool d) a spa e) lots of clothes f) lots of cars 


2) A person/family with a) a small property b) spends most of the time at work/school c) has one car/person who works d) does not have a lot of grass e) does not have a pool or spa f) does not have a lot of clothes


I would say... the folks who use the most water are those who make $100.000.00+/year. BUT STILL.... why is the County of Los Angeles and the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy SO HOT to take away this community's Sanctuary? Greed? Power? A nice brass plaque on the front door?


Now.... lets look at pictures.... they tell the story..................

Google Map of Whittier Narrows Sanctuary and community

Google Map of Cheviot Hills/Beverly Hills

A view from the sky of the Sanctuary (building under trees)
You can't see the building, can you! Hawks and owls nest in those trees!

A view from the sky of surrounding communities of Sanctuary

and downtown Los Angeles (note the air quality)

Closer view of existing Nature Center under trees and the

parking lot, today (where is that building???)

The UNFORTUNATE (ahem) building design by the LA County and Rivers Mountains 

Conservancy and without all the trees

Again, the UNFORTUNATE design of the Discovery Center (also

an unfortunate name for this design) in the most recent 

Rivers and Mountains Conservancy Schematic in 2012 website

Truly, UNFORTUNATE, sad but still, not without humor and irony.

Somethin' Smells Funny .... an I'm not laughin'

I love open space. I love the wild. We understand so little of how our world works and yet ....there are folks who think all they have to do is put up a building and parking lot and "Voilà! Look at our Nature Displays - Aren't you learning?" .... (!??!) You'd think the Pharos came back and stacked some more rocks! (How about another sphinx?)


Speaking of old things.... Because of new techniques in analyzing data, we are now, NOW! seeing life on this small rock in space in new light. Phylogenetics and technology and programming languages, together are allowing us to see where you, me, my cat, and the bug on my plant, connect to each other and to our ancient ancestors through time. ISN'T THAT COOL?!  


OH!!! The Jepson Manual (the book that botanists use to find out stuff on higher plants) has been changed and many of the plants have had their Genus and/or Family changed. How did they do that? By analyzing all of the DNA in the plants in the Jepson Manual. Imagine that!  Though, as much fun as PCR is to do, it takes TOOO LONG TO DOOO. Look how long the Human Genome Project took!  Many other organisms have MUCH BIGGER genomes then humans have. Now a-days, folks grind up their organism, add some special restriction enzymes and then input what they get into BLAST.! 


Why would I talk about phylogenetics? Because that is what is changing how we see biology and ecology, now, and into the future. And anything (books, college classes, biologists) that describes Nature will have to include bioinfomatics. And our laws, like the laws that protect our Natural Resources were poorly written and now, they are seriously out of date. It is well understood that the Army Corps of Engineers do not have all of the data on the ecosystems in the West (California in particular) because of the lack of basic information as to how our ecosystem works. It is more then just a Mediterranean Climate! It has been an understood truism, since I worked protecting wetlands in Ohio in the 1990s, that what powered the ecosystems/water of the West, was not understood. 


Now the REAL crux of this diary....


The Whittier Narrows Natural Area may be in for something from Washington D.C..
http://www.nps.gov/pwro/sangabriel/  And when you look at their maps, you will realize it is the entire watershed that may be "altered". We need to learn a lot about this and if we see danger.... We will need to speak up!!!!!


You see, the National Park Service has been considering to envelop the San Gabriel Mountains, River - really the entire watershed. Now, on the outset, it sounds nice. Like, maybe the open space might be protected from people who need to put concrete everywhere. 


I think we need to look at what the National Park System could do to our watershed.... understanding that the people most likely to carve it up via the water (ACOE) has little knowledge of how things are put together in the west. They have lots of manuals for the East Coast...


I have been trying to find what the pros and cons are for the NPS to take over our watershed. Then I remembered what someone said in an interview I did for a documentary. In 2002 I interviewed many people on the problems of water in southern California for this film (EPA, MWD. USFS, Sanitation Districts, UCLA Professors - lots of people).  I showed it, and then put it up on the web so people could learn. This is a tiny cut but, if you want to see more just Google, 'Ya Don't Miss The Water'.


In this clip, the Forest Serviceman (about 1:40 minutes) says that people would no longer be able to sit in the streams or live in the forest. Almost sounds like a good thing....

Then I found this.... from Courthouse News Service.

"Five environmental groups say the National Park Service illegally approved more than 130 miles of off-road vehicle trails in an addition to the Big Cypress National Preserve, "one of the few remaining sizeable and contiguous tracts of relatively pristine and significantly undisturbed landscape in the eastern United States, and particularly in Florida"

...and there is more...

 "Moreover, despite acknowledging in the EIS [environmental impact statement] that unknown levels of adverse impacts would inevitably result to diverse resources in the addition, including to surface water flows and the spread of invasive species, NPS failed to gather pertinent information on which to fully analyze the environmental impacts or to apprise the public of the extent of such impacts. NPS similarly failed to investigate and analyze the inevitable impacts to resources with respect to several listed species, including Florida panthers, for which vital research is lacking concerning the expected impacts of ORV use and ORV-assisted hunting on panthers and their prey."     The environmentalists sued Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Director Daniel Ashe. They seek declaratory judgment and an injunction."  

There's a fire in the shed, Misses O'Leary!

When you pay your water bill, do you think, "PORK!"

Well, maybe you should! Here are some articles pointing to some water pork... You did not know that Pigs... er, pork swim? Well, have we got news for YOU! Right HERE at Relief we have a story about  the "what and how" some folks, in some circles, use your hard earned money! (I bolded a few important words, below.)

That's where it stands today. And little has changed. The economy still is stagnant. More state services are due to be slashed. The pork is smelly.

Pork like this: Bike trails, when local governments lack enough money to fill street potholes. Open-space purchases, while public parks are being closed. "Watershed education centers," as schools are being whacked and tuitions are soaring.

The bond is really larded up: $10 million for "climate change planning," $50 million for river parkways, $75 million for the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy.

Remember, this is supposed to be a water bond — strategically titled by the Legislature: "Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act."

There must be at least $2 billion worth of fatback. Add to that $455 million for "drought relief." Save the money. The drought's long over. 

BUT WAIT!!!! The Water DUDES from Central Basin thought that maybe...just maybe if they got wonderful articles written about them they could show the public that they were doing their jobs.... and not just taking the money for silly projects. But, if you thought that, Honey, you were wrong... check this out...

There seemed to be no doubt that Mike Adams was a productive journalist, even if his beat was a bit obscure: the Central Basin Municipal Water District.

In recent months, he churned out more than 20 stories on the water wholesaler based in southeast Los Angeles. He wrote about recycled water that kept the grass green on street medians and parks. About the computer system a college used to irrigate its landscaping. About a water-saving youth soccer field.

• 

Areas serviced by the Central Basin Municipal Water District 

The only mystery, really, was Adams himself. The Times could not find evidence he exists.

Adams' stories were published on the website News Hawks Review after Central Basin agreed to pay up to nearly $200,000 in taxpayer money to public relations consultant Ed Coghlan.

Under the deal, Coghlan said he would produce promotional stories about the district that would be indexed on Google News.

The district, which sells water to cities and water companies in Southeast Los Angeles County and serves a total of more than 2 million residents, has come under criticism for the unusual arrangement.

Central Basin staffers, in recommending the agreement with Coghlan to the board of directors, said the stories would enhance the district's image and would be written by experienced journalists.

And on paper, Adams fit that bill.

Doesn't it just do your little heart good to see such insane corruption get exposed? Let's do some more!!!

Native plants' surprising uses: Talk by biologist and Gabrieleno Indian Thursday at Franklin Canyon Park

Biologist and Gabrieleno Indian Matt Teutimez (pictured) will be speaking on the many extraordinary ways in which native plants have been used by Native Americans. 7 p.m. Thursday, June 23, at Franklin Canyon Park in Beverly Hills.

Matt has done some truly dynamic presentations on native plants at the Whittier Narrows Nature Center, and tomorrow's event in Franklin Canyon's William O'Douglas Outdoor Classroom promises to be engaging and informative too.

The Web page for the event explains that indigenous plants "were the backbone of daily life for local Native Americans. Plants were used for food, clothing, tools, weapons, medicine, shelter, trade items, toys and games, artistic expression, and spiritual objects that helped maintain a connection to the earth."

Tomorrow's presentation is part of Franklin Canyon Park's "Nachochan Gathering" series. The word "nachochan," the Website explains, "is a form of greeting in Tongva meaning 'My eyes see your eyes. My hands are open.' We open our hands to you and they are filled with the traditions, songs, games, and food of Native American cultures."

The park and series invite people to "bring your friends or make new ones and relish in a new topic each month. It's a kaleidoscope of hands-on learning, crafts, and guest speakers."

Franklin Canyon Park is at 2600 Franklin Canyon Dr., Beverly Hills, CA 90210. Click here (PDF) for a list of programs and a map of the park. Or call (310) 858-7272, ext. 131, for more information.

Friends file legal appeal against Discovery Center!

When it rains, it pours, the saying goes. And for the San Gabriel River Discovery Center at the moment it's coming down in buckets.

The LA Weekly reported yesterday that the Friends of the Whittier Narrows Natural Area have filed an appeal against the planned water museum and meeting hall, which would, writes Dennis Romero:

"essentially tear out a beautiful area along the rivers (the San Gabriel and Rio Hondo diverge here) to install a building where you could appreciate . . . the beautiful area along the rivers."

Romero also mentioned State Parks' widely reported decision last week rejecting the Discovery Center Authority's request for $7 million in bond money to build the water museum.

He includes a nice quote from Friends President Jim Odling:

"Our organization and members are grateful to State Parks for recognizing, as so many in the local community have, that the Discovery Center project would, in fact, take us backwards in our efforts to protect California's natural and cultural resources."

With the appeal filed, the work of protecting our resources goes on.