MPA's will stop pollution?

[robmandel]

there is some, and I say some, truth in what they say.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/...chaptered.html

long story short, the bill stipulates:

2857

(b) The preferred alternative may include MPAs that will achieve either or both of the following objectives:
(1) Protection of habitat by prohibiting potentially damaging fishing practices or other activities that upset the natural ecological functions of the area.


(c) The preferred siting alternative shall include MPA networks with an improved marine life reserve component, and shall be designed according to each of the following guidelines:
(4) Marine life reserves shall be designed, to the extent practicable, to ensure that activities that upset the natural ecological functions of the area are avoided.

now, what exactly does that mean?

one, I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on tv. but, I can "read between the lines" so to speak. obviously this would very much include anything within the mpa. there were some red areas that were brought to the attention of the F&G in march by local communities with respect to outfall, drainage, irrigation, and other activities. some of the areas actually contained outflow pipes and it would cost in the many millions for the local cities to move or whatever to meet the, or the possible, protection levels.

so yes, they very well can (and no doubt will) be used in that manner.

two, how does it affect areas near, but not enclosed in, mpa's? I've no idea. enviro law isn't my specialty, but i'll bet ol' meg (caldwell, stanford econ law prof, brtf chair, and a few other things I can't say publicly) knows a thing or two. or three!! one could very well argue that mpa's are affected by outflow a few miles away. and one could very well argue that due to currents, what is dumped 5 miles away quickly will flow into a protected area so, ipso facto, the pollution must be controlled at the source.

the problem is that there is so much wiggle room either way. one could always argue that it is "impracticable" to do such and such a modification. or, one could argue that it is entirely practicable to do anything to protect the mpa. I simply do not know. lawyers are what lawyers are. by and large, they are sophists, masters of the art of rhetoric and obfuscation. they can twist any words into whatever they want. I mean how freaking difficult is it to understand "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" yet, damn sure, enough so called scholars will say it means what it doesn't say, and doesn't say what it means. go figure.

like all laws, they are, and we are, at the mercy of those who will enforce, those who will to enforce. it's also the law of unintended consequences. we simply do not what in the bill we be implemented nor how. it's the great unknown. that the enviros are licking their chops ought to be dire warning. they have the time, the money, and the will to pursue it to its fullest. make no mistake about that.