Friends Of The Earth

By the Mother Earth News editors

July/August 1976

One of the world's most effective environmental groups is San Francisco-based FRIENDS OF THE EARTH. Although FOE publishes Not Man Apart -a monthly tabloid magazine packed with authenticated, hard-to-find facts that every concerned citizen needs-far too few of MOTHER's readers regularly see a copy of NMA. We are therefore quite pleased that FOE's staff has agreed to write a regular FRIENDS OF THE EARTH column for THE Mother Earth News(restricted).

VICTORY AT KAIPAROWITS

We won! Plans to construct the controversial Kaiparowits power plant-the huge pollution-belching coal-burner that we discussed in this column in MOTHER NO. 38-have been abandoned!

As you might recall, several southern California utility companies wanted to build the fume factory out in the middle of Utah's desert country. Why? To provide additional electrical energy to L.A. and San Diego while-at the same time-leaving the resulting air pollution (up to 300 tons per day!) "out where nobody lives".

Our objections to that proposal were twofold: First, of course, was the simple fact that this country is (or should be) trying to slow down energy growth, not speed it up. And the second was that eight national parks and three national recreation areas all happen to be located within 200 miles of the proposed site. Even the U.S. Park Service and the Environmental Protection Agency agreed that the facility would've gunked up the air over at least two of those parcels of public land.

Nevertheless, nobody expected the power companies to give up easily. Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric (the principal parties involved) had already invested a whopping ten million dollars in the project. And big businesses aren't known to be fond of watching that kind of money go down the drain.

As a result, Friends of the Earth anticipated a relatively long drawn-out battle, and hired a representative from Moab, Utah to work full time against the facility. Even Robert Redford got into the fray. Interviewed at length on the CBS television program Sixty Minutes , the actor (who makes an even better environmental activist) expressed his opposition to Kaiparowits in a very convincing and heartfelt manner.

And then came the shocker: Shortly after Redford's TV appearance, both SCE and SDG&E suddenly announced that they had put a halt to the Kaiparowits project. What a surprise!

As the story goes, the utilities had initiated their plans to build the coal-burner way back in the early 60's, when everyone still expected energy consumption to keep growing and multiplying indefinitely. Apparently no one had foreseen the day when the use of power would decline (which is exactly what has happened: This country is using less energy this year than last. . . and the downward trend is now expected to continue).

When the two companies reassessed the projected cost of their plant (an estimated $3.5 billion!) against the actual need for the power that it would produce, they soon found that the former far outweighed the latter. As William Gould, Southern California Edison's executive vice-president put it, "Over the 13 years the project was on the drawing board, costs steadily increased and environmental requirements were added. Finally it just crossed over the line of economic feasibility."

So the Kaiparowits caper was killed. Conservationists were pleased. The utility companies were relieved. Just about everyone, in fact, was happy . . . except for the residents of Kanab, Utah, who had been looking forward to cashing in on the construction jobs and money that the nearby project would've stimulated. They responded to the announcement by burning Robert Redford in effigy.

The moral of the story? Well, perhaps even the big power companies are beginning to get the message: It's safer, saner, cleaner, and less expensive to save a watt than to produce one.

FAMILY FARMERS VS. AGRIBIZ

If you had visited California's Westlands region sometime before 1920, you would've seen 522,000 acres of barren land, some dry brush, and a few scrawny jackrabbits. You could've bought a piece of it for $97 an acre, but most folks probably would've said you were crazy.

Today that same territory west of Fresno is lush, green, and fruitful . . . in fact, it's one of the most productive agricultural areas in the entire nation. And the reason for the almost-magical transformation can be explained in a single word: water. Water pumped and paid for by the federal government, and used to coax bumper crops from the otherwise arid soil.

Unfortunately, there's one sticky problem: Those irrigation projects are illegal. And they're at the core of a controversy that's getting hotter by the minute.

It seems that most of the property comprising the Westlands (which is roughly the size of Rhode Island, and now valued at $1,000-plus per acre) is in the hands of just a few corporate giants. Southern Pacific (which alone owns 110,000 acres), Standard Oil, Getty Oil, and several others employ large-scale agribiz methods-and make extensive use of low-paid migrant worker help-to turn a handsome profit on their lands. Government subsidies defray most of the expense of irrigation.

Trouble is, Congress' 1902 Reclamation Act specifies that water from such federal projects can only be supplied to farmers who [1] actually live on the land, and [2] own no more than 160 acres (or 320 acres for a couple).

The big companies, of course, have found ways around the law (such as selling their property to relatives, and then leasing it back). It's obvious, though, that the small farmer is being kept out of the area as a result. And the government hasn't done much to help.

So now, for the first time, local citizens have begun to organize and actively seek means of putting property back into the hands of the people who actually work the soil. And one such group-an alliance of Fresno-area farmers and Chicano workers called National Land for People-is suing the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in order to force it to uphold the law . . . and to make Westlands' corporate owners sell off their excess property at pre-irrigation-era prices.

A key issue in the fight is agribiz's contention that the Reclamation Act is out of date because small farms themselves are out of date.. . inefficient, unproductive, and non-competitive as compared to modern multi-thousand-acre food factories.

Such an assumption holds obvious implications for the future of farming everywhere. Watch this one closely, folks.

SAN FRANCISCO BAY BLUES

Did you know that San Francisco's famous bay is only a little more than half its original size? That's right . . . what used to be primarily rich marshland-where salmon, oysters, clams, sturgeon, ducks, crab, abalone, and other wildlife thrived-has been filled in over the years to allow the cities on its shores to expand. We're glad to say that this process was eventually halted by law, but we're not so happy to report that a new threat to the region has recently surfaced.

At the north end of the bay, near the mouth of the Sacramento River, is Suisan Marsh: the largest wetlands territory remaining in California. And Dow Chemical (the folks who brought us napalm) wants to build a huge petrochemical plant near that unique area.

The facility, of course, will do what all big factories do everywhere: It'll spew pollutants into the air, create a boombust economy in the region, and stimulate an increase in taxes to pay for the roads, schools, and other construction that will be necessary to accommodate the sudden influx of new residents. Even worse, though, is a special danger that this particular plant will produce.

Many of the compounds that Dow intends to manufacture at the site are highly caustic. And the company wants to ship those substances (and others) in and out by way of the Carquinez Straits: a narrow, dangerous, and often overcrowded pass where heavy fogs are frequent. The possibility of a collision or some other maritime mishap is obvious . . . and so are the consequences should one of the ships involved be carrying Dow's products. Any spill of such chemicals would spell curtains for Suisan Marsh's fragile ecosystem.

Needless to say, FOE is vigorously opposing the proposed factory.

INTRODUCING: THE DIRTY DOZEN!

Each year, Environmental Action-a national organization of ecoactivists based in Washington, D.C.-releases a list naming the twelve members of the House of Representatives who have most frequently voted wrong on key environmental issues over the preceding twelve months. The "elite" group is called (aptly enough) "The Dirty Dozen" . . . and voters everywhere are urged to work to defeat any Congressman who has earned a place on the DD roster.

This year's Dirty Dozen includes: Goodloe Byron (D-Md.), Donald Clancy (R-Ohio), James Cleveland (R-N.H.), Samuel Devine (R-Ohio), John Flynt (D - Ga.), Charles Grassley (RIowa), Albert Johnson (R - Pa.), John Rhodes (R - Ariz.), Gene Snyder (R - Ky.), Steve Symms (R - Idaho), Burt Talcott (R - Calif.), and Richard White (D - Tex.l.

If any of the individuals above happens to be your U.S. Representative, you'd do well to vote against him . . . or better yet, to run against him!

200-MILE BILL PASSES!

Coastal fishermen can breathe a little easier now . . . and so can we! President Ford has finally signed into law a bill that extends this country's jurisdiction over the seas along its shores from twelve miles out to two hundred miles!

The need for such a measure-though hotly debated in Congress-has become more and more apparent over the years. Japan and several eastern European nations have huge and very efficient fishing fleets (as well as rather underdeveloped scruples) and have operated freely in waters off U.S. shores for decades.

The result has been severe depletion of a vital natural resource. Some of our coastal fish populations, in fact, have been so devastated that they're unable to reproduce in significant numbers. And the consequences of allowing that situation to continue have been all too obvious to both environmentalists and the U.S. seafood industry.

We're very pleased, then, to report the passage of this new law. When it goes into effect in March of 1977, foreign fleets will have to get a permit from the Coast Guard in order to fish within 200 miles of the U.S. coast.

OIL FIRST, ALASKA SECOND

This April the U.S. Interior Department moved one step closer to forever ruining our largest state's natural environment. How? By announcing that it would begin accepting bids for oil exploration rights on more than a million acres of the Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Alaska.

Yes, that region is one of the richest oil fields left in this country . . . but it's also one of the most hazardous places anyone could ever pick for drilling operations. The waters are choppy and treacherous, and the climate is severe. Worse yet, the area's ecosystem is exceptionally fragile. It'll be easy for oil companies to make a real mess of the environment . . . but almost impossible to clean that mess up.

As a result, opposition to the leasing was very vocal and widespread. The EPA, the Council on Environmental Qual ity, and even the state of Alaska itself wanted to at least delay the proceedings. But the nation's maniac thirst for oil won out.

At this point, it looks as though the winning high bids for exploration rights will total around $580 million . . . a bargain price for the oil companies, who expect to pump as much as three billion barrels of black gold from the gulf.

We wonder, though: What will the real cost be in terms of our environment? And why-just this once-couldn't we have saved those oil reserves as a kind of bank balance for future generations?