KWMR Farm & Foodshed Report, July 15, 2013
RC: Welcome to the Farm and Foodshed Report, I’m your host, Robin Carpenter and, joining me today as co-host I have Samuel Dolcini president of the Marin County Farm Bureau and most eligible bachelor in West Marin. Welcome Sam. …
SD: Good morning, Robin, it’s great to be back on the air with you.
RC: Thanks Sam, for joining us. And, also joining us we have Peter Prows who’s an attorney for Drake’s Bay Oyster Company, and we have Phyllis Faber who is a founder, along with Ellen Straus, of the Marin Agricultural Land Trust and also part of a lawsuit regarding the Coastal Commission and Drake’s Bay Oyster Company. Welcome Peter and Phyllis.
PP & PF: Good afternoon Robin...
RC: So, one of the things why I’m having everybody on today is we wanted to talk about, I did a show on July 1st, with Amy Trainer who is the executive director of the Environmental Action Committee of Marin. First of all, I always do this disclaimer when we’re talking about Drake’s Bay Oyster Company to let my listeners to know I am a proponent of the continuation of oyster farming in Drakes Estero and I welcome voices on both sides of the issue on the Farm and Foodshed report and to let everyone know KWMR as a station is neutral on community issues and any statement or information or opinions from KWMR programmers does not reflect a stance on the part of the station. The station’s the place where all the varied voices of the community have a home and, thus, all of our voices today.
In my interview with Amy Trainer, there were some statements made. It was one show that I’ve gotten more calls and emails than any other show I’ve had in a long time. And it was a great show because I was able to discuss with Amy the issues around why in this conflict or this challenge to the community around the oyster company, we have to have such harsh dialogue and call each other Koch Brothers supporters, or communists or whatever we want to call each other. Why we can’t bring the conversation into a more collegial and community minded manner. And, one of the statements made by Ms. Trainer was about Sam Singer and his public relations firm which has been hired by the Drake’s Bay Oyster Company. She basically said that EAC hasn’t had a lobbyist for seven years spinning things and they don’t have Sam Singer, the “Mr. Facts don’t matter themselves” working for us.
She said that he characterized it that way on his own website even though it’s not there anymore and that he’s a P.R. Firm and they are associated with a right-wing agenda. So Mr. Singer was -- and I have -- if anybody would like a transcript of the show, I can send that to them.
So, Mr. Singer asked that I make a correction to the statements made by Amy Trainer about him. And, here is his statement:
[This following insert is the actual letter that was abbreviated for the sake of time by Robin Carpenter]
Dear Ms. Carpenter:
I request a correction be made to false statements made by Amy Trainer, executive director of the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, on KWMR-FM’s Farm and Foodshed Report, which ran on June 17, 2013 at 3 p.m. Ms. Trainer made her remarks with the full knowledge that they were both false and malicious--and meant to deceive the public. (The text of her remarks is at the end of this email, underlined by me for emphasis)
Ms. Trainer knowingly claimed that ‘facts don’t matter” to myself or my company and the then attempted to smear me and my company by associating us with the Koch Brothers. Let me set the record straight: At no time has our website ever contained the language she claims. Secondly, I am a registered Democrat, a former member of the Planned Parenthood Board of Directors, and an acknowledged supporter of and contributor to Democratic causes. Neither I nor my company have anything to do with either the Koch Brothers or the Tea Party. Period.
I am personally and professionally appalled by the false statements Amy Trainer made about me, my agency and about the Drakes Bay Oyster Co. She has made a number of knowingly false statements about Drakes Bay. It is a sad commentary on the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin that they would allow her behavior and rumor mongering. I can only hope that both she and the organization will publically apologize to preserve what is left, if anything, of their own reputation.
Thank you, Sam Singer
RC: So this was a statement Mr. Singer asked us to make on his behalf regarding the interview with Amy and it’s part of the whole issue around “If you don’t support the wilderness or you don’t support what EAC is doing, then you are a Koch Brothers’ conspirator.
I also was asked by Marc Levine to emphasize that Ms. Trainer did say in the interview that Marc had thought that the Sonoma City Council was inappropriate in passing a resolution to support the Drakes Bay Oyster Company’s continuation and asking for an investigation into the false science. Marc Levine never said that. Marc said it was inappropriate for him to become involved while this was in the courts and he was not taking a stand or becoming involved in a legal issue. He feels that the Sonoma City Council has every right to pass any resolution they want and does not see a right-wing conspiracy involved in any way and that he’s remaining neutral on the issue. And that he also, he’s had the Drake’s Bay oyster Company serving oysters at an open house that he did in Santa Rosa. And that he feels that it’s best for him to stay out of the issue at this point. Other than being supportive of any local business in his district.
So, with that said, I asked Peter on because things were said about the legal case and Phyllis as well because we talked about the ranchers. And, Sam Dolcini is: (A) a great co-host and, (B) there was quite a bit said about the farm bureau and the relationship between EAC and the farm bureau and how handsome she thought the farm bureau cowboys were, except for Sam, I’m not sure your name was in there. So -- we’ll have a little levity here.
PF: It would have to be. It would have to be.
RC: I said, Sam’s the most eligible bachelor. (laughs)
RC: So, let’s start a little bit with Peter. Peter, if you could fill us in. I know that you saw the transcript. A little bit about what’s happening right now and there’s been a few shifts in the case. And one of the things that Amy said in my interview with her, was the fact that she said that the state Dept. Of Fish and Game has declared that they no longer have valid leases there in the estero. Could you address that? That was something I was surprised about.
PP: Well, that’s just wrong. First of all, thank you Robin for doing this show and certainly there is a lot of room that should be taken up in the case over the legitimate issues that are on the table and we can certainly have a discussion about whether converting Drake’s Estero to an artificial wilderness is a good idea or whether continuing a family farming tradition there is the way to go. That’s a legitimate debate but there’s been a lot of name-calling that’s been unfortunate.
As for the state leases, I’m not really sure, frankly, what Ms. Trainer is referring to. She seems to have some kind of an email from an attorney who used to be at the Fish And Game Commission that maybe said that the oyster farm doesn’t have valid leases. That’s not something that’s ever seen the light of day so I’m not sure what she’s talking about. The Fish and Game Commission has told us that they’ve clearly authorized the oyster farm to be there until 2029. That’s the truth. You know, the oyster farm continues to pay rent, Fish and Game continues to accept the rent check. That’s good enough for me.
RC: That’s the thing for me, if Fish and Game is accepting the rent checks then isn’t that clear acknowledgment that that lease still exists?
PP: Yup.
RC: So, can you address a little bit about what’s going on, is there anything with Fish and Game in terms of are they negotiations are the is their stance right now that they are waiting for things to work their way through the court? Is has there been any sort of communication with Fish and Game?
PP: There’s really nothing for Fish and Game to be doing at this point. They issued a lease in 2004. The oyster farm is complying with that lease and that’s where we are. The lease is good until 2029 and so maybe Fish and Game will get activated in 2029, but for now there’s a lease that’s valid and the oyster farm is complying with it.
RC: Just to let our listeners know, I have been part of a group that has written to Kamela Harris and the Governor asking that fish and game more clearly step up because there are many of us who feel like that is a state’s rights issue in terms of the state does have the lease that’s there.
PP: And actually, that brings up a good point. One of the arguments that Ms. Trainer and others have made is that the oyster farm, by trying to get its federal lease extended, is trying to break some kind of deal. But, there are a lot of deals that have been made and, one of the deals that was made back in the sixties, was the deal between the state of California and the federal government, and in 1965 the state of Ca conveyed the water bottoms of Drake’s Estero to the federal government but reserved the right to continue leasing Drake’s Estero for the oyster farming as it had done for decades. And, California continued to lease drake’s estero for oyster farming. Like I said, the lease is good until 2029. It wasn’t until 2008, almost 50 years after California struck this deal with the federal government, that the federal government decided that it wasn’t going to honor that deal anymore, and was going to claim that California didn’t have rights and so forth.
So, there’s a deal and the deal was that California got to lease Drake’s Estero for oyster farming. California kept its end of the deal. The federal government has not.
RC: My understanding as well is that if for some reason the federal government said that “you could not have this reservation of use on this acre and a half of land with the buildings right there, you have to get off.” that that doesn’t not in any way negate the state lease. So then the federal government would have to still provide ingress and egress to be able to work those leases for the mariculture there.
PP: That’s right. The state lease, and this has caused some confusion, the state lease in 2004 was contingent on the oyster faming having a valid reservation of use -- as of 2004. But, there is nothing that says the state lease goes “poof” if the onshore area is not leased by the park service. So the state lease remains valid sort of no matter what happens with the acre and a half on shore.
RC: Because part of what my group had discussed the fact that if for some reason that didn’t work out, that you can still have access to these lands which represent 40 to 50 percent of the available acreage -- we're not talking production but acreage -- for mariculture for the state of California. And so therefore, if you had to close the farm there at the physical location, you could still bring them in and out and open up another place to process the oysters. So that’s a valuable piece of lease area where you can do the mariculture and that the state does not lose that just because it might no longer have access to the ROU on the land.
PP: Well this is getting into some interesting hypothetical situations, I mean, what we’ve got right now is the 9th circuit of appeals has said that the oyster farm can continue to operate, until at least it issues a further ruling on the argument that was heard in May. As of now, the oyster farm is authorized to continue operating on shore, pursuant to a federal authorization, and it’s authorized to continue operating on, as you said, a very significant part of the state’s leased aquaculture area is in Drake’s Estero. They’re delicious oysters. It’s an area that’s been leased for a long time and we hope it will continue.
RC: And just to interject a little bit of the science that came up in the conversation with Amy Trainer, first of all, you just can’t pick up and move those oysters to another area. There are only about four to five areas in the state of California where you can actually grow oysters for human consumption. They’re all being farmed. Drakes Estero is the largest. And if we lose that, there will be no replacing. We’ll probably have to import from Korea and China because there is already a shortage of oysters on the West Coast. There’s such a demand.
So, that’s another reason this is really a critical issue and Ms. Trainer also said something about well, in Drakes Estero the oysters have a minimal impact on the water quality of the estero because the estero washes out with two tides a day. Well, pretty much every body of water in the world washes out two tides and day and it’s a proven fact that oysters do filter sometimes up to fifty gallons a day per oyster.
PP: Yes, the National Academy of Sciences, probably the most prestigious scientific organization in the world, took a look at this and said that the oysters’ impact on water quality is potentially significant. They filter a lot of water. There are a lot of oysters. And for people to suggest that that isn’t a significant factor and a significant source of improvement, eco-system services for Drake’s Estero, doesn’t square with what the scientists are actually saying.
RC: Well, it’s interesting because the state of Delaware, just in the past few months or so, has basically insisted that all their state and national waterways that can have mariculture in them are now putting in mariculture operations. This just started in the past year because they see it as a critical food source and a critical cleaning source. So I mean, the rest of the country is putting them in, because they do…
PP: Yeah, oysters seem to be good everywhere but Drake’s Estero.
RC: So, one of the other kind of pull ourselves back to the conversation about what I have seen as being… and I have people contact me that were both supporters of wilderness and would like to see the oyster farm close and people who are supporters of the farm, after the show. And, everybody agreed that they are really tired of this kind of language of attacking anyone who doesn’t have the point of view of EAC as a Koch Brothers right-wing conspirator who wants drilling in the park.
So, one of the things that has been brought up here, was Cause of Action which had been a law firm that did a lot of great pro bono work for Drake’s Bay Oyster Company -- the relationship there was severed recently. Their presence there had been a kind of lightening rod because Cause of Action does do a lot of property rights and issues that are normally considered conservative right-wing issues. There had been so much focus on that whereas they’re still other law firms that have been involved all along, including you, Peter, through Briscoe, Bizelle, and Prows,
PP: Briscoe, Ivester and Bazel. We’re here in San Francisco,
RC: And there’s Zach Walton of the SSL law firm and then Ryan Waterman at Stoel Rives, LLP. So there have been three other law firms involved all along, that are not right-wing law firms and…
PP: And there’s more than that, too. We also have Richard Idell who is a local attorney here in the Bay Area, who’s also representing the oyster farm on some of the Coastal Commission work. So there’s a big effort here and when you’ve got the federal government picking on a small oyster farm, it’s not an easy thing to attack and we have built a great team and we’re actually winning the case at the moment and we’re confident that we’re going to win when the ninth circuit rules.
RC: Now, when you say winning the case, are you speaking in regards to the recent ruling on the Coastal Commission or could you talk a little bit about what’s happening there?
PP: What I mean is we got an order back in February from the ninth circuit saying that we should get an injunction at least until the ninth circuit takes a fuller look at the case. It said we presented serious legal questions and that the balance of the equities tipped sharply in favor of the oyster farm. So the ninth circuit has already ruled in our favor once and we’re asking them to rule in our favor again. So, that’s what I mean when I say that we’re winning the case. You know, Ms. Trainer said that nobody’s buying our case except us -- well, the ninth circuit has and we are confident that it will ultimately rule in our favor.
RC: And, I’m not sure if you’re involved and Phyllis can maybe address this but, there was a law suit regarding the coastal commission.
PP: Yes.
RC: And, there was a recent ruling on that, as well.
PP: Yeah, well, the ruling isn’t final, but there was what’s called a tentative ruling which essentially put the Coastal Commission’s orders against the oyster farm on ice. And we’re still waiting for the final ruling, but it, more or less, said, “ until the federal case is sorted out, the coastal commission’s orders should not be given effect.
RC: Okay. So, they basically said as well, “Let’s wait and see …”
PP: Yes. They said “Let’s wait and see what’s going on with the federal case, putting a stay or putting the Coastal Commission’s orders on hold would not harm the public interest. That’s what the judge said. And so we think that is a very good sign that we’ve got the ninth circuit and now we have at least a tentative ruling from the Marin County Superior Court that suggests that the oyster farm should stay.
RC: So Peter, I don’t know if you want to speak for all of the attorneys, but this claim that the legal representation of the Lunnys, that you’re all supporting a right-wing, Koch Brother’s agenda, doesn’t seem to hang true when you have firms -- I’m familiar with Stoel-Rives, they do a lot of environmental law protecting the environment and these sort of blanket characterizations of anybody involved with the oyster company being having a secret right-wing agenda to start fracking in Drake’s Estero or whatever it is…
PP: Yeah, I think people who know the Lunnys, the owners of the oyster farm, know that they are third generation ranchers and farmers and they just want to keep doing what it is they want to do. I can tell you, Kevin and Nancy are really looking forward to the day when they can be done with these law suits and get back to doing what they really want to do, which is being farmers.
We’re not trying to set a precedent here to start fracking in Drake’s Estero. We’re trying to keep an oyster farm that’s been there for almost 90 years -- keep it going. I think the only precedent that I’m concerned about being set here is the precedent of starting to kick farms out of Point Reyes. If the oyster farm is first, what kind of precedent does that set for the ranchers who surround Drake’s Estero?
2:28:00
RC: And that’s a great segue to bring Phyllis Faber in on this because Phyllis Faber as a co-founder of the Marin Agricultural Land Trust along with Ellen Straus, really helped. They both sat down to weave this tapestry of environmentalist and ag and the community all together to be this really harmonious model for the rest of the country of working together on public and private lands and basically weaving this beautiful model together and the oyster farm may be the tip of the iceberg of what’s happening next, of what appears to be an unravelling of the tapestry. Phyllis can you talk to us a little bit about that?
PF: Well, that certainly is our fear, that you’re quite right, the oyster farm is considered to be the domino and we know from the former superintendent, Don Neubacher, that the grand plan is to once the oyster farm is gone --easy. And they even have a plan according to Don Neubacher, who described this to me at a party for the Point Reyes Seashore Association, that the Citizens for Biologic Diversity (Center for Biological Diversity) will come along the shore and say, “Oh, Mr. Rancher, your cattle are raising the nitrogen levels in the estero. Out of here!” That is the plan. I don’t see any sign of its changing. The park currently is encouraging elk on the ranches which is in effect stealing the ranchers’ grass and water. They are paying the park rent for pasture and for water and the park allowing the elk to come in and share with the ranchers, which puts them in an economically impossible position.
So, we know that the agricultural enterprises in the park are very threatened and that the Lunny oyster farm is strictly domino and I know, from all the work we’ve done at MALT, that the agriculture in Marin County is hugely important in a San Francisco’s foodshed. We’re a very vital part of that. However, the loss of the ranches in the park, which is about 23 percent of all of Marin’s agriculture, is going to be a scary, large blow to being able to keep agriculture viable in the county. So, in effect, the loss of the oyster farm has been the key pin for maintaining agriculture throughout the county.
And I don’t think very many people recognize that. I think many of the people that fight for wilderness really don’t have an understanding of the implications of what they are fighting for. In fact their ‘wilderness’ is a concept. It’s sort of a romantic concept that hasn’t been a reality in Marin County for over a hundred years. It is wild in West Marin. It is wild on the estero. But, there are people there.
There is a very -- something between 15 and 40 percent of California’s oysters grow in the very clean waters of Drake’s Estero and it is kind of right now it is the base of preserving agriculture in the county. And, if Marin County’s agriculture folds, Sonoma County could have a very hard time with theirs. So this is all of a single piece of fabric. And what we’re fighting for so hard, and I really don’t think many environmentalists understand, their role, their negative role when thing they want wilderness. The wildness of Point Reyes Seashore is going to persist but it will never be wilderness. There are roads, there are 2 and a half million visitors a year. It’s a romantic concept that isn’t the truth.
So, I think that many of us hope that the oyster farm is successful in their conflicts with the park personnel.
RC: One of the things that maybe Sam can also address this as well is - I know Phyllis you had the conversation with Neubacher where he expressed that the ranchers were next -- the park has said and Amy at EAC has said, oh well, we offered these 20-year leases but…
PF: That’s simply not true. That’s simply not true. The original ranchers when the seashore was formed in 1963, they did get 25-year leases, but when those were up, the park has been offering 5-year leases. Diane Feinstein really went to bat for the ranchers and they ended up being offered 10-year leases. But, the park is so difficult. The management of the park makes it difficult for ranchers to accept a ten year lease because they are afraid they can’t survive that long. So, they would love to have ten year, they would love to have twenty year leases.
Salazar promised that he would have long term leases for the ranchers but the ranchers themselves are too fearful to accept that and they don’t think they don’t dare take the risk of a longer lease, because they may not survive that long under current management.
PP: And, can I just jump in here? This is Peter. One of the things that the park is asking the ranchers to accept is for the ranchers to accept that elk may come on to their land and cause damage and, if they do it’s the rancher’s problem. And, that’s a real tough pill to swallow for them.
PF: But it’s an incorrect pill for them to have to swallow.
RC: Interrupts for break.
[break]
No comments:
Post a Comment