The highest King Tides of the year arrived in Humboldt County this week, offering both a spectacle and a warning.Unlike waves or swell, which are wind-driven, tides are the daily rise and fall of the ocean, created by the gravitational pull of the moon and sun. They become “King” tides when the sun, moon, and Earth align as the moon reaches its closest point to Earth. This amplifies gravitational pull, creating extra-high high tides and extra-low low tides.But this week’s King Tides are not just a meteorological phenomenon. They flood roadways and beaches in real time and offer a preview of the new normal as sea level rises. Think of them as a weather forecast — telling us what’s happening today and what we can expect a decade from now, or sooner. That’s why the California King Tides Project exists, to document what the future will bring. You can still participate during next month’s King Tides on Jan. 2 and Jan. 3.This watery future will affect everyone with a connection to the coast. Surfers. People who find restoration in a beach stroll, maybe with their dog cavorting alongside. People whose ancestors stretch back to time immemorial and people who arrived during the COVID boom. Anyone who drives U.S. Highway 101 or State Route 255 or Old Navy Base Road. Residents of King Salmon, Fields Landing, the Eel River Valley, or anywhere at or below sea level. People who visit pocket beaches like Luffenholz or Guthrie Creek, tide pool at Baker Beach, hike the Lost Coast, post up at Shelter Cove. Anyone who likes to drink clean water, catch fish Humboldt Bay, eat local oysters. And, of course, city and county Public Works staff, elected officials, tourism promoters, coastal developers, state regulators, transportation planners. As a coastal county, our fortunes are inextricably tied to the future of our coast.Keep Reading
At the United Nations climate summit in Brazil, Gov. Gavin Newsom emphasized California’s role as the world’s fourth-largest economy and touted the state’s leadership in artificial intelligence, saying the state “dominates” in AI while stressing that he is “deeply mindful” of the energy and water implications of technological innovation and entrepreneurial growth.But his record tells a more complicated story when it comes to addressing the environmental effects of AI expansion.Just last month, Assembly Bill 93, which would have required data centers to report both projected and actual annual water use to their local water suppliers, was passed by the Legislature but vetoed by Newsom, who at the time said he was “reluctant to impose rigid reporting requirements about operational details ... without understanding the full impact on the businesses and the consumers of their technology.”Sean Bothwell, executive director of California Coastkeeper Alliance, who worked closely with Assemblymember Diane Papan, D–San Mateo, on drafting the bill, said he was “incredibly surprised” by the veto, calling it a missed opportunity for California to get ahead of the growing water demands of AI infrastructure.“That bill was really a transparency bill. There weren’t a lot of onerous requirements, and it was really just to lay the foundation so we knew the water demand that AI centers were using,” Bothwell said.“It just confirmed my concerns throughout his governorship — that the image of being pro-tech is more important than preserving our water supply.”In a recent study conducted by researchers at UC Riverside, the authors found that in just the past few years, data centers in California have seen sharp increases in resource use, with electricity consumption rising by about 95%, carbon emissions nearly doubling and water use climbing roughly 96% — from 25.42 billion liters to 49.91 billion liters — between 2019 and 2023. As demand continues to grow, the researchers warn that the resulting strain on the grid could drive up additional air pollution and related health consequences, especially when fossil fuel plants are needed to meet peak power needs.Keep Reading
High tides are expected to swell to around 9 feet this week, potentially increasing the risk for coastal flooding and sneaker wave impacts along the North Coast.Wood said that coastal communities like the Arcata Bottoms and King Salmon may experience flooding, but he said that northerly winds will most likely abate some potential flooding in waterways off the bay. Nevertheless, Wood said, tides are predicted to be inordinately high.“… Tides are verifying about half a foot higher than what’s being forecast,” Wood said. “It’s a positive anomaly; we calculate that into our estimation for tides we could start seeing with this around a half a foot anomaly, and that’s … with northerly winds. Normally, winds can slightly suppress tides around into the Humboldt Bay, so the title normally may increase slightly with total flooding risk starting as early as Wednesday.”Wood said that the area around Jackson Ranch Road in Arcata would likely see localized flooding, as would coastal communities like King Salmon.The Friends of the Arcata Marsh are hosting their annual “King Tide Tour” this week on Friday, Dec. 5. Participants are encouraged to wear waterproof clothing on the tour as hosts explain what makes the tides so much higher than normal, describe the increases expected as sea level rises and discuss what will happen to Humboldt Bay as the rest of the century brings climate-associated changes. Tour-goers will meet on Dec. 5 at 11 a.m. on South I Street in the first gravel parking lot in from Samoa Boulevard.Read Original Article
The Trump Administration has announced its intention to expand offshore oil and gas development off the coast of California. The Department of the Interior released its “11th National Offshore Leasing Program,” which proposes as many as 34 potential offshore lease sales, covering approximately 1.27 billion acres, including six sales in California. The North Coast of California is home to three offshore oil and gas fields, including the Eel River Basin, Point Arena Basin, and the Bodega Basin. At this time it is unclear the degree to which oil and gas development is a true threat. In 2018, Trump issued a similar call for new offshore fossil fuel development, which resulted in new offshore leases in the Gulf of Mexico, although none in California. But we believe we should approach this threat as if it is serious, as we have seen the consequences of oil spills related to offshore oil and gas development in Santa Barbara in 1969 and 2015, Port Angeles in 1985, Grays Harbor in 1988, Alaska’s Prince William Sound in 1989, Coos Bay in 1999, and the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.Here’s what we can do as a community to minimize the threat to the North Coast.Keep Reading
[Originally published July 18, 2018] An uproar over proposed offshore oil drilling in June of 1989 drew hundreds of people to Humboldt State University’s Van Duzer Theatre to discuss the future of both the Humboldt and Mendocino coastlines.In the June 28, 1989 article “Oil hearings underway at HSU” by Marie Gravelle, a panel of geologists held public hearings at the campus. Their intent was to deliver a “sentiment (…) that was predominantly anti-oil.” According to Jeffrey Lahr, a then-representative of the Humboldt County Planning Department, the phones rang nonstop for more than a week and nearly 100 people signed up to make comment during the hearings.The reason for the uproar: federal Lease Sale 91, President George H.W. Bush’s proposal to examine the California coast and its potential to be drilled for oil. Like the majority of California in ‘89, the North Coast was resilient in not letting the feds push them around.According to the article, other legislation was in the works to make the coastal waters of Humboldt and Mendocino counties permanently off limits to oil drilling. Congressman Doug Bosco (D-Occidental) said they were making “tremendous strides to (convince) Congress of the necessity to protect the California Coast,” and further stated that he hoped the previous moratorium on funding lease sale operations would “send a clear message to the Bush administration and its drilling task force.” That message being that Congress was already convinced of the environmental hazards of drilling off the North Coast.In a follow-up article on June 29, 1989, “Don’t drill, North Coast pleads” by Mark Rathjen, “speaker after speaker … told task force members that the risks of offshore oil drilling to the environment and local economy were not worth the benefits.”Rathjen also noted that many of the speakers at the gathering of 700 attendees alluded to the then-recent oil spill off the Alaskan coast, caused when the Exxon Valdez, an oil tanker bound for Long Beach, ran aground on Prince William Sound’s Bligh Reef on March 24, 1989. Karin Luban spoke out against oil drilling and warned others that it brought nothing but destruction.“The government cannot turn its eyes away from these disasters anymore,” Luban said. “Don’t let the desecration happen here.”Keep Reading
