UCLA's Mary Nichols Assesses Local & State Environmental Measures & Programs

Mary, I want to start by asking you to speak about the passage of Proposition O in the City of Los Angeles and its significance for upgrading storm water drainage systems and other environmentally related infrastructure. You played a part, and I would love to know your take on the significance of its passage.

I think there are a couple of things that are really important about Proposition O, both the bond itself, the fact that it passed with the second highest vote ever for a measure in the City of Los Angeles (The highest was a zoo bond a couple of years ago) and it doesn't get much better than 75.8 percent of the vote. The fact that the environmental community came together with the City Council and worked out the details of the bond, when in the past these groups have been ready to sue the city over lack of compliance with storm water requirements, was enormously important. It wasn't just the environmentalists. We also had the Chamber of Commerce and all kinds of local organizations involved in the campaign. However, I think the fact that the environmental groups were able to say that they believed that with the way the measure was structured there were sufficient guarantees that the money would actually be used to improve the worst water quality problems (the beaches, the river, and the bay), contributed to the overwhelming vote in support of the bond. It also will contribute enormously to he ability to carry it out now that it has been passed.

Talk a little bit about the environmental stakeholders involved, and what they hope to gain from this half-billion dollar bond.

I think the first and most important thing is that the environmental stakeholders have a positive working relationship with the city over addressing the city's long-standing water quality problems. I don't think anybody believes, unfortunately, that half a billion dollars, even though that is an enormous amount of money, is going to fix everything, but it will go a very long way toward retrofitting the city. I think what makes this a landmark is that everyone now understands that there are projects that can serve multiple purposes that will address the quality of the storm water and protect drinking water and ground water, but also can have other community benefits as well.

Why don't you give some examples of these projects, and also just as a second question, why was the state water bond that passed under your leadership not sufficient and a local bond needed?

Let me talk about the kinds of projects that are contemplated under Proposition O because they include everything from purchasing strips of open space land near where there are hard surfaces that can be used to help absorb rainfall in times of sudden torrential rains, which is what we tend to get here, to fixing or retrofitting the drains in older neighborhoods of Los Angeles that back up whenever it rains today. I went to visit, in Jan Perry's district, a neighborhood where every time a rain storm went through the area, a couple of days later there were huge puddles along the edge of the streets and blocking people's driveway. It happens to be a neighborhood with a number of elderly people in it, and people were complaining with having problems getting to their house when it rains. So we are dealing with a flooding problem as well as a water quality problem.

As far as the state money under the most recent bond Proposition 50, that money is still in the process of being spent. A number of the projects that are going to be funded, including the desalination projects, will directly improve water supply, but that bond was aimed more at the water quantity problem instead of the water quality problem.

That leads me to another question. What is the role of MWD in this basin regarding water quality and its relationship to Proposition O and like measures that citizens are now hoping will meet the challenges that the current infrastructure presents?

I think that the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has gone much further in the city than the MWD has in the rest of its service area in terms of acknowledging that there can or should be a link between water supply, water quality, and water treatment issues. MWD has not wanted to, for example, take an active role in the planning and design or take any role in the move to rehabilitate or restore the Los Angeles River. We are not looking to start dipping buckets in the L.A. River to provide water for drinking, but that fact is that if the L.A. River can be made greener and cleaner and more attractive in many ways, it can also contribute to replenishment of ground water and have other benefits that would be directly tied to water supply. I think that at the city level, it has been easier to get the various agencies that share responsibilities for different aspects of water to work together and recognize that they could develop projects that have mutual benefits, even if the funding can out of slightly different pots, or if different agencies had to work together to actually develop the projects. It is not easy to do it under any circumstances, but the city has definitely moved further in that direction.

I want to tie a couple of these questions together. CLA Ron Deaton has been nominated and will likely be confirmed as the new head of the DWP, and Ron played an integral role in the development, along with the Council, of Prop O. Talk a little bit about his ascendancy to head of DWP and what it portends for the issues that you have spent a lifetime engaged with.

Well, I am a born again fan of Ron Deaton. I spent a number of years during the Bradley administration thinking of him as being the most difficult person in the city that I had to deal with on environmental issues. I have found in recent years that he has become one of the savviest and most useful allies that we have on environmental projects in the city. Certainly when I was at the state level, we worked together on a number of efforts, for example, the cornfields and Taylor Yard to try and accomplish multiple goals and leverage the state's money effectively to benefit the city. I have always thought that he was completely dedicated to the well-being of the city, but I think that many years ago maybe his vision of the city was less environmental that it is now. I think, whether it is because of years of working with the laws or whether it is because the environmental community has become more proactive and realistic in the projects they have been supporting, the fact is that Ron has really emerged as a champion for most of the green projects and green visions that I would want to see Los Angeles implementing,

Let's turn to the state and federal governments. We have just had elections and even subsequent to the elections, Terry Tamminen had been elevated to Secretary of Cal/EPA. What is your take on the management of your legacy as Natural Resources Secretary here in California with Governor Schwarzenegger's new team?

I haven't seen any backsliding at the state level, as far as the programs that the state itself runs. I think that they have been absolutely true to the programs that we've started and have added some new directions of their own, particularly in the area of oceans. There were some bills that the Governor did no sign this past year that the environmental community was disappointed in, but, by in large, they have been willing to give him pretty high marks on the management of the programs. I noticed in the paper this morning that there was a letter sent by Secretary Chrisman. On the administrations plan for roadless areas, which tries hard to walk a fine line between supporting the Republican and Bush Administration's idea that management of the National Forests should be turned over to the states as much as possible and for the states to be able to exploit resources in the national forests, versus the environmentalist view that the National Forest Service ought to be managing these lands for long term conservation values. They have released a letter that Secretary Chrisman sent that sort of suggests that they favor the President's policy, but then at the same time says that the State has no desire and no plans to exploit any of the resources in the National Forests. It looks like they are trying to have it both ways.

One last comment. The filing deadline has passed for running for office locally, so you are free to comment on whether this Mayors race has any bearing on the priorities, agendas, and challenges we just talked about.

It's a little too early, but Mayor Hahn has been very proactive in reaching out to the environmental community to try to implement a whole variety of programs that are very dear to people's hearts. The Mayor himself certainly embraced Proposition O and helped to campaign for it, and that was helpful, but so did every member of the City Council and every candidate for Mayor. I think we are in a fortunate position in this city where all of the candidates are actually looking for good initiatives to propose.