"Salt ponds are not land to be paved – they are part of San Francisco Bay to be restored to tidal marsh for wildlife habitat, natural flood protection for our communities, cleaner water, and recreation areas for everyone to enjoy," argued 92 current and former elected officials in a February letter to the Redwood City council. The San Francisco Chronicle and San Jose Mercury News have also opposed the project.
Climate change will affect California's Bay Area in many ways, but sea-level rise is an urgent concern: Many homes and businesses in the region sit at or below sea level. The BCDC projects that climate change will raise water levels in the bay 16 inches by 2050 and 55 inches through 2100.
That will put some 270,000 people and $62 billion in economic assets at risk from flooding, including the San Francisco and Oakland airports and major Silicon Valley companies like Google and Intel. Commission maps show that a 16-inch sea-level rise will make all of Redwood City east of Highway 101 vulnerable to flooding.
DMB officials tout the Saltworks as a climate-friendly smart growth project that will provide homes for Silicon Valley workers, thus cutting greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, which generates about half of the Bay area's total emissions. "Right now there's no affordable housing nearby, so everybody moves out to the hinterlands and commutes," says Smith. The region's median home price is $746,800; fewer than 15 percent of homes are affordable for families earning the median income, according to the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a business coalition.
But building thousands of houses at the water's edge contradicts California's climate change adaptation strategy, published in 2009. It urges agencies to "consider prohibiting projects that would place development in undeveloped areas already containing critical habitat, and those containing opportunities for tidal wetland restoration, habitat mitigation, or buffer zones." The plan supports "activities that can increase natural resiliency, such as restoring tidal wetlands, living shoreline, and related habitats."
"California aspires to be a national leader on adapting to climate change, and this approach could be a model for other coastal areas," said David Lewis, executive director of Save San Francisco Bay, which opposes the Saltworks. "But it's still just a strategy–it hasn't been written into regulations yet, so we don't know whether agencies will honor it."
DMB's "50/50 Balanced Plan" for the Saltworks preserves half the site as open space, including 430 acres of restored wetlands. These marshes and a massive bayside levee are designed to protect houses from flooding. The levee would be wider than a football field in some places, with trails and parklands along its top and more plantings along its sloping sides. Because it's so wide, says Smith, the levee could be raised if necessary without building out into the bay. "It's not a mystery—it's a matter of engineering, cost, and land," he contended.
To convert the entire 1,400 acres to salt marsh, Cargill would have to agree to sell its land and someone other than DMB would have to pay for restoring it. (For comparison, a 1,400-acre parcel of former Cargill crystallizer ponds in Napa, north of San Francisco, is being restored now at a projected cost of $16 million.) Save the Bay's Lewis thinks that can happen.
"We've always found public or private funds to buy restorable Bay parcels, and we've proven time and time again that it isn't necessary to destroy part of the Bay to save another part," he said.
This article originally appeared at The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.
See what we're tweeting about
20 Comments
Add CommentInteresting article in light of all the money being spent rebuilding New Orleans, which is built on river delta deposits that are resulting in subsidence that cannot be stopped.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHumans really are an interesting species.
This article is yet another example of Scientific American inappropriately attempting to keep the frenzy going over the issue of global warming. The core of the actual discussion was whether land formally used as salt flats should be converted to be used for marsh lands or housing and shopping. Scientific American brings up the issue of sea level rise when it had nothing to do with the decision being made.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, sea levels will rise. Over a 500 M year basis, sea levels are currently very near their all time lows. Does anyone believe that sea levels will not rise over time???? If you do, you are not looking at history, or are mentally challenged.
The salt flats should not be developed as the sea will reclaim it. and who with any intelligence would purchase land that is so low lying anyhow, and those that would would look for taxpayer money to save their investments, not very look ahead thinking. New Orleans,La is an example.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's pretty straight forward that in a warming world, the balance point of ice on land will shift downward, and less ice on land means more water in the sea.
Once again, here is a primer on sea level and how it is changing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
Besides, it sounds like you are saying that sea levels will rise regardless of climate change; so, we shouldn't consider rising sea levels when deciding how to use low lying coast land. What?
The problem is not sea level rise over millions of years, it is sea level rise over decades.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut hey, what are 5 orders of magnitude between friends?
"sea levels are currently very near their all time lows." Capt. Sisko
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't it amazing, the non stop stream of lies that emanate from the lips of warming denialists.
The following graphic illustrates Sisko's latest deceit quite nicely.
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/09newworld/background/occupation/media/post_glacial.html
Chris G & vendicar. I have not lied. What I have done is honestly reviewed the data. When you review the earth's sea levels over 500m years, we are currently at near the all time lows for sea level.....That is simply a fact that you try to hide by looking at questionable short term data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead the chart for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea-level_curve Isn't looking at 500 m years of data more honest than what you are doing???
The choice to build or not build on a property is an economic one. The cost of propecting a piece of property from rising tides/sea level is pretty easy to estimate.
Honest? How honest is it to pretend that the sea levels hundreds of millions of years ago, when the solar output was different, the composition of the atmosphere was different, and the layout of the continents was different, are in any way a good indication of what we should expect for sea levels in the present day?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...questionable short term data."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, we are talking about human land use, and I am talking about sea levels over the last several thousand years. Considering how quickly the human use of land changes, I believe that thousands of years is probably not too "short term" of a context. Nor are changes that take place over decades too 'long term' to worry about.
Chris-- But you do agree that for 95% of earth's history that sea levels have been substantially higher than they are today??? Since we agree on that, doesn't it seem pretty logical that today's sea level is unlikely to be maintained regardless of human actions???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's say my period of concern is from now and extends about seven generations into the future. Within that time period, there is no reason to believe that anything other than human influences will cause sea level to change in any significant way.
" Since we agree on that, doesn't it seem pretty logical that today's sea level is unlikely to be maintained regardless of human actions???"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo. This is like saying that since natural forest fires have occurred in the past and will in the future that we should have no concern about human induced forest fires. That is deeply stupid.
You make no distinction between the actions of blind nature and sentient beings. Having a rock roll of a cliff and killing someone is a tragedy. Having a rock being thrown off a cliff with carelessness and the disregard of its tragic consequences is criminal. That you can not distinguish between the two is itself sad.
That you think that because sea level has been higher in the past and will be higher in the distant future means that we have nothing to worry about over the next century is class A idiocy.
"I have not lied. What I have done is honestly reviewed the data." - Captian Sisko
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd now you have lied twice in this thread as the following link clearly shows.
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/09newworld/background/occupation/media/post_glacial.html
We have all noted that you are a chronic liar.
I agree with the logic, that sea levels will rise. To save time and money do the proposed salt ponds and marshes. Practical and smart.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSea levels will rise do you understand me now!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell done, all! San Franciscans should simply argue incessantly until the land in question is under water, diluting future arguments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOL @ vendicar-- she/he is really a fool generally worth addressing. She put out stupid comments and ignores facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@trent--so you would spend lots of resources to attempt to maintain the oceans at their current levels although 500 million years of history has demonstrated that the seas will rise regardless of man's actions. You propose to implement these actions in one country (the United States) knowing that CO2 emission growth in the rest of the world will make a marginal reduction in the US meaningless to the total amount of CO2 released worlwide. You would propose to do this even knowing that naturally released CO2 from soils do vary over time and the data does not support the conclusion that all CO2 growth is due to humans? Certainly seems like bad economics for the USA- but that seems typical of you logic.
@Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"trent--so you would spend lots of resources to attempt to maintain the oceans at their current levels although 500 million years of history has demonstrated that the seas will rise regardless of man's actions."
Logic Fail:Because the ocean has risen in the past without human action does not mean that human actions can not make the ocean rise now.
This is like saying that since forest fires have occurred in the past before humans discovered fire that arson is impossible.
Most adults realize that the same phenomena can have different causes. Why can't you?
"You propose to implement these actions in one country (the United States) knowing that CO2 emission growth in the rest of the world will make a marginal reduction in the US meaningless to the total amount of CO2 released worlwide."
Keep on flailing at those false targets I am sure you will convince some gullible rube. Just be careful not to get straw in your eye.
"You would propose to do this even knowing that naturally released CO2 from soils do vary over time and the data does not support the conclusion that all CO2 growth is due to humans?"
Oh? Do tell. Since we know that how to distinguish between the two and you just explicitly acknowledged that ability. Can you reconcile that ability of making the distinction of emission source with your denial that humanity has not increased CO2 levels by 40%?
What I want to know is how do you know?
They shouldn't....it isn't going to happen until after the next glaciation ends....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"They shouldn't....it isn't going to happen until after the next glaciation ends...."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt already is.