Pollution Concerns May Lower the Boom on Offshore Fireworks

SeaWorld San Diego has suspended its shows and plans to seek a discharge permit. Beach cities fear additional costs of more regulations.
By Seema Mehta and Jennifer Delson
LA Times Staff Writers

September 9, 2006

Fears that major fireworks shows may be polluting the Pacific Ocean could dampen pyrotechnics displays along the California coast.

A threatened lawsuit by an environmental group prompted SeaWorld San Diego to scrap its fireworks shows for the rest of the year, and beach cities are wondering if heightened scrutiny by state regulators will make fireworks for the Fourth of July and other traditional celebrations too expensive to support.

Environmentalists "are pushing the envelope and, yes, it will be troublesome for any agency firing over water," said Dusty Crane, spokesman for the Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbors, which shoots fireworks off Marina del Rey for Independence Day, the annual Christmas boat parade and New Year's Eve.

Any new fireworks regulations are "definitely going to make it more difficult, and it's going to be more costly, and it could end them," Crane said.

Federal and state environmental regulators said they know of no previous regulatory efforts regarding fireworks and water pollution, aside from a 2003 study of Lake Tahoe that resulted in no action.

"It's an unusual circumstance," said Nancy Woo, associate director of the water division for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's regional office. "On first blush, I was, like, 'Whoa, that's a good question.' "

SeaWorld amusement park has more than 120 fireworks displays annually, shot off a barge in Mission Bay.

San Diego Coastkeeper has grown increasingly concerned about the displays' cumulative effect on the water and the sediment in the bay, said Marco Gonzalez, attorney for the environmental organization.

On June 26, Coastkeeper notified SeaWorld that it intended to sue the park for violating the federal Clean Water Act, alleging that its fireworks displays shower harmful heavy metals and chemicals into the bay, and that it never applied for a state permit to discharge such pollutants into the water.

"The incremental impacts from long-term fireworks displays are something we know nothing about," Gonzalez said.

SeaWorld decided Aug. 20 to suspend its fireworks and plans to apply for a discharge permit from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board by month's end, said SeaWorld spokesman Dave Koontz. He said the park does not agree with the allegations or the contention that a permit is required under the Clean Water Act.

"But in light of the fact they intended to file a lawsuit against us, we decided the most appropriate course of action was to suspend the fireworks," he said.

Koontz said the park takes steps to deal with pollution, sending out a crew in a boat after each display to pick up paper debris. The next morning, workers scour the beaches off SeaWorld and Fiesta Island for debris that may have washed ashore.

Additionally, he said, the California Coastal Commission has required the park to monitor the waters of Mission Bay for the past five years, and the data show that the fireworks have not had an impact. "We feel we're extremely responsible in how we conduct our fireworks operation," he said.

Fireworks also release metals such as copper ­ which creates the color green ­ and chemicals such as perchlorate, which is used in detonation.

John Robertus, executive officer of the regional water board, said a review of SeaWorld's permit application would take six months to a year. As part of that review, the agency will investigate the bay's water and sediments to ensure that pollutants from the fireworks are not affecting the ecosystem and will look at the effects of the sound on birds that nest in Mission Bay, a stopover on the Pacific Flyway.

If the agency determines that fireworks over the ocean should be regulated, Robertus envisions a multitiered approach. Cities and organizations that shoot off fireworks once or twice a year might receive a waiver; a general state permit might be issued to those who sponsor several shows a year; and entities that hold them frequently, such as SeaWorld, might be required to apply for a permit that includes extensive environmental monitoring.

"The SeaWorld problem is perhaps a little more unique than other fireworks displays because it occurs 120 times on an annual basis," Robertus said, "and it takes place over the water in Mission Bay, and Mission Bay does not have good circulation and it's quite shallow."

Peter Douglas, executive director of the California Coastal Commission, said his agency also could require those who put on fireworks displays to obtain a coastal development permit.

Though regulatory agencies had not considered fireworks in the past, he said, they ought to, given the increased knowledge about the cumulative impact of pollutants. "We have to elevate our level of concern," he said.

Coastkeeper hopes the action brings increased scrutiny to all fireworks celebrations in the state.

"The Clean Water Act is very clear: Any discharge of pollutants … into waters of the United States requires a permit, and the mere fact that fireworks are tied to our patriotic Fourth of July celebrations is not an exemption under the Clean Water Act," he said.

Julie L. Heckman, executive director of the American Pyrotechnics Assn. in Bethesda, Md., called the possible regulatory action "absurd," and said fireworks pose little environmental risk.

"Fireworks are designed to burst and be consumed in the sky. They burn by combustion. We are not directly discharging or emitting chemicals into the water stream," Heckman said. "This is another attempt of the environmentalists' extreme let's-just-ban-everything. This industry has been under such regulatory scrutiny since 9/11. At some point, it has just got to stop or Americans are not going to see fireworks ever again."

Cities that play host to fireworks displays also are concerned that more bureaucracy means more costs.

Renee Dunn, spokeswoman for the Port of San Francisco, which hosts a handful of fireworks annually in the bay, said permits "would be a huge problem for us. It would create quite a glitch for festivities in San Francisco."

Laurie Payne, community information officer for Huntington Beach, said that volunteers were already stretched thin, raising $50,000 annually for the Fourth of July display off the pier. "It sounds like an additional expense. Any added expense would be difficult because … it would be more of a burden on the volunteer group," she said.

In San Diego, Alex Raugust said he learned that SeaWorld's fireworks were halted as he was waiting for the show in his Point Loma backyard with his young cousins.

"I thought, 'What a nice treat for these young kids.' Instead, what they learned about was our litigious society. I was kind of disgusted," he said. "The SeaWorld fireworks are like a summer tradition in San Diego, and it's kind of a perk of living in this area. It's like a nightcap at the end of the evening."

seema.mehta@latimes.com
jennifer.delson@latimes.com

LAAG Mission Statement and Editorial Policy

Also note our separate Privacy Policy

Although mission statements have become a farce over the years we believe that all non profit taxpayer oriented organizations need a clear and concise mission statement so that members and potential members know what the organization supports (and by implication what it is not taking any position on). LAAG membership is not restricted only to Long Beach residents. Although LAAG is primarily concerned with local Long Beach issues, its interests reach beyond the borders of Lakewood as Lakewood residents are affected by issues beyond Long Beach's borders.

Given that preface here is LAAG's mission statement. We tried to make it simple and to the point. These tenets are not ranked in any particular order:

Holding elected officials accountable for their action or inaction and that they hold non elected, non dischargeable governmental employees and their unions accountable, as voters cannot.

Fighting for everyone’s right to peace and quiet and to enjoy their property; this includes preventing unnecessary and excessive noise from all sources, not just fireworks, loud vehicle exhausts and stereos.

Fighting to maintain high property values for homeowners; this includes supporting ordinances encourage aesthetics and fight blight, vagrants, pollution, over crowding, parking problems, noise and non residential uses of residential property.

Fighting government waste and inefficiency and making sure that government spending really benefits taxpayers and not just government employees looking for perks.

Promoting reasonable and timely spending on core infrastructure such as streets, sidewalks, trees, sewers and lighting. Not all at once but over time to ensure infrastructure does become overly costly to repair. This is the primary role of small cities. Discouraging spending on social programs where private non-profits can do just as good and money for such programs could be better spent on core infrastructure.

We also support infrastructure that is not car based but "all user" based..meaning it supports bicyclists, pedestrians, the handicapped etc. The California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (actual law here) is a good example of the national movement.

Fighting blight due to foreclosures on residential and commercial real estate, graffiti, vacancies in commercial real estate due to poor redevelopment actions by the city, and insuring reasonable infrastructure spending during times of economic downturn.

Promoting rational parking restrictions that make it safe for all including those walking, the handicapped and those on bicycles.

Promoting recycling, reusing and reducing.

Promoting transparency in local government and all efforts to make all public city documents and services readily available on the internet at no charge and in a timely fashion (the so called eGovernment initiative ) as well as encouraging and fighting for an open public forum, meaning keeping meetings open and making public records, ordinances and other information about civic issues freely available. ( see Cal-Aware site )

If you want to read cheerleader "feel good" "puff pieces" about the City, the City Council and government employees in general then read the city's website or those from the Chamber of Commerce "throw away" "news"paper that comes out once a month. There are plenty of places to find that kind of news. Not here. We don't report on standard TV news fodder, like car accidents and lost puppies.

We don't think Long Beach is a bad city nor the city council the worst. There are much worse. But there are much better too. We need to strive for improvement. We do NOT accept the status quo but we also don't believe in change just for change sake. We believe in thinking "outside the box" and looking at problems in a new way with new approaches if the old ones don't work or are too costly. We believe it is taxpayers right to question all actions and motives of government employees and entities, especially when the government's action is at the expense of taxpayers. We think this site is one way of encouraging change by trying to make the city more "transparent" or calling foul when everyone else is too afraid to or have given up on dealing with city hall as it is. And who could blame them.

We are a non partisan group. typically at the city and county level political parties have very little or no role. We want to keep it that way. We want to discuss issues, not parties or ideologies.

Last but not least this is NOT a religious or "Christian accountability group". Unfortunately we think a number of visitors find our site looking for that. Sorry. This is simply a group seeking action and to hold local elected officials (and those they appoint or oversee) accountable to the voters and taxpayers. We respect and support the First Amendment to the US Constitution which strives to keep both speech free and keep religion out of politics.

We get gripes by certain users that they don't like a certain story or don't agree with it. That's fine this is America. Our suggestion is if you don't like our stories STOP visiting our site. we also suggest that since most of you have so many opinions and think its so easy to run a blog we suggest you go start your own. Then you will see its not easy to do this and hold down a full time real job.

Our real pet peeve is people that leave comments (in the "post a comment" section at the bottom of each story we post) with no way for us to reach them (via phone or email) as they are made anonymously (and we have the comment section unlocked so that anyone can send in comments) We have asked you "Anonymous" posters at least answer a few basic questions (which come up in the "comment window"). Nothing more than what we disclose to you the reader. That's fair. If you don't agree then you don't get posted. Its that simple.

We reserve the right to amend this mission statement from time to time as we grow and our Mission expands or contracts.


Long Beach Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Long Beach, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

LAAG Newsletter Subscription Form

As of January 1, 2008 LAAG has ceased using emailed newsletters (due to spam issues and the work involved in managing a subscription list) and have chosen www.feedburner.com to send all our postings directly to your email inbox the same day they are posted. Feedburner along with you control the subscription and delivery process. Each email you receive via Feedburner will have a "cancel" link in it so that you can cancel emails immediately or change your email address. If you would like to subscribe to all our posts so that they are delivered to you via email (that way you don't have to keep checking our page for updates) then click here

Also note our Privacy Policy


Thank you,
LAAG Editor


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Statement in favor of prohibiting the parking of trailers and RV's on streets

This is the argument that will appear in the County Ballot for the Nov 7, 2006 Special Election. There was no argument filed in opposition to either the RV or Trailer Measure. This was filed with the city on Aug 17, 2006:

The proposed trailer parking measure on the ballot reads: “Shall Ordinance No. 2006-5, which would prohibit the parking of trailers and semi-trailers on streets in the City, except while in the process of being loaded or unloaded or by City permit, be approved?”

The proposed RV parking measure on the ballot reads: “Shall Ordinance No. 2006-6, which would prohibit the parking of motorized recreational vehicles on streets in the City, except while in the process of being loaded or unloaded or by City permit, be approved?”

As Lakewood Homeowners and RV owners, we understand that it’s time to end LONG TERM storage of boats & trailers on our neighborhood STREETS. We believe that boats & trailers should be legally parked on our properties or in storage. This street parking issue has long pitted neighbor against neighbor reducing the neighborhood quality of life and creating many problems including:

A) FINANCIAL BURDEN to the City of Lakewood with hundreds of complaints each year

B) SAFETY RISKS to our CHILDREN due to poor visibility near driveways and intersections

C) TRAFFIC HAZARDS caused by choking already narrow streets

D) UNCLEAN STREETS due to the inability of street-sweepers to clean under parked boats & trailers

E) DECLINING PROPERTY VALUES when prospective buyers are scared off by large rigs stored nearby that are often poorly maintained with tattered covers and/or on blocks.

The Good Sam Club, one of the largest RV clubs, expressly discourages the long term parking of boats & trailers on neighborhood streets stating it will cause community resentment of RV’s and result in severe parking restrictions. We agree. The City of Lakewood has developed a system (similar to many surrounding cities) by which boat & trailer owners will be able to park on city streets with up to 16 three-day parking permits each year. Longer permits will be available for special needs. These permits can be obtained over the phone or Internet for FREE. Also, no permits will be required for rigs that are in the process of being loaded or unloaded. These provisions are more than fair. In the interest of preserving our rights to enjoy our boats & trailers, while addressing community concerns about the small percentage of discourteous RV owners, we encourage you to vote YES on Measures C and F.

Brandon Yung

Lakewood Homeowner

Lakewood RV owner

Lakewood Business owner

Fireworks offender Miller sentenced

Dear LAAG:

As you recall, Brian Miller took the unusual step of pleading no contest to the charges thinking that the judge's sentence would be a better deal than what the DA was offering. Apparently Millers attorney thought so too. Well they were both very wrong.

Thanks to all of you who showed up today to testify at the hearing against Miller. No one spoke on his behalf, but there were some letters written on his behalf, two from "neighbors" that apparently never lived near the rest of us, as they claimed they never saw Miller shoot off any fireworks!

Miller briefly apologized. His attorney made the comment that Miller did not intended to hurt anyone or cause this explosion. The judge agreed but did not feel that was the real issue. His attorney also argued that Lakewood was a city that allowed fireworks and so this sort of behavior (illegal fireworks use) was somehow expected or condoned. That was an interesting point and want all the "pro" fireworks people to think real hard about that at the election on Nov 7. I firmly believe that fireworks, legal or not, create an atmosphere where people are trying to outdo their neighbors’ displays. Miller trumped everyone.

I made the point that just as drug dealers are sentenced more severely than drug users, Miller should be treated accordingly as his business was selling illegal fireworks that he manufactured. I also said that Miller was a scofflaw and had had 4 years to clean up his act but didn’t even after dozens of law enforcement "visits". How can a person like that ever reform? Finally, I said that because of Miller and others like him taxpayers had to shell out $100,000 for extra law enforcement last July, and an example needed to be made of Miller for all the future [hopeful] Lakewood prosecutions of illegal fireworks users/sellers from July 2006.

The Judge was very sympathetic toward the victims who suffered property damage, and some who had pets die or get injured in the explosion. She said that Miller threatened an entire neighborhood, not just his wife and children. She was glad to see he had been taking parenting classes.

Judge Cynthia Rayvis sentenced Miller to a total of 12 years in state prison for all counts in the complaint. Most of that runs concurrent meaning that the sentence is really 5 years. He has spent 178 days in custody but given credit for 266 days (I suspect for good behavior). He will only serve 50% of that sentence (unless he misbehaves in prison). So that means he will likely be out in 2 years. The DA was suspecting he would get 4 years and Miller was hoping for 2 but he got 5. So clearly his ploy did not work. I think he would have been better off with the DA's offer which he refused.

The Judge also ruled that Miller could not ever return to the area one mile around the blast site for any reason. He must also make full restitution to all victims with monetary damage.

There will be a restitution hearing [for those that suffered damage] on 10/30/06 at 8:30 a.m. in Norwalk Superior Court, Dept. T before Judge Cynthia Rayvis. The address is 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650. Department T phone number is (562) 807-7248. Victims should contact the assigned DA Shelly Dominguez, her direct dial number is 562-807-7210.

LAAG wants to thank those who stuck with this and made an effort to follow this through to the end. From those in law enforcement that I have talked to it made a huge difference in the end result. I also want to thank the Press Telegram, LongBeachreport.com and all the local TV stations that made and effort to keep this case in the spotlight. It helps.

But this saga is not over. We still have the November election regarding fireworks. Also. we still have next July 4th. We need to focus on "cost effective" enforcement for all future July 4ths. March 5th was in many ways a "9/11" for Lakewood. It was a wake up call and a clear signal that lawlessness and lax enforcement could not continue any longer. And like 9/11 the further we get from the March 5 explosion the more people will forget. LAAG will not forget. And we will not let the City Council (current or future) or the Sheriff's department forget either. Our new website www.LAAG.us will keep these and other issues in the forefront.

Prohibiting the on-street parking of non-Lakewood-registered trailers and RVs.

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Council Recap: Restrictions on non-Lakewood RVs and trailers adopted; enforcement begins September 21

At its Tuesday evening meeting, the Lakewood City Council took the final steps to adopt an ordinance prohibiting the on-street parking of non-Lakewood-registered trailers and RVs. The new parking ordinance will go into effect on September 21.

The parking limitation on non-Lakewood RV and trailers is part of the framework for regulating on-street parking adopted by the city council at its August 8 meeting. The city council also placed on the November 7 special election ballot two additional measures that would limit the parking of Lakewood-registered RVs and trailers.

The RV and trailer parking ordinance adopted on Tuesday does not require further voter approval, however.

Under the new ordinance, RVs and trailers (attached and detached) not registered to a Lakewood address can be cited if parked on a Lakewood street. To accommodate "short-term needs" while out-of-town family or friends visit, Lakewood residents will be able to request a free, city-issued permit for their guests.

Non-Lakewood vehicle owners cited under the new ordinance face a $40 fine for each day of on-street parking (plus additional costs assessed by the courts).

Statement in favor of prohibiting the parking of trailers and semi-trailers on streets

This statement was filed by LAAG on Aug 17, 2006 for the Nov 7, 2006 ballot but Mr. Yung's statement was chosen.

The parking situation is out of control in Lakewood. Part of the problem is that most people no longer park in their garages. Also, the number of cars per house has increased as well as the size of their vehicles. Cars and small trucks are competing for street parking with RVs and trailers which take up to two or three times the parking space as a car (in length and width). They are rarely moved, turning streets into campgrounds.

Lakewood must deal with the parking problem now or parking regulations will be thrust upon us by State and County agencies that govern the water runoff issues into the San Gabriel and LA Rivers. Gutter runoff pollutants increase without proper weekly sweeping and debris removal which in turn pollutes our beaches and surrounding rivers. If Lakewood does not remedy this, our property taxes will increase dramatically to pay for outside remediation efforts. Regulating long term RV and trailer parking on public streets Lakewood will ease implementation of citywide mandatory no parking on street sweeping days. Having to shuffle RVs and trailers around every week will be difficult. Voting YES on Measure __ will remedy this.

Most residential streets are 25 feet wide. RVs and trailers can restrict the passage area to less than 9 feet. This impedes the flow of traffic and even with ONE vehicle traveling down the street, impairs safety. Large RVs and trailers create blind spots (a hazard for pets and children who play near them) and make it difficult for residents to enter and exit driveways safely. They also make trash collection more difficult and time consuming as even more thru traffic blockage occurs with trash trucks present.

Vote YES on Measures C and F.

See additional arguments in statement supporting the RV parking measure

Lakewood Accountability Action Group | www.LAAG.us

Statement in favor of measure prohibiting the parking of RV’s on streets

This statement was filed by LAAG on Aug 17, 2006 for the Nov 7, 2006 ballot but Mr. Yung's statement was chosen.

Cities surrounding Lakewood have limited street parking; most cities in LA and Orange counties have limits (and have done so without costly taxpayer funded elections). This has turned Lakewood into a parking lot for non-resident RVs and trailers. A minority of RV and trailer owners create the majority of problems for their neighbors, but unfortunately the only way we can deal with this problem is to put laws into effect that govern all equally. This rationale is true for all zoning and parking laws.

The city council has not effectively dealt with this issue for 30 years and is no excuse not to resolve the problem now (like all other cities did before us). This is the reason the we have the current problems. Some RVs and trailers are increasing visual blight, which is only going to increase with more RVs and trailers. Ownership of a “second home” entails responsibilities just like a regular home. Owners need to find off-site parking or build parking space for it their lot--not dumping it on the street and making it your neighbors’ problem. Measure C does not ban proper parking of RVs and trailers on your property. If there is no room to park on your lot then you need to make room or get off-site parking.

RVs and trailers on the street for months also invite crime. Vehicle theft and vandalism is one of Lakewood’s biggest crime problems. RV’s and trailers are even bigger targets due to all the valuables they often contain.

Measure C does not ban all street parking. A free resident permit system will be created. Lakewood is falling behind on dealing with this problem. Vote YES on Measure C and lets catch up with everyone else.

See additional arguments in statement supporting the Trailer parking measure.

Statement in favor of prohibiting the parking of trailers and RV's on streets

This is the argument that will appear in the County Ballot for the Nov 7, 2006 Special Election. There was no argument filed in opposition to either the RV or Trailer Measure. This was filed with the city on Aug 17, 2006:

The proposed trailer parking measure on the ballot reads: “Shall Ordinance No. 2006-5, which would prohibit the parking of trailers and semi-trailers on streets in the City, except while in the process of being loaded or unloaded or by City permit, be approved?”

The proposed RV parking measure on the ballot reads: “Shall Ordinance No. 2006-6, which would prohibit the parking of motorized recreational vehicles on streets in the City, except while in the process of being loaded or unloaded or by City permit, be approved?”

As Lakewood Homeowners and RV owners, we understand that it’s time to end LONG TERM storage of boats & trailers on our neighborhood STREETS. We believe that boats & trailers should be legally parked on our properties or in storage. This street parking issue has long pitted neighbor against neighbor reducing the neighborhood quality of life and creating many problems including:

A) FINANCIAL BURDEN to the City of Lakewood with hundreds of complaints each year

B) SAFETY RISKS to our CHILDREN due to poor visibility near driveways and intersections

C) TRAFFIC HAZARDS caused by choking already narrow streets

D) UNCLEAN STREETS due to the inability of street-sweepers to clean under parked boats & trailers

E) DECLINING PROPERTY VALUES when prospective buyers are scared off by large rigs stored nearby that are often poorly maintained with tattered covers and/or on blocks.

The Good Sam Club, one of the largest RV clubs, expressly discourages the long term parking of boats & trailers on neighborhood streets stating it will cause community resentment of RV’s and result in severe parking restrictions. We agree. The City of Lakewood has developed a system (similar to many surrounding cities) by which boat & trailer owners will be able to park on city streets with up to 16 three-day parking permits each year. Longer permits will be available for special needs. These permits can be obtained over the phone or Internet for FREE. Also, no permits will be required for rigs that are in the process of being loaded or unloaded. These provisions are more than fair. In the interest of preserving our rights to enjoy our boats & trailers, while addressing community concerns about the small percentage of discourteous RV owners, we encourage you to vote YES on Measures C and F.

Brandon Yung

Lakewood Homeowner

Lakewood RV owner

Lakewood Business owner

Rebuttal in favor of Measure "D" Banning all Fireworks in Lakewood

This is a rebuttal to the argument against the fireworks ban. This rebuttal was filed with the city on Aug 17, 2006:

The statement that banning all fireworks will lead to increased use of illegal fireworks is unsupported. How can any fireworks be safer than no fireworks? Enforcement IS needed to control illegal fireworks. The increase in illegal fireworks in Lakewood in the last 10 years has been during the time so called safe and sane fireworks were sold, so it seems that safe and sane fireworks create a demand for larger illegal fireworks. Sheriff patrols would be more effective at catching illegal users if all fireworks were banned because trying to spot legal versus illegal fireworks can be difficult under the time pressure of the 4th.

This past July was not an accurate indicator of the future as the Dunrobin explosion was still fresh in peoples’ minds. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay $100,000 every year in addition to the current budget just to create a haven for legal fireworks. The opposition wants you to believe that fireworks companies helped the city with enforcement yet there were no funding offers from the companies or the clubs selling fireworks to defray the cost of the extra enforcement.

In 2005 approximately 73% (over $32,000) of the sales revenue went from the Jaycees to the fireworks company. Multiply this by the 28 groups selling fireworks in Lakewood. That huge profit does not go to the clubs or Lakewood. It goes to fireworks companies (none of which are located in Lakewood) and they are using your children to make it.

VOTE YES ON MEASURE "D"