The tone of the speechmaking changed when Carl Guardino stepped to the podium for Tuesday’s second morning session. Suddenly the audience was listening not to insider views of science and government, but to an outsider alarmed by the uncertainties of climate change. “It’s our job as CEOs not to cheer or jeer, our job is to get into the game and move the ball forward,” said Guardino, quoting legendary Hewlett-Packard CEO David Packard. As President and CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a public policy trade association of more than 390 Silicon Valley companies, Guardino seemed a little uncertain at first facing the crowd of environmentalists. But he soon warmed to his subject.
He acknowledged that projected flooding presented a significant threat to homes, businesses, and infrastructure at the water’s edge, and noted that the South Bay seemed particularly vulnerable. He said a major storm could put hundreds of thousands of people and tens of billions of dollars in assets at risk, and directly impact what he called “the innovation economy.” As he put it, “It’s enlightened self interest to be mindful of the impacts without having to go through an experience like Hurricane Sandy. The Bay Area business community needs to engage, we can’t wait for Sacramento or Washington.” Guardino presented photos of mayhem in New York, and weak levees in the South Bay that would be no match for a Sandy-sized storm. He mentioned that wetlands help protect shoreline assets, and pledged support for shoreline protection efforts already underway through a new CEO task force. With a smile, he invited the audience to add their names to a “thank you partners” slide up on the big screen that was already crammed with logos. “There’s no ‘or’ anymore between ‘economy’ and ‘environment,’ let me be clear,” he closed.
The next speaker explored climate change uncertainties from a different perspective—that of a water supplier to nearly 2 million residents and businesses in the Silicon Valley. Linda J. LeZotte, a director at the Santa Clara Valley Water District, cited a state report identifying Santa Clara County, along with Los Angeles and Orange Counties, as having the highest potential for future flood damage in California. Some shoreline portions of the county lie as much as 13 feet below sea level, and others host residential subdivisions, urban zones, high-tech companies and the largest wastewater treatment facility in the Bay Area, she said. Most built shorelines are protected from the Bay by substandard levees or fledgling wetlands.
To address this risk, LeZotte said, the water district is working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Coastal Conservancy on the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study. This congressionally authorized study is investigating the potential for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration improvements along the bayshore between Palo Alto and Milpitas. “At $125 million, this is not going to be cheap,” said LeZotte. President Obama’s budget includes the project, but the non-federal cost share is $56 million. The water district’s Safe, Clean Water measure, passed in 2012, includes $15 million for its share of initial project construction, and another $5 million to conduct studies of additional areas. Non-federal sponsors will make up the balance through credits derived from the value of the salt ponds.
LeZotte also detailed some challenges. For example, without authorization, the Army Corps is not allowed to do ecosystem restoration on lands owned by other federal agencies such as the US Fish & Wildlife Service, which controls much of the South Bay shore including salt ponds surrounding the town of Alviso. “Alviso is a priority—we need to replace non-engineered levees before a disaster happens,” she said.
After the opening talks, the conference moved on to a panel of representatives from federal, state and local entities. Panelists made brief introductory remarks to get things rolling and audience inspire questions about regional wetlands restoration and flood protection challenges. Save the Bay’s David Lewis started by urging the public at large not to take the Bay for granted. “We live in a very wealthy region—we have a public that cares and a public with resources. I hope the new SF Bay Restoration Authority [can channel some of this local wealth into our shoreline projects], because the Bay is not getting a fair share of federal resources compared with other estuaries,” he said.
After Lewis, City of San Jose Environmental Services Director Kerrie Romanow described how San Jose is spending $700 million to rebuild the region’s largest regional wastewater treatment facility to better serve 1.6 million South Bay residents and protect the health of the estuary. “After rebuilding it, we really want to make sure sea level rise doesn’t put it underwater,” she said, which is partly why San Jose has been investing in a buffering wetland on a nearby salt pond.
Next, State Coastal Conservancy Director Sam Schuchat said he was looking forward to reintroducing Bay waters to the massive restoration site at the former Hamilton Army Airfield sometime next year. “This is [one of the prizes of our success] in piecing together funding from so many different sources,” he said. In the future, he hopes the Restoration Authority, with a per-parcel tax of not more than $10, will create a more stable mechanism for collecting funding for wetland restoration, flood control and water quality projects. “We need all your time and all your money to make this happen,” he said looking right at the audience with a smile.
Panelist Lieutenant Colonel John Baker, District Engineer for the US Army Corps, ended the panel’s introductory remarks by pointing out that few people know the Corps has been involved in the security and safety of the nation’s waterways for more than 200 years.
The audience had many questions for the panel. Asked where “the big opportunities” are for strong climate change adaptation, David Lewis had a quick answer: “Where imminent restoration abuts infrastructure, like the wetlands around Facebook headquarters and Highway 84.” Romanow suggested areas around wastewater treatment facilities, and Schuchat the Hayward Shoreline. “Every marathon starts with a mile. We have to identify places where we can have small victories, [obvious] win-wins,” said Baker.
Another question concerned progress on a regional adaptation strategy on sea level rise. “There isn’t one,” said Schuchat. “But there is an evolving consensus about using natural solutions where we can. Where we can’t, we’re probably going to have to build some big honking levees.” While having a regionally coordinated strategy would be desirable, Lewis felt it was unlikely that anyone could get nine different counties to agree on what that might be. “It’s better to work with particular cities interested in setting a high bar for others to match,” he said. For Baker, however, piecemeal action might prove problematic. “Without a regional strategy, it is more difficult for an area to be prioritized by federal government for Corps involvement.”
In a third question, someone asked for more details about the 2014 regional ballot measure that would fund the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority. Schuchat said a proposed parcel tax on the ballot could provide $15 million over ten years for the Authority. “A million here, a million there, and we’re talking real money,” said Schuchat. Santa Clara voters have already approved $20 million for South Bay shoreline flooding projects, said LeZotte. Lewis added that the region still needs to make a better case for more federal funds to come to San Francisco Bay. Baker reminded the audience that the federal government doesn’t have such deep pockets anymore. He said the Corps has to tackle a $60 billion backlog in harbor and waterway maintenance projects nationwide with a 2014 budget projected at just $4.7 billion. One thing needed to free up federal funding, he said, is to convince regulators to be more flexible with what the region does with dredged sediment. Once a waste product, dredged material is now a precious resource in the fight to keep shorelines abreast of sea level rise. “We’ve had some success pairing navigation projects that create mud with restoration projects that need mud,” said Baker.
Sediment may be a scarce resource, but so is horizontal space needed for wetlands to move inland and buffer developed areas, the topic of another question for the panel. One way to get more space would be to expand offshore rather than onshore, and create wetlands in areas that are now open water, said Schuchat. “But that would require substantial and controversial changes in BCDC ‘no-fill’ policies,” he said. Another way is to buy out willing sellers in the flood zone, which New York has been doing post-Sandy. “If there’s no room for horizontal levees, then they have to go vertical,” said the Corps’ Baker. “But you don’t keep building in a place that keeps flooding. I come from Texas, and even there that’s the definition of insanity—doing the same thing over and over and hoping for better outcome,” he said to a round of hearty applause.
The final question for the panel was whether state and federal regulatory processes help or hinder planning for sea level rise. San Jose’s Kerrie Romanow said both were true. “In some ways they’re providing planning assistance. In others they’re getting in way with challenging requirements. But we find when we spend face-to-face time with them, we [manage] to achieve our goals together,” she said. One longstanding regulatory tool may no longer be relevant. “Single species restoration is brain dead in the era of climate change,” said Schuchat. Traditional flood protection regulations and approaches also need an overhaul as the sea laps ever higher on our shores, and extreme storms pour more water faster through our watersheds. Santa Clara’s water district is already in the swim: “We don’t build concrete channels any more,” said LeZotte. “When feasible we remove them. The day of concrete channeling streams is over.”
[toggle_box]
[toggle_item title=”PowerPoint Gallery” active=”false”]
” color=”green”]
Nick Laurrell was living in Costa Rica and promoting online gambling with his Internet and crowd-sourcing skills before he got a gig leading Bay Area anti-litter campaigns. “I use my black magic for white magic purposes,” said Laurrell at the conference. Rather than producing his own PSAs, he invited 14- to 20-year-olds to create and submit their own videos to his “Be the Street” contest. Laurrell targeted this demographic because statistics suggest that young people disproportionately contribute to the littering problem. More than 51 videos were submitted. “We got awful ones and we got great ones, but it was not about the quality of the videos, it was about the quality of the participants,” said Laurrell.
[/message_box]South Bay Shoreline Study
San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority
By Ariel Rubissow Okamoto
Nothing could be stranger than sitting in the dark with thousands of suits and heels, watching a parade of promises to decarbonize from companies and countries large and small, reeling from the beauties of big screen rainforests and indigenous necklaces, and getting all choked up.
It was day two of the September 2018 Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco when I felt it.
At first I wondered if I was simply starstruck. Most of us labor away trying to fix one small corner of the planet or another without seeing the likes of Harrison Ford, Al Gore, Michael Bloomberg, Van Jones, Jerry Brown – or the ministers or mayors of dozens of cities and countries – in person, on stage and at times angry enough to spit. And between these luminaries a steady stream of CEOs, corporate sustainability officers, and pension fund managers promising percentages of renewables and profits in their portfolios dedicated to the climate cause by 2020-2050.
I tried to give every speaker my full attention: the young man of Vuntut Gwichin heritage from the edge of the Yukon’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge who pleaded with us not to enter his sacred lands with our drills and dependencies; all the women – swathed in bright patterns and head-scarfs – who kept punching their hearts. “My uncle in Uganda would take 129 years to emit the same amount of carbon as an American would in one year,” said Oxfam’s Winnie Byanyima.
“Our janitors are shutting off the lights you leave on,” said Aida Cardenas, speaking about the frontline workers she trains, mostly immigrants, who are excited to be part of climate change solutions in their new country.
The men on the stage, strutting about in feathers and pinstripes, spoke of hopes and dreams, money and power. “The notion that you can either do good or do well is a myth we have to collectively bust,” said New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy whose state is investing heavily in offshore wind farms.
“Climate change isn’t just about risks, it’s about opportunities,” said Blackrock sustainable investment manager Brian Deese.
But it wasn’t all these fine speeches that started the butterflies. Halfway through the second day of testimonials, it was a slight white-haired woman wrapped in an azure pashmina that pricked my tears. One minute she was on the silver screen with Alec Baldwin and the next she taking a seat on stage. She talked about trees. How trees can solve 30% of our carbon reduction problem. How we have to stop whacking them back in the Amazon and start planting them everywhere else. I couldn’t help thinking of Dr. Seuss and his truffala trees. Jane Goodall, over 80, is as fierce as my Lorax. Or my daughter’s Avatar.
Analyzing my take home feeling from the event I realized it wasn’t the usual fear – killer storms, tidal waves, no food for my kids to eat on a half-baked planet – nor a newfound sense of hope – I’ve always thought nature will get along just fine without us. What I felt was relief. People were actually doing something. Doing a lot. And there was so much more we could do.
As we all pumped fists in the dark, as the presentations went on and on and on because so many people and businesses and countries wanted to STEP UP, I realized how swayed I had let myself be by the doomsday news mill.
“We must be like the river, “ said a boy from Bangladesh named Risalat Khan, who had noticed our Sierra watersheds from the plane. “We must cut through the mountain of obstacles. Let’s be the river!”
Or as Harrison Ford less poetically put it: “Let’s turn off our phones and roll up our sleeves and kick this monster’s ass.”
by Isaac Pearlman
Since California’s last state-led climate change assessment in 2012, the Golden State has experienced a litany of natural disasters. This includes four years of severe drought from 2012 to 2016, an almost non-existent Sierra Nevada snowpack in 2014-2015 costing $2.1 billion in economic losses, widespread Bay Area flooding from winter 2017 storms, and extremely large and damaging wildfires culminating with this year’s Mendocino Complex fire achieving the dubious distinction of the largest in state history. California’s most recent climate assessment, released August 27th, predicts that for the state and the Bay Area, we can expect even more in the future.
The California state government first began assessing climate impacts formally in 2006, due to an executive order by Governor Schwarzenegger. California’s latest iteration and its fourth overall, includes a dizzying array of 44 technical reports; three topical studies on climate justice, tribal and indigenous communities, and the coast and ocean; as well as nine region-specific analyses.
The results are alarming for our state’s future: an estimated four to five feet of sea level rise and loss of one to two-thirds of Southern California beaches by 2100, a 50 percent increase in wildfires over 25,000 acres, stronger and longer heat waves, and infrastructure like airports, wastewater treatment plants, rail and roadways increasingly likely to suffer flooding.
For the first time, California’s latest assessment dives into climate consequences on a regional level. Academics representing nine California regions spearheaded research and summarized the best available science on the variable heat, rain, flooding and extreme event consequences for their areas. For example, the highest local rate of sea level rise in the state is at the rapidly subsiding Humboldt Bay. In San Diego county, the most biodiverse in all of California, preserving its many fragile and endangered species is an urgent priority. Francesca Hopkins from UC Riverside found that the highest rate of childhood asthma in the state isn’t an urban smog-filled city but in the Imperial Valley, where toxic dust from Salton Sea disaster chokes communities – and will only become worse as higher temperatures and less water due to climate change dry and brittle the area.
According to the Bay Area Regional Report, since 1950 the Bay Area has already increased in temperature by 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit and local sea level is eight inches higher than it was one hundred years ago. Future climate will render the Bay Area less suitable for our evergreen redwood and fir forests, and more favorable for tolerant chaparral shrub land. The region’s seven million people and $750 billion economy (almost one-third of California’s total) is predicted to be increasingly beset by more “boom and bust” irregular wet and very dry years, punctuated by increasingly intense and damaging storms.
Unsurprisingly, according to the report the Bay Area’s intensifying housing and equity problems have a multiplier affect with climate change. As Bay Area housing spreads further north, south, and inland the result is higher transportation and energy needs for those with the fewest resources available to afford them; and acute disparity in climate vulnerability across Bay Area communities and populations.
“All Californians will likely endure more illness and be at greater risk of early death because of climate change,” bluntly states the statewide summary brochure for California’s climate assessment. “[However] vulnerable populations that already experience the greatest adverse health impacts will be disproportionately affected.”
“We’re much better at being reactive to a disaster than planning ahead,” said UC Berkeley professor and contributing author David Ackerly at a California Adaptation Forum panel in Sacramento on August 27th. “And it is vulnerable communities that suffer from those disasters. How much human suffering has to happen before it triggers the next round of activity?”
The assessment’s data is publicly available online at “Cal-adapt,” where Californians can explore projected impacts for their neighborhoods, towns, and regions.