August 20, 2004

I strongly support the efforts of the Governor of California, the California Resources Secretary and the California Environmental Protection Agency in calling for a plan that will protect California’s invaluable resource—that long stretch of marine coastline with which it is blessed, in part making California the number one tourist destination in the country.

Those millions of tourists come to discover what many, but still not enough, state residents know—eventually we are all drawn to the water’s edge, in recreation, contemplation, sustenance, or profit. It is a weight the coast, and the sea, cannot long bear without a plan, and so I appreciate this opportunity to briefly comment.

Many of the Plan’s recommendations are powerfully drawn and I feel that among the most important features is an action-oriented Ocean Council, empowered to make things happen beyond creating another document that gathers dust. We have no time for that.

In my experience, the plan must be founded more heavily than now exists on the concept of sustainability as a guiding principle, especially as consensus is sought among competing interests. None of the stated goals of the Action Plan—increase in abundance and diversity of aquatic life; cleaner water; safe use and enjoyment; and support of ocean-dependent economic activities—none of these goals can be accomplished unless sustainability is the bedrock.

The other guideline that must be reflected in any plan is that of connections, a principle that includes but goes beyond the ecosystem approach. It is in not tracing the connections and consequences of our actions that we have failed the natural system. Any doubt of this has been erased by the recent findings of the Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy reports.

With these concepts in mind, I wish to highlight my support and voice my concerns over a few specific areas of the plan.

I strongly support the Ocean Currents Monitoring System and its eventual expansion into a state-of-the-art ocean monitoring system that will deliver real-time, relevant information on the state of the sea off California’s shores. Such a system would support other aspects of the plan such as the Ocean Council’s responsibility to create an emergency response plan for coastal events such as oil spills, which seem to be nearly inevitable. I have personally experienced the Exxon Valdez oil spill and more recently the Prestige oil spill, and the consequences are devastating, both on the environment and on the long-term harm to the affected communities and people. The issue of ocean transport is now expanded to concerns over transport of Liquid Natural Gas, as well.

Such a monitoring system can serve to establish those connections and consequences that are not obvious but can act as an early warning system, including the many problems that hit the ocean from land-based sources, like sewage outfalls and, more specifically, uncontrolled run-off.

We need these early warning systems, especially because we have missed too many critical connections, like Non-Point Source Pollution, cited in the Draft Action Plan as the “number one cause of impairment to state waters.” Recently, in filming “The Gray Whale Obstacle Course,” my latest film, I learned that sea otters in northern California are again on the decline. Some had contracted a disease that mystified researchers until they traced it to a bacterial infection that came from disposable kitty litter flushed into the water system. That single connection to sea otters, because of their keystone role in kelp bed ecology, puts at risk an entire ecosystem that affects fisheries, tourism, and the economy.

I also cannot more strongly recommend the continued and increased establishment in California waters of well placed marine protected areas, the most economical and immediate way of restoring fisheries and the fishing economy.

Another problem not specifically addressed but connected to many aspects of ocean health is that of noise pollution, including explosions from oil and gas exploration, mid- and low-frequency sonar experiments by the U.S. Navy, and the overall increasing incidence of noise pollution in the sea, where animals mostly survive based on what they can hear, not what they can see.

Many of these comments raise the question cited already by the Action Plan to determine priorities for Research, Education and Technology. While I am pleased to see this as a priority, I am also concerned that there is a tendency to delay action while we wait for studies, which are too long coming, and often without conclusions for action. I would propose that an immediate and intense research project be conducted just to make sense of the research that has already been conducted, and across a wide spectrum. Years ago, Worldwatch Institute created a model researching the research—pulling together into a multi-disciplinary, interconnected view that work already done on which recommendations could be made and action taken. In many areas, it is not information that is lacking; it is the will to act.

In conclusion, I am hopeful that if concepts such as long-term sustainability and connections can be coupled with a will to act thoughtfully but soon, then the Draft Action Plan will have far-reaching, positive, life-saving impact.

I am hopeful that California is committed to reversing the trends that have disturbed us all and, as it has in the past, will again be a pioneer in setting the standards for ocean and coastal stewardship, which the world so badly needs, and which California now has the opportunity to inspire.