NEC's 2nd District Candidate Questionnaire 2012

Presented by

The Northcoast Environmental CenterComplete Edition

2nd Congressional District

Candidate Questionnaire on

Environmental Issues

California’s North Coast is now part of the recently redrawn 2nd Congressional District. As a new district, there are no incumbents in this year’s race. Voters are faced with no less than 12 candidates to choose from in the upcoming Primary election, to be held June 5, 2012.

In order to help our members better understand the candidates’ positions on environmental issues, the Northcoast Environmental Center (NEC)—in collaboration with our member and associate member groups—assembled a questionnaire comprised of 20 questions covering a range of issues to present to the candidates.

The questionnaires were sent by email to each of the candidates who were declared for the 2nd Congressional District seat on March 2, 2012. The candidates were given two weeks to complete the questionnaire, and responses were requested to be limited to 100 words for each question. We offer our sincere appreciation to each of the candidates who took the time to respond, and apologies to those who were not

included as they were not declared at the time this questionnaire was distributed.

The questions printed in this guide are identical to those initially posed to the candidates by email. Responses to each of the questions are presented in alphabetical order based on the candidate’s last name. Responses were edited only for spelling and are otherwise identical to the original submitted text.

The NEC has worked for over 40 years to protect and restore the world-class natural resources of Northwestern California. Member and Associate Member groups include: the California Native Plant Society, Northcoast Chapter; North Group, Redwood Chapter of the Sierra Club; Redwood Region Audubon Society; Humboldt Baykeeper; Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment (SAFE); Friends of Del Norte; and the Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC). Also participating in this questionnaire were Green Wheels (a program of the NEC), and Friends of the Eel River.

The Northcoast Environmental Center 1385 8th Street, suite 215, Arcata CA 95521 | PO Box 4259 Arcata CA 95518

707-822-6918 | www.yournec.org

To learn more about the NEC, our member organizations, and the work we do, please visit www.yournec.org.

The questionnaire questions and responses may be reprinted in whole or in part, provided that full source credit is given to the NEC.

2012 2nd District Candidate Questionnaire

www.yournec.org2

Global Warming: If elected, what would you do in Congress to help move the US to confront the threats linked to climate change?

Adams: As a Marin County Supervisor for the past 10 years, one of my proudest accomplishments was my vote to launch the first Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program for clean energy in California. In the first 3 years of the program, the energy portfolio is 50% clean and renewable! The goal is to be 100% before 10 years. Rate-payer revenues are invested into new clean energy programs (solar carports over parking lots, methane capture from landfills, etc.). I’d like to see the 2nd Congressional District be 100% clean/renewable in 10 years. Remove oil subsidies and reinvest green!

Caffrey: I coined the meme climate crisis. It is my highest priority. We’ve run out of time for market solutions and treaties. Nothing short of an all out WWII-type emergency effort to convert from fossil fuels and nuclear power as fast as humanly possible will do. We must integrate the economic and ecological solutions to our crises by designing at the bioregional level our path to reduce fossil-fuel emissions 80% in ten years or less and to build a relocalized economic infrastructure to meet everybody’s needs as close to home as possible. I’ll fight for trillions to go to that effort funded by taxing the richthe rich, retreating the US empire, ending the war on drugs. I will be on President Obama’s case every single day on this.

Courtney: As an established inventor and psychiatrist trained in hypnologic problem solving, I am personally committed to advancing methane capture and storage technology to push back an irreversible tipping point. I would use my knowledge and experience as a scientist to educate Congress to understand why this issue trumps immediate financial gains. I would use my position to educate people on the steps they can take everyday to live greener. Through control of the budget and taxes, I can gain funding for programs and support and introduce legislation that will help stop climate change. I will advocate joining the Kyoto Protocol.

Huffman: I’ll champion GHG reduction as I’ve done in the Assembly. Addressing climate change— both GHG reduction and adaptation—is perhaps the greatest imperative of our time. It’s also a great opportunity for major investments in infrastructure, new technologies,

quality jobs, and energy independence.I’ve played a significant oversight role in ensuring

the successful implementation of AB 32, California’s world-leading greenhouse gas reduction law. I’ve also authored important laws to reduce GHGs— including the world’s most ambitious lighting efficiency standards (AB 1109), the nation’s largest solar water heating program (AB 1470), and the first regional Climate Protection Authority in Sonoma County (AB 881).

Lawson: I will support ambitious short and long-term targets in order to address global warming pollution. As a global leader, America must lead by example, and must lead the effort to transition to a clean energy economy. This is not only necessary to protect our environment and reverse the current and future devastating effects of global warming, but to restore prosperity and jobs to America by creating our own energy. We must set ambitious emission standards, and invest in clean energy. This will not only create green-collar jobs, but it is environmentally responsible.

Lewallen: Carbon emissions are causing a global warming trend. We do not know what the worst consequences of this warming will be, nor how the Earth as a whole system will respond.

I propose establishing a Global Warming Response Trust Fund, financed by a tax on carbon emitters, to deal with sea level rise, water supply problems, flooding, and other effects of increased atmospheric carbon.

We need a National Energy Conversion Plan, so we can transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. I support both government employment programs and incentives to private industry to convert to renewable energy sources.

Renee: We must enact a lasting Clean Energy policy that addresses real GHG reductions, a cap and dividend system and reflects true costs of environmental impacts. We must break our dependence on natural gas, coal, and oil through efficiency programs and clean energy innovations. Having studied global warming in my graduate work with a focus in Integral Ecology, prior to being elected, I spent a great deal of time and effort to ensure Petaluma's General Plan addressed the environment, air quality and GHGs in a scientific way. I will continue these efforts in DC.

Solomon: The best way to confront climate change is to tax carbon. This approach is the most powerful, least bureaucratic way to drastically reduce pollution levels and ensures that polluting corporations pay their fair


Northcoast Environmental Center 3

share. The government should invest in clean, renewable energy to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, and should adopt fuel economy standards that increase annually based on technological developments. Additionally, achieving at least a 25% renewable electricity standard by 2025 is critical to weaning ourselves off fossil fuels. This can be achieved through both direct investment and tax breaks for solar and appropriately sited wind generation.

Sea Level Rise: Vital North Coast habitat, coastal communities, and public infrastructure are all at risk from sea level rise driven by global warming. If elected, what will you do to address this risk?

Adams: Restore and protect marshlands and low lands as a natural buffer against rising sea level. Encourage re-use of already built areas that are out of the buffer zone. Invest in the infrastructure needed to protect the vital areas that are at risk. Continue to work on programs that decrease emissions through non-fossil fuel vehicles, bike/pedestrian pathways, public transportation, energy efficiency and clean energy installations and create regulations that hold polluters responsible for cleaning up their messes.

Caffrey: I am the world’s leading advocate on the threat of sea level rise from polar ice sheet collapse and warned of the threat of a Madhouse Century in the Earth Island Journal back in 1998. Half of the Greenland ice sheet is now sitting on a layer of water, like a Slip ‘N Slide. Even if 1/20th of the ice sheet goes, that means a one-foot sea level increase and the beginning of the end for Eureka, Arcata, San Rafael, and Crescent City. This is a threshold we absolutely must not cross. This is why we must pursue a war effort to convert and not merely a Green New Deal. This is why I am running for Congress. The other candidates don’t see the urgency that I see from the science. If they don’t see the problem, then they’re not going to find adequate solutions.

Courtney: The submersion of coast communities must be reversed at its source. I would introduce a Clean Energy Constitutional Amendment for Zero CO2 production. Congress is owned by the oil industry, undermining efforts to switch to clean energy. Growing hemp can capture and store CO2 in lumber, plywood,

insulation and hempcrete, allowing the remaining boreal forest to stand as carbon storage solutions. I would also address the issue through research of farming seawater enhanced crops, address coastline erosion from increased wave size, protect coastal species and plants, protective walls, using fill to elevate the land, and turning saltwater into drinkable water.

Huffman: As mentioned above, I’ll champion proven strategies and measures to prevent the worst impacts of climate change through GHG reduction. I’ll also support policies and funding in the area of adaptation, since we must begin planning for sea level rise and other unavoidable impacts now. For coastal communities, that means assessing and prioritizing key infrastructure, determining response strategies (e.g., armoring, retreat, relocation), and implementing those strategies over time. A similar assessment, prioritization, and response strategy is required for key habitats. Federal agencies including FEMA, ACOE, and USFWS have key roles to play. For example, with its dredge permitting authority, ACOE could facilitate stockpiling and distribution of materials to support wetlands restoration and strategic armoring/land elevation.

Lawson: A new report shows that 3.7 million Americans are at risk in the coming decades due to rising sea levels resulting from global warming. California, along with Florida, New York, Louisiana and New Jersey are extremely vulnerable to coastal flooding at an accelerated rate. We must do everything in our power to slow global warming down. Much of this will come from transitioning away from carbon-based fuels to clean, renewable sources.

Lewallen: Sea level rise is only one of the many emergencies we may need to deal with. Only a healthy national government and unity of purpose will allow us to finance our basic services and prepare for disaster response. We need a National Peace Conversion Plan, to convert our economy and society from military production and imperialistic policy to a nation employing people to meet basic human needs Tax reform is essential. I support a progressive income tax, closing corporate tax loopholes, taxing capital gains the same as ordinary income, and a transaction tax.

Renee: Having served a city that will be affected by sea level rise—Petaluma is at the top of the San Pablo Bay on the Petaluma River, a tidal slough—I have taken sea level rise planning very seriously. I am a member of the


www.yournec.org4

Association of Bay Area Governments Regional Planning Committee where we are protecting the baylands from further development and planning for disaster recovery through the Resilience Council. With a background in Environmental planning, emergency preparedness and family in public safety roles, I am acutely sensitive to these risks. I will seek funding, including replacing tsunami warning funding.

Solomon: With 7,800 Humboldt County residents living in the 100-year floodplain, it’s extremely important for local governments to engage in planning for sea level rise. I will share the work of the Council on Environmental Quality and the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force with local decision makers and I will ask my district staff to support them in local adaptation planning. I will also support policies that encourage “soft” shore protection and environmental enhancement whenever possible and practical.

Environmental Law: If elected, how will you work to support or improve key environmental laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, and the Wilderness Act? Would you defend the citizen enforcement provisions in these and other laws? Why?

Adams: As a representative to the National Association of Counties, I’ve been working with other environmentally focused counties in ensuring that the Clean Water Act is not eroded and that environmental protection remains a priority. Without clean air to breath or clean water to drink, the human species won’t survive. Being a nurse, an educator, a local policy maker, a mom and a grandmother makes this a priority issue. I played a leadership role in the ban of GMO’s, poly-styrene and single use plastic bags in my county. I led the way in drafting the current Integrated Pest Management ordinance that removes toxic pesticide use from our public buildings and landscape. I don’t just talk about doing it…I have been doing it!

Caffrey: I’m an Earth First!er. We must stop all intrusions into native habitat, and as part of our Great Conversion effort to get off fossil fuels and nuclear ASAP begin an emergency effort to restore all of our damaged natural habitat. So, of course I would fight to profoundly

strengthen all of those wilderness protection acts and citizen enforcement provisions. Then multiply that times 1,000. I’m talking about a much more radical control that takes away personhood rights from corporations and starts with Earth First!

Courtney: We must address combustion as a failed technology and establish Clean Energy as the primary bastion of a stable environment. As a microbiologist, I will advocate for a Clean Genome Act, so 4 billion years of genetic heritage is not irreversibly damaged by corporate predation. We must stop corporate greed, where benefits are privatized and liability is socialized. As a physician for Earth First, I learned a great deal about the importance of citizen enforcement, and will work to educate and remove barriers to such action, because it is inherit upon we the people to act to protect our resources.

Huffman: These are core environmental laws and I will oppose efforts to weaken them, including efforts to undermine the agencies that implement them. I will do this through my votes, through the exercise of my legislative oversight authority, and through organizing, advocating, and collaborating with the environmental and scientific communities. I’ll defend citizen enforcement as a safeguard for environmental protection and accountability. Finally, I’ll also use the authority of my office to ensure intelligent and effective environmental implementation and to help resolve conflicts. Environmental laws are sometimes pitted against economic activities to present a false choice between a clean and healthy environment and jobs. My experience suggests that with creative and good faith efforts, we can have both.

Lawson: I will always fight for anything that makes us more sustainable, from clean air regulations that reduce health threatening smog and measures to stem global warming, to ensuring that the Clean Water Act provides broad protection to our waters. Furthermore, I will defend citizen enforcement provisions, as it is a crucial tool for the people to hold the government accountable. These provisions are also a supplement to government enforcement of environmental laws.

Lewallen: The great environmental laws need constant review and amendment. As a life-long member of the Northcoast environmental community, I will continue to work with environmentalists and other community members to adapt these laws to changing understanding and needs.



Citizens must continue to have the right to sue polluters and/or agencies to enforce these laws and recover court costs. Citizens are vitally interested enforcers of environmental laws.

Renee: I have been a strong proponent of protecting and expanding the wetlands of the Alman Marsh in Petaluma. I joined the legal fight against the expansion of the Redwood Landfill at the edge of the wetlands in northern Marin County. As Vice Mayor of Petaluma I pushed for legal challenge to the proposed Dutra asphalt plant on the Petaluma River, up river from our sensitive marsh lands. We are still fighting with an appeal. Without these enforcement provisions, there isn’t political accountability for policy negligence.

Solomon: I’ll build a broad coalition to defend and strengthen environmental regulations and legislation. Congress is currently focused in the wrong direction. For example, the “Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act,” which passed the Energy and Commerce Committee last summer, threatens EPA rules affecting cement manufacturers that are necessary to protect human health. The committee needs to strengthen key environmental policies, not dismantle EPA authority. I’ll defend all citizen enforcement provisions as an important additional level of enforcement to ensure the environment is protected, even when it’s not politically palatable for regulators, the administration or Congressional majorities to do so.

Environmental Protections/EPA Funding:

The federal Environmental Protection Agency implements many critical protections for clean air, clean water, and human health, including the only substantive federal actions to address carbon emissions. Do you support increasing funding for the EPA and its counterpart state and federal agencies to increase important environmental protections? Why?

Adams: Yes! It’s about the future survival of life on this planet including human life. I want my grandchildren to enjoy the same quality of life I have had.

Caffrey: I support it with a two trillion dollar emergency effort to get off fossil fuels and nuclear power as fast as humanly possible and protect all of our native ecosystems and massive restoration efforts.

Courtney: I support funding the EPA and going further by legislating permanent protection. Continued ignorance of the devastation of the environment is not viable. Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Oil Industry buy and sell our children’s future for their 1% share holders. In the sequester debate this year, the $600 billion in military cuts will be shifted to defund every environmental program. The environment must be protected in constitutional amendments or conservative majorities will shift the derivative debacle to removing the restrictions on corporate growth.

Huffman: Yes. Currently, environmental regulators on the ground are often stretched too thin and unable to enforce all the environmental laws on the books because of lack of funding. This is especially the case with our state and regional water boards which are charged with implementing the Clean Water Act. The lack of funding translates not only to weaker enforcement, but also to a slow and difficult bureaucracy for regulated persons and entities.

Lawson: With Congress gridlocked on so many issues and beholden to special polluter interests, the ability of the executive branch to enforce and expand their efforts to protect public health and reduce air and water pollution (including and especially carbon pollution and other contributors to global warming) is absolutely essential. I will support actions to increase funding for the EPA and its counterpart state and federal agencies.

Lewallen: I believe the Environmental Protection Agency and its counterpart agencies should receive full support and increased funding. The EPA has a $10 billion budget and about 18,000 employees, all protecting us and the natural environment in a myriad of ways. We need this agency; it is the great creation of the environmental movement.

Renee: Yes, as a member of the Association of Bay Area Governments Hazardous Waste Facility Allocation Committee I have been a strong supporter of the California Dept. of Toxic Substance Control (CalEPA) efforts to implement extended producer responsibility legislation. We also work with them to improve reporting


www.yournec.org6

and documenting of hazardous waste. We produce policy and promote the Green Business Program which was modeled and adopted by the State. And our committee is now focusing on creating a Bay Area universal and electronic waste facility that can address this waste stream correctly rather than sending it overseas.

Solomon: Yes, I support increasing funding for the EPA and its counterpart agencies. We have witnessed attack after attack on the EPA—77 attempts to dismantle the Clean Air Act specifically in the 112th Congress alone. This is unacceptable, and I will fight every effort to weaken the EPA. But in order for the EPA to adequately enforce environmental regulations, it must have the necessary funds. I will work with my colleagues to ensure the EPA and its counterpart state and federal agencies have the regulations and the funding necessary to protect our natural environment and human health.

Energy: If elected, what policies would you support to advance the transition to renewable energy?

Adams: With the launch of Marin Clean Energy, ratepayer funds, not tax dollars, are being used to build the program and other communities are now wanting to buy into the program. We need to remove the tax payer subsidies for oil exploration and extraction and divert those funds to new renewable energy development. We need to require stricter guidelines for emissions from automobiles and energy efficiencies with vehicles (including public transit vehicles).

Caffrey: Bioregional conversion designed locally to get us off fossil-fuels and nuclear ASAP funded by trillions redirected from the US empire, war on drugs, legalizing cannabis and taxing the rich. I propose a Millionaires Externalities Reimbursement fee to pay back taxpayers for the historic costs of ecological, economic, and social destruction by corporations and their investors.

Courtney: The gravitational force imparted by the revolution of the moon about the earth pulls the ocean away from the earth—that bulge follows the moon’s path and creates the tides that progress and regress in a harmonic oscillation. Zero CO2 gravity creates a 24/7 hydrokinetic force that can be converted into Clean Electricity as is being tested in Australia. This can occur

well below the ocean surface where the generators are not visible, do not interfere with boat traffic, and aren’t impacted by storm surge. I also support tax credits for renewable energy and funding research.

Huffman: I would continue to support bold policies to increase energy efficiency and expand renewables. In the Assembly, I’ve authored numerous laws to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and promote renewables, including the Renewable Generation and Efficiency Incentives Act (AB 920), which is expanding green energy incentives by requiring utility companies to pay homeowners and small businesses for surplus power they produce from renewables. I’ve also supported numerous laws and policies that are driving major new investments in renewable energy sources and fuels, including California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard and Low Carbon Fuel Standard. I look forward to taking these proven, successful policies to the national level.

Lawson: Transitioning from our dependence on fossil fuels to more sustainable, low-impact energy sources is simultaneously an environmental imperative, a national security issue and an urgent economic necessity. While there are many policies I will support, we should start with a commitment to energy retrofits for all of America’s homes, offices, and public buildings. I will also advocate for federal investment and incentives in upgrading the national electric grid. Creating a next-generation smart energy grid will allow us to release the power of wind energy, and finally create a full infrastructure for plug-in electric vehicles. Setting energy consumption and renewable energy standards is another vital step in securing a clean energy future.

Lewallen: I will organize the writing of a National Energy Conversion Plan, phasing out carbon emitters and developing renewable energy sources and energy conservation. Nuclear energy should be phased out as rapidly as possible. I favor closing the two nuclear plants in California, but only with a plan to conserve energy and bring on new energy sources to compensate for loss of energy.

Renee: Ann Hancock, Climate Protection Campaign co-founder, recently introduced me as someone that “bleeds green; a long-time supporter of Sonoma Clean Power.” As a founding director of the Regional Climate Protection Authority comprised of local elected government officials, I’ve worked to put bold GHG reductions and renewable energy programs in place in Sonoma County. We have led the nation in tough goals,



working diligently to address the energy grid through smart grid technology, to address energy consumption through the residential and commercial efficiency retrofit programs and to produce local power through the nearly approved clean energy authority Sonoma Clean Power. These are programs I will promote in DC.

Solomon: For several decades, I have been a strong supporter of investing in truly clean and renewable energy and have opposed nuclear power, off-shore oil drilling and -- in recent years -- have fought back against the concept that coal can somehow be “clean.” I will stand strong against all efforts to build the Keystone XL pipeline and proposals to expand offshore oil drilling. I will work to repeal the exemption for fracking contained in the Safe Drinking Water Act. I believe that through conservation and renewable energy, we can create a sustainable future.

Wilderness: Some elected officials have suggested that Wilderness designations on federal lands result in fewer jobs, less ability to explore for dwindling energy supplies and increased fire danger to communities. Do you agree or disagree with these concerns? Why?

Adams: Old growth forests should continue to be protected. Second, third and fourth generation regrowth forests should be managed in a way that helps them to evolve into healthy forests. Foresting is still one of the major industries in the North Coast and I believe there is a way to manage those lands where foresting is allowed so that the ecosystem is healthy. But I do not endorse or support extracting minerals, exploring for oil, or clear cutting in public lands that have already been protected as National Parks. By the same token, the PILT funds that were promised to local communities who have turned over land for protection need to be maintained so that rural communities can pay for maintaining good schools and roads that would have otherwise been paid for out of local tax use.

Caffrey: We have to go for protecting it all in order to keep our climate, soil, water, plant and animal life and systems well-integrated and functioning as close to how they used to before industrialism and consumerism took us to the brink.

Courtney: Wilderness forests represent desperately needed long-term CO2 storage and a balm to the soul. Environmental devastation in pursuit of combustible substrates flies in the face of our clear understanding of the exploding green house gases that will collapse the environment this century. Destroying the wilderness for a very small amount of energy makes no sense, especially when we have the power of the ocean available. Wave power and other alternative energy will employ thousands, as will the protection and education of the wilderness.

Huffman: These are classic false choices. Wilderness areas can increase economic activity and provide jobs in the tourism economy, as well industries outside of wilderness areas that benefit from ecosystem services such as improved water quality and habitat to support the recovery of endangered and threatened species. We have many choices for energy production without sacrificing wilderness. And with good planning and coordination, wilderness areas should not pose a significant fire danger to communities.

Lawson: Americans enjoy a rich heritage of parks and wilderness, many of them right here in California. But these lands are threatened by pollution, oil and gas drilling and climate change. We must protect America’s wilderness that provides wildlife habitats and indigenous communities, and preserve it for future generations.

Lewallen: I will work with local wilderness area activists to protect national and Northcoast wilderness areas, including those established by the 2006 Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act. I oppose resource extraction from wilderness areas. I’m asking Northcoast environmentalists to join me in commitment to tribal cultural survival and restoration in Northern California. The several indigenous tribal cultures here need access for food and ceremony to a healthy ecosystem in order to maintain and restore the ancient human cultures so valuable to all of us.

Renee: I disagree that the stated reasons should deter more wilderness designation. In regard to wilderness, there should be an appropriate number of jobs to protect the area, but not more for the sake of creating jobs. Increased funding of the National Park Service to hire more NPS Rangers would certainly provide for increased fire protection to reduce fires (some fire is good in some areas, though not unchecked). Non-renewable energy exploration shouldn’t occur in wilderness areas.


www.yournec.org8

Solomon: Overall, the suggestions by some that Wilderness designations limit energy supplies and increase fire danger are contradicted by substantial evidence. In one comprehensive study, the Outdoor Industry Association found that outdoor recreation contributes $730 billion to the American economy, supporting 6.5 million jobs. With many resource extraction jobs leaving rural California counties, conservation can actually support sustainable, long-lasting jobs. I will work hard to defend existing wilderness protections and build a broad coalition to expand Wilderness Areas and roadless protections on the North Coast and nationwide.

If elected, how would you work to protect Wilderness Areas and roadless lands in Northwestern California? And nationwide?

Adams: With my strong voice, a strong heart and clear, understandable data.

Caffrey: By making Bioregional Conversion the talk of the nation by raising hell in Congress and with president Obama, and by getting on talk shows and progressive media such as Olbermann, Bill Maher, MSNBC, Hartmann, Malloy, Colbert, etc. and organizing a national bioregional conversion movement.

Courtney: I would establish the need to preserve remaining carbon sequestration systems as part of a global project, not only to stop the production of CO2 / methane but to move rapidly into an aggressive carbon capture and storage campaign to arrest the runaway atmospheric green house gases. I will support designating new wilderness area and expansion proposals. Education is key to making Congressional members understand why these lands must be protected.

Huffman: As the chair of the Water, Parks & Wildlife Committee, I have an excellent record of supporting the protection of public lands and open spaces— from our state parks to wild and scenic rivers— and will continue that work in Congress.

Lawson: See answer to previous question.

Lewallen: See answer to previous question.

Renee: Lands designated as Wilderness Area under various Federal management agencies (BLM, NPS,

USFS) need legislation that will further protect these ecological habitats. Areas not yet designated Wilderness Area under the National Wilderness Preservation System must be considered for adoption. Vast stretches of land that were once logged under the Forest Service or mined for resources under the BLM must be reclaimed Wilderness for rehabilitation. Implementing a program like the proposed American World Service Corps would provide service members to rehabilitate previously “managed” areas to restore them to Wilderness habitats in exchange for student loan reductions or to provide needed jobs for the unemployed.

Solomon: See answer to previous question.

H.R. 1837: If you were in Congress today, how would you have voted on H.R. 1837, known as the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act? Why?

Adams: NO!!! It was an attempt by a few Federal legislators to take away State water rights for the benefit of a few central valley farmers and to the detriment of other farmers not in the central valley, fish, habitat needs and human consumers. Congressman Mike Thompson stated the case well in his arguments.

Caffrey: No Response.

Courtney: H.R. 1837 preempts California requirements for the conservation of any species that are more restrictive than the 1994 Bay –Delta Accord. Rape, pillage & plunder -business at any cost. Next it will be Drill the Delta.

Huffman: Not only would I be a “no” vote in Congress, I’m the only candidate who has been working for over a year to defeat this terrible bill. That includes writing legislative sign-on letters, providing written Congressional testimony, and just two weeks ago publishing a joint op-ed with Congressman Mike Thompson. H.R. 1837 undermines the ESA; flouts over 100 years of federal deference to California water law by elevating the interests of a few CVP contractors above other stakeholders and the environment; preempts and contravenes key state laws, including provisions of the 2009 legislative water package I helped write to ensure



strong protections for the Delta and its fisheries; and sabotages the historic settlement to restore the San Joaquin River which I worked on as an NRDC attorney.

Lawson: I would have voted against H.R. 1837. This would have removed all environmental protection from the delta and Central Valley areas, and thousands of jobs for salmon fisherman and farmers would be threatened. This bill would have simultaneously wrecked California’s goals of ecosystem restoration and water reliability. We must find a way to ensure water access that will create jobs without threatening others, and is environmentally conscious at the same time.

Lewallen: I strongly oppose H.R. 1837, which meets the needs of huge corporations bent on exploiting our resources. H.R. 1837 would federally pre-empt state control over water resources, and give the huge farmers of Southern California a full allotment of water from the Sacramento River in drought years. This year we must unite to prevent a peripheral canal or canals from being built to transport the Sacramento River around the San Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystem to the San Joaquin canal. The related Bay-Delta Conservation Plan, created with a corrupt process, should be defeated.

Renee: I would vote No. It repeals longstanding efforts to resolve legal disputes over water rights and environmental protections. The bill tosses out water price reforms for conservation efforts while putting old science into policy. Instead of improving water supply reliability, it throws the State into major legal battles that may further weaken the Bay-Delta environment. We need leadership legislation that doesn’t pit fish against farmers.

Solomon: I oppose H.R. 1837 because it undermines five years of collaboration between stakeholders and places our environment in jeopardy. H.R. 1837 will result in inequitable treatment of one group of water users over another, and will preempt California water law. The bill is contrary to the long-standing principle that beneficiaries should pay for the cost of developing water supplies and for mitigating any development impacts. In addition, I will urge others to join the Sierra Club California’s call to “help in organizing against the water bond.” I’m also against efforts to construct the peripheral canal, which voters rejected in 1982.

Salmon: If elected, what will you do in Congress to advance salmon recovery on the North Coast?

Adams: Enacting several recommendations housed within the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC) Coho Recovery Plan (Plan). Such actions include removing fish barriers in spawning areas; restoring habitat and riparian corridors; providing larger buffer areas from the impacts of active agriculture; working with farmers on improved farming practices which eliminate fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides; increasing permeable surface areas around roads near spawning creeks and tributaries; addressing the illegal pot growing activities in public lands which add to the pollution of our rivers; and bringing all interested parties to the table to and problem-solve together. Marin County hosts about 25% of the spawning coho in the Lagunitas Watershed. Our county has been actively engaged in restoration programs and we have begun to see the fruits of those efforts.

Caffrey: Restore the water and the forest habitat. End factory fishing of the oceans, restore the small business fishing economy to be sustainable.

Courtney: I spoke with a local fisherman recently, who said protective measures will only be circumvented by corporations who will take all the salmon quickly and move on, leaving this area in ruin. We must stop corporations and work with local fisherman. Wild salmon are part of a larger food chain, which when disrupted, affects many more species of plants and animals. I would protect the ecosystem and habitat in order for the species to survive. I will address habitat reconstruction, water quality and flow, and erosion. Dam removal on the Eel and Klamath Rivers would open up necessary spawning grounds.

Huffman: As an angler, an attorney and elected official, I’ve championed salmon recovery for nearly two decades. At the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD), I spearheaded a program to restore flows and salmon on Lagunitas Creek and chaired that effort for ten years. As an NRDC attorney, I represented environmentalists and fishing groups in a huge salmon restoration case that culminated in a settlement that is restoring flows and salmon to the San Joaquin River. In the Assembly, I’ve authored numerous bills and chaired important hearings on salmon and received awards from


www.yournec.org10

fishing and environmental groups for this work. I’m the only candidate with a serious record on salmon recovery and will be a champion for salmon in Congress.

Lawson: While there have been many positive indicators in the past year regarding the renewal of salmon populations in the North Coast, we must continue restoration efforts to protect and reestablish their habitats.

Lewallen: Restoring Northcoast Watersheds is a major theme of my life’s work. The new Second Congressional District includes coastal counties from the Oregon border to the Golden Gate Bridge. Water resource management is the most vital issue we face in this great Northcoast bioregion.

This year’s large Sacramento salmon run shows that the salmon will come back if they have quality spawning waters in our great habitat watersheds.

I will work to restore the Bay-Delta Ecosystem by reducing water exports, and organize throughout the district for restoration of the Klamath, Eel, Russian, and other watersheds. Water use efficiency is essential.

Renee: Protect and restore sensitive habitats, including streams near agricultural and human activity that produce polluted run-off. Tighten nonpoint source pollution regulations to ensure healthy watersheds in populated or resource managed areas. Increase funding for NSP programs in the District. Establish stronger policies that reduce and eliminate genetically modified organisms, pesticides, and fertilizers that contribute to population die off or interfere in population recovery (GMO farmed salmon).

Solomon: Salmon recovery is a priority issue. First and foremost, stable federal funding must be allocated for recovery programs and restoration efforts led by local experts. I will work to include local fishers in developing recovery solutions.

Klamath Dams: Do you support the removal of the Klamath dams? Why? If you support Klamath dam removal, what would you do to ensure that the dams are removed at the earliest possible date?

Adams: In my discussions many different people and groups, including tribes, there is consensus that the

dams come down and I support that position. However, the devil is always in the details and there needs to be a science-based approach with active management & evaluation of the impact on the watershed as the dams are removed. Many years of nutrient and toxic build ups are lying behind the dams and sudden releases could cause significant harm to fish and wildlife. Consideration should be given for developing buffer zones and marshes which could be reclaimed to help rebuild a natural elimination method for these nutrients. Tribal rights should always be a consideration.

Caffrey: My climate crisis priority means restoring all of our native habitat. That means those dams and thousands of others around the country have to go. Since this is my highest priority, all restoration efforts become priority number one for the nation. That is the case I will demand in Congress and with President Obama and sell to the nation.

Courtney: Yes. 2020 is too long to wait for action. The public’s interest must always outweigh that of corporations. Science and research have given us the answers – now we need a Congressman free from corporate bondage to take action and not stop until the people’s voice is heard. We are already paying PacifiCorp for the dam removal, and yet nothing is being done. I have the ability to get people to work together. An enemy is only someone I have yet to talk to. I will not stop until hearings are held and legislation passed—you deserve this from your representative!

Huffman: Yes, I strongly support removal of the Klamath Dams, which will restore access to hundreds of miles of spawning habitat. Whether working to secure funding for KBRA, supporting and co-sponsoring legislation, using my oversight and budgetary authority to push the Bureau of Reclamation and other federal agencies, or engaging with the KBRA parties and other stakeholders to move things forward, I will do everything possible in Congress to ensure the earliest possible and most successful dam removal process on the Klamath.

Lawson: I do support the removal of the Klamath dams and will fight in Congress to ensure the necessary steps are taken to allow the Secretary of State to issue a decision on the project and allow this process to move forward to completion.

Lewallen: I support Klamath dam removal. The best way to do this now is a contentious issue involving



residents of the Klamath watershed. I will remain in intimate touch with all the Klamath parties to advance restoration of salmon habitat and timely dam removal.

Renee: Yes, I support the removal of the Klamath dams to restore the fish habitats and natural flow of the Klamath River. While dam removal doesn’t need to be combined with the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, the KBRA is also important to the recovery of the salmon species, reducing regulatory burdens on family farms and providing pathways for Tribal communities to thrive again. As a co-founder of the Petaluma Grange, I am working to block and label GMOs and protect organic farming.

Solomon: Yes, I support removal of the four dams owned by PacifiCorps in order to both protect salmon and resolve longstanding water conflicts at the Oregon border. While the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) was a less than perfect process and is based on questionable science in many respects, it does lay out a process for removing the dams. To ensure that the dams are removed at the earliest possible date, I would work to press my colleagues in Congress to immediately pass the necessary bill allowing Secretary Salazar to make the decision to remove the dams.

Eel River Dams: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license for the Eel River dams and diversion to the Russian River expires in a decade. If elected, would you support dam removal? What would you do to support restoration of the Eel River’s legendary fisheries?

Adams: I am not sure what the best approach is at this point given the number of different interests that rely on this water…from Humboldt down to Marin. The problem needs to be unraveled. I think we should start with the goal of restoring healthy rivers for fish habitat and work backward within the context of residents who have lived in the area for multiple generations and rely on the water for household use and agriculture. Marin has been taking a very proactive approach in conservation, zero water landscaping, use of tertiary water for landscaping and increasing tiered rates with success. As less water is used, more is available for the fish. The issue also begs the question about capacity with agriculture, housing developments and recreational use.

Caffrey: I’m with the fish 100%. I couldn’t possibly support dam removal more. See my bumper sticker. Fish over grapes. Period.

Courtney: Yes. As your Congressman, I will never put corporate greed ahead of what is right for all the species of this District and this Nation. Removing the dam would restore vital breeding ground for several species of fish. I pledge that my 2 years in Congress will focus on reversing this 100-year mistake! We are currently in the 6th mass extinction – the largest in our planet’s history, but we have the power to reduce our impact and stop the destruction.

Huffman: I support robust science-based restoration of the Eel River and am committed to achieving self-sustainable populations of naturally reproducing salmon and steelhead throughout this beleaguered river system. This will undoubtedly require myriad actions including both flow and non-flow strategies. If the FERC process leads to dam removal, as it has in the Klamath FERC relicensing, I will support that and do everything possible to make it work for all stakeholders and affected parties— those in the Eel River basin who deserve a healthy river and sustainable fisheries, and those in the Russian River basin who have relied on Potter Valley Project diversions for many years.

Lawson: The question of removing the Eel River Dams is difficult and complex. The question obviously is how to balance the needs to protect the health of both the Russian River and the Eel River. The concerns surrounding the removal of these dams are broad and many are under litigation right now.

Lewallen: I support Eel River dam removal and an end to Eel River water diversion into the Russian River watershed, but only with the agreement of people dependent on the Russian River for essential water. Water conservation and efficiency should be a major theme of all Northcoast politics and environmental action.

Restoring natural Eel River water flow is key to bringing back the salmon habitat.

As I campaign in Marin and Sonoma and all counties in the congressional district, I organize a district-wide movement for watershed restoration. We are all together in this great California Northcoast Bioregion.

Renee: Yes, I support removal of the dams and Potter Valley project. Restoring this river to natural flows for


www.yournec.org12

the salmon and the Tribal cultures that respect and depend on salmon are important environmental and cultural reclamations. As someone with a mixed-race heritage that includes native ancestors from Central America, I understand the deep value that renewing the ecological habitat and one’s heritage means to the people of the north coast.

Solomon: I support dam removal coupled with a comprehensive multi-stakeholder process to address legitimate needs for other water uses, as well as conservation measures that must be employed to minimize water needs. Environmental analysis shows that the Eel River dams divert too much water to the Russian River, having a negative impact on the Eel River ecosystem. I support efforts to restore the Eel River’s legendary fisheries and have been very proud to include Frank Egger, Co-Founder of Friends of the Eel River and President of the Northcoast Rivers Alliance, among my early endorsers in this race.

Marijuana Production: If elected, what actions would you take in Congress regarding the marijuana industry and its environmental impacts?

Adams: Federal marijuana laws are not working. Prohibition on alcohol didn’t work in the 1920’s and it’s not working with marijuana now. The tax payers are spending billions in enforcement and illegal growers are poisoning our watersheds. Nobody is killing each other over illegal vineyards and alcohol is a legal drug which causes more problems in health care and the justice system than alcohol. We need to reclassify marijuana and allow control over marijuana use to be state determined.

Caffrey: Fight for full legalization. No one should spend another day in jail because of cannabis law violations. Cannabis is a billion dollar industry up here. It is a huge part of our future and we must do it right. No Walmartization. No more diesel dope. Respect for the ecological needs of the river and forests. I have seven priority proposals called New Green America. Ending the War on Drugs and Full legalization are one of them. I am a medical cannabis patient and I’m willing to smoke a joint on the capital steps and get arrested to keep the feds from interfering in our economy.

I support the Repeal marijuana Prohibition Act and collect signatures as part of my campaign.

Courtney: Cannabis can fix more CO2 than other plants or trees. Growing cannabis is protective to the environment – government forced it to be grown underground where techniques cannot be regulated and black market money is substantial. I will bring cannabis out of the closet and into the environment – where it can be a force for good. I believe the pesticides and exceptional water used up by the wine industry must be addressed as well, if we are all to use our resources in the most responsible way, benefiting the majority’s needs.

Huffman: We need to persuade the federal government to refocus its marijuana enforcement activities away from legitimate medical marijuana operations and toward the illegal pot growing on public and private land that is the subject of this question. I support Congressman Mike Thompson and others who are calling for a more aggressive enforcement policy against illegal trespass grows on public and private land. This environmentally destructive criminal activity is out of control and must be stopped as soon as possible.

Lawson: The environmental impact of illegal marijuana grown in our public parks and on sensitive land is very concerning. Furthermore there are significant public safety concerns associated with this type of underground growing. The federal criminalization of marijuana not only wrongly prevents patients with legitimate medical needs from accessing physician-approved medicine, but the aggressive federal crack-down against lawful dispensaries provides “price-support,” which attracts criminals to this underground economy. We need to logically and systematically address the issue of legalization and create a system of regulation that includes a tax and regulatory structure similar to that for alcohol and tobacco.

Lewallen: I’m inviting all environmental and other Northcoast groups to join in a public outcry to end the federal prohibition of marijuana. The war on marijuana is our nation’s longest war. Marijuana prohibition brings violence, corruption, economic distortion, and environmental destruction, which every year becomes more dominant in our communities. We should replace unenforceable prohibition with reasonable regulation and taxation, on what may be our largest economic activity here.



I support HR2306, the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act, which would repeal all federal penalties for production, distribution and possession of marijuana.

Renee: I support reclassification of cannabis to Schedule II and regulations at the local, regional and state levels. We must increase Federal funding for Federal land protections from large, industrial grows that impair watersheds and put people in danger. City and County governments have their hands tied to manage these complex issues due to legal challenges. The economics of the industry are important to the communities that rely upon it. Yet, the industry needs environmental oversight that could bring practices in line with greenhouse gas emissions goals through better environmental regulations and address nonpoint source pollution.

Solomon: I support legalization of marijuana use for adults. The federal government should remove marijuana from Schedule I, a classification intended for only the most dangerous drugs. The cultivation of marijuana on state and federal lands and in dangerous “grow houses” is unacceptable. Marijuana cultivators who illegally divert water or who pollute via diesel spills and fertilizer pollution should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Port Development: We’ve had proposals for container ports and Liquefied Natural Gas imports on Humboldt Bay. What are your thoughts on the use of federal funds to promote a deep-water industrial port on Humboldt Bay?

Adams: I am more excited about the possibilities for Short Sea Shipping which doesn’t require the same level of dredging and bay manipulation as a deep-water industrial port would. A maritime highway could incorporate the use of barges.

Caffrey: We’re going local.

Courtney: It would require trucking containers North or South, to populations where ports already exist. We need to develop local production and economies; we

must decrease our carbon footprint. I support including transoceanic and air transport CO2 production in global estimates and close the loopholes that are destroying life on earth.

Huffman: Regarding an LNG terminal, I oppose it and would not support it in the future. Regarding other port development options, I have heard far more skepticism than optimism regarding a major deep water port on Humboldt Bay. Federal money is limited and should be focused on priorities that are economically and environmentally viable, and which enjoy broad support. Short sea shipping as an alternative to the deep-water port/rail concept seems worthy of study and consideration.

Lawson: No Response. Lewallen: I oppose a deepwater port and Liquefied Natural Gas Imports on Humboldt Bay. I am committed to defending the Northcoast ocean upwelling ecosystem from all forms of industrialization, pollution, and military testing activities, as one of the world’s great, clean, wild sources of sustainable, essential food. We should cut back on fishing allotments to destructive trawlers, and give our local, shore-based, hook-and-line fishermen access to healthy fisheries without prohibitive regulations.

Renee: As I have traveled the coast I’ve asked about these proposals. I haven’t gotten a sense that these ideas are either feasible or realistic given the geological challenges of implementing a new working railroad and the enormous environmental issues related to dredging. I haven’t been able to find anything timely about these issues in the news, except the concept of an east-west rail. None of it makes any real sense, economically or environmentally.

Solomon: I support the use of federal funds for port development efforts that are sustainable, both for the environment and for the local economy. Marine Highways – also known as Short Sea Shipping – hold great potential, especially for smaller ports. The container-on-barge model, for example, could allow the Port of Humboldt Bay to participate in the container business without the negative consequences of traditional large-scale shipping. The people of Humboldt County were right to reject Calpine's proposed LNG Terminal in 2004. Port development should be based on the needs and desires of the community, not narrow private interests.


www.yournec.org14

Railroad:

Do you support or oppose efforts to rebuild the Northwestern Pacific rail line north of Willits in view of the economic and geological challenges?

Adams: I believe this would be extremely expensive and not cost-effective. There are areas through the Eel River Canyon that are unstable which is part of the reason why the train stopped running through there years ago. As stated earlier, I believe short sea shipping is a good alternative.

Caffrey: No Response. See answer to following question.

Courtney: Estimates for the restoration of the Eel River portion of the North Coast Railroad exceed $20 million, and are mounting rapidly as nature reclaims her rugged countryside. While the shift to mass transportation is mandatory, it would be most easily built and maintained if they followed existing interstates and relied upon gravitationally driven hydrokinetic zero CO2 energy sources. Despite the strong historic allure, the fetid spume and the association with the birth of corporate personhood suggest limited funds would be better spent educating the next generation to live in harmony, not dominion, with the environment.

Huffman: While I generally support both freight and passenger rail including rail south of Willits, I have opposed efforts to resume rail service north of Willits, including through the Eel River Canyon, because of environmental and fiscal concerns. I have also encountered a high degree of skepticism about the basic viability of this proposal. While improving goods movement in and out of Humboldt County is an important objective, this does not appear to be the answer. Other strategies such as short sea shipping may provide a more viable and sustainable solution.

Lawson: The issue of rebuilding the railroad is one that requires careful consideration. There are many matters to consider – the potential for economic development, but also the potential for ecological damage to the eel river. I would carefully examine all evidence on this matter in office.

Lewallen: Railroad restoration north of Willits may or may not be a good idea; I don’t oppose it, and would support it with federal funding if it makes sense

Nationwide, I favor a federally-subsidized effort to restore and modernize our railroad transport system, both to save energy and reduce carbon emissions.

Renee: While rail can be an environmentally superior choice for passengers and cargo through the north coast, I am concerned that the current line is too costly to put back into operation given the geological constraints. The concerns for utilizing rail for further resource extraction are warranted. While operating the rail for tourism and efficient transportation of goods (rather than though the expansion of the 101 through Richardson Grove) would be ideal, the risk of use for mining operations is too great to support the expansion in the north.

Solomon: In these tough times it is imperative that we invest in “shovel ready” projects that will deliver immediate results. I am generally supportive of expanding rail service throughout the country, but it is clear that there are significant barriers to the restoration of this particular rail line. The history of rail service through the Eel River Canyon is a story of repeated slides and expensive repairs. Still, the day may come when the price of gas is so high that rail restoration becomes a viable option. In the meantime, the right-of-way should be preserved for public use.

Do you support efforts to railbank the Eel River Canyon and Humboldt Bay portions of the defunct rail line? Do you support use of this public right-of-way for a trail system?

Adams: I support trails along rail rights of way. My county just completed opening an old rail tunnel to bike/pedestrian use and it’s become a very popular beehive of non-motorized transportation.

Caffrey: Oppose rail development in the Eel River watershed. I support trails.

Courtney: NCR has avoided environmental review of the line, claiming it is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. We must make decisions that are sustainable, and think in terms of what is best for our children, and their children. I do not support an optimistic small profit over the loss of



already endangered river. I do not support being tricked into paying for an extremely expensive rail line that will not benefit the people of Humboldt. I will do everything in my power as a Congressman to uphold the people’s rights and stop corporate exploitation.

Huffman: I am an enthusiastic supporter of multi-use public trails. Railbanking is an innovative way to use dormant or abandoned railroad right-of-ways for trail purposes until rail service is resumed. If a community consensus develops for railbanking in Humboldt County, I would support that and work to help make it successful.

Lawson: No response.

Lewallen: No response.

Renee: I have seen first hand the value of trails, growing up along the American River. My father helped implement the American River Trail. It improved recreation, appreciation of the river habitat, and tourism along the river corridor. I have supported trail projects through approving public funding on Sonoma County Transportation Authority for trails along the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit and supported public planning processes for the Sebastopol to Petaluma rail to trail project. Railbanking of these lines would improve recreation, watershed recovery, and secure important public lands for future generations.

Solomon: I am a supporter of multi-use trails and I will work to secure federal funds for trail development here on the North Coast and nationally. I am favorable to the concept of railbanking, but ultimately it comes down to a question of local priorities. Does this community want to preserve the right-of-way for future public use? It should be a community decision and I will do everything I can to encourage a healthy dialogue. I am encouraged by Arcata’s leadership in planning for a trail to Braecut and I am eager to work with various stakeholders to make sure it eventually leads to Eureka.

Transportation:If a federal transportation bill with language such as the proposed H.R. 7, American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act of 2012, came before you in Congress, would it have your support? Why?

Adams: I generally support the principles of the bill which invests in rebuilding and maintaining our infrastructure and generates jobs. However, in a bill that is 847 pages, I would want to review the document for any insertions of programs that would include development of undesirable projects such The Keystone Pipeline.

Caffrey: No response.

Courtney: No! First I would make a joint resolution to amend the Constitution at the pending Second Constitutional Convention to limit congressional bills to a single topic. H.R. 7 combines the use of Federal Money to Protect Oil Shale Investments, a repulsive idea bedded with securing Annuities for Federal Employees Act of 2012. Some well meaning tea party congressman should round out this bill by attaching the repeal of Congressional Insider Trading to the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act of 2012.

Huffman: I would vote “No.” H.R. 7, like so many bills in the current House of Representatives, included poison-pill provisions that would undermine critical transportation strategies such as public transportation, bike and pedestrian pathways, and safe routes to school, and gut key environmental review laws. I support public transportation, bike and pedestrian pathways, and rail transportation as key strategies to reduce our dependence on automobiles, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improve our quality of life.

Lawson: While I would support a bill that works to modernize America’s transportation systems, I would not support H.R. 7. This bill eliminates programs ensuring that metropolitan areas have resources for transportation options to reduce congestion, undermines local decision-making, and weakens environmental protections for transportation projects. Furthermore, H.R. 7 would open up lands such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to industrial development and mandates the Keystone XL Oil Pipeline, prior to completion of a thorough assessment of its environmental impact.

Lewallen: I favor a comprehensive national and regional plan, backed up with federal funding, to create a transportation system and infrastructure based on renewable energy sources. I favor federal support for public transportation such as the Mendocino Transit Authority, for bike and hiking trails, and to keep our roads and bridges in good shape. H.R. 7 I strongly oppose; it would be an environmental and energy policy disaster, opening offshore oil drilling


www.yournec.org16

and permitting other environmentally damaging hydrocarbon resource extraction. As I have for decades, I will do all I can to prevent offshore oil drilling in Northcoast ocean waters.

Renee: It is unlikely I would support it in the current form. I am heartened to see the leadership of Senator Boxer to improve the Senate version (which passed as of March 14th) that includes funding for walking, biking, and transit. It is important to improve our infrastructure. The congestion created from pinch points like the one in Petaluma on the 101 add to increased fuel consumption and air pollution. A multi-modal transportation network is necessary to provide alternative ways to commute and recreate.

Solomon: I am opposed to H.R. 7 because it ties funding for our roads and bridges to opening up pristine areas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to industrial development and by mandating lease sales in new offshore areas. To make matters worse, the bill contains provisions that would move the Keystone XL pipeline forward, short circuit local decision-making, and gut both environmental and labor protections. I will fight to ensure that our gas tax dollars are used to ensure that our highways and bridges are safe and to move our nation away from its dependence on fossil fuels by investing in public transportation, including Amtrak and high-speed passenger rail. All decisions related to ANWR and the Keystone XL pipeline should be decided separately.

Given the environmental and rising economic costs of fossil fuels, how would you support sustainable transportation options within this largely rural district? How about throughout the nation?

Adams: Expanding rural bus routes and securing funding for such efforts will be vital in offering transportation options as well as assisting those who may not be able to afford their own vehicle. I’ve had great success working with our local Transit Agency in securing funds for our rural roads from the federal government.

Caffrey: No Response

Courtney: Mass transit -Magnetic / Electric rail would be the ‘smart’ long-term solution. The reduced

resistance decreases the energy needed and electricity can be a zero CO2 energy source. Encourage carpooling, bicycling, and keep the school buses going rather than force 30 parents to drive vehicles to schools twice a day. I will support basic research in transportation, if we can put a man on the moon, we can develop sustainable transportation options. We will soon reach peak oil and be forced to end our dependence on combustible energy sources. I will be a strong advocate for beginning that transformation immediately.

Huffman: For rural areas on the North Coast and throughout the nation, we should continue to support investments in transit and alternative modes such as bike and pedestrian travel, but the reality is that cars will continue to be a major element of meeting transportation needs. We can nevertheless improve the environmental performance of cars and trucks through biofuels and greater fuel efficiency. I have long been a strong supporter of renewable and low-carbon fuel standards and significantly higher fuel efficiency standards, in addition to greater investments in public transit and multi-modal solutions. I have also championed legislation to give local and regional governments authority to raise gas taxes in order to support transportation.

Lawson: Locally, I support federal funding for SMART. In this economy, we need to invest in sustainable infrastructure as a mode to putting people back to work. SMART will reduce traffic congestion, create an infrastructure that will serve us sustainably in the long term, and will create nearly 1,000 jobs. In addition, I support high-speed rail. I also support federal efforts to accelerate local transit systems’ conversion to hybrid bus fleets and alternative fuel vehicles.

Lewallen: See response to previous question.

Renee: As alternate Director of the Executive Board, and members of the Regional Planning Committee for ABAG, I am working on ensuring smart, transit-oriented development over the next 30 years in the One Bay Area planning process. As a single car family, I know the challenge of riding the bus rurally. Our transit system is challenged too. It can take 90 minutes to get to Sebastopol from Petaluma, on a fairly infrequent route. On Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) we are developing a real-time rideshare program to connect car commuters with riders where we share rural transportation challenges.



Solomon: We can make transportation more affordable and environmentally sustainable—both locally and nationally—by investing in public transit, bicycle infrastructure, and multi-use trails. I will defend active transportation funding and I will fight for Smart Growth policies to encourage more sustainable development.

How would you support the completion of a regional multipurpose trail system in Humboldt County and completion of the California Coastal Trail along the North Coast?

Adams: A safe route connection between Arcata and Eureka should be a main focus. The current non-motorized connection is dangerous and promotes the potential for unsafe cyclist/auto interactions. My county was one of 4 counties to receive a $25 million non-motorized transportation grant through the lobbying efforts of our county supervisors and a bicycle coalition. These federal funds helped launch the safe routes infrastructure that our community now enjoys. The program is a success and federal funds should be allocated for expansion of these programs.

Caffrey: We will have Great Conversion Conferences in which we regularly come together as neighbors to assess our ecological limits and economic potential. It is in this process that we, as a community, will design our new transportation system. In my program, political control will go to the communities, away from the corporate control of the federal government.

Courtney: With 600 billion dollar cuts in domestic spending looming this year, funding will get tighter for the near term. Sharing the real costs of policing the world, bringing home the troops deployed in over 130 countries, and taxing wall-street sales, would be a good place to begin. I will act to get local, state and federal government working together. The public must be made aware of the cost and benefit. Since candidates raise $100,000 or more for an election, surely we can work together to raise funds for programs that benefit the people and protect our environmental resources!

Huffman: I would help in any way I could to bring together government agencies and landowners to

complete this important project, and would also work to secure federal funding and ensure federal agency cooperation.

Lawson: Access to a trail system such as the California Coastal Trail significantly contributes to the quality of life here in Northern California. This series of public-access trails helps foster environmental stewardship, create appreciation for the beautiful natural surroundings we have here, and provides a healthy recreational outlet for residents and visitors. These trails also are an excellent economic driver in terms of tourism. Though most of the work to complete these trails will happen at a state level, I will provide support in whatever way possible to ensure this project is seen through to completion.

Lewallen: See response to previous question.

Renee: As Directors on the Golden Gate Bridge, and SCTA I have worked to increase transit, pedestrian and bicycle improvements throughout the region. The Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit will be including a 70-mile multi-use path near the train route. At SCTA I have helped secure $3 million in additional funding for the trail improvements. Getting businesses involved in the tourism aspect is important for building support. Tying Federal funding with ecological restoration through Conservation Corps jobs would be a win-win solution to completing the trails.

Solomon: Local elected officials and community activists are leading the charge for a regional trail system in Humboldt County. They are the local experts and I would follow their lead. My role would be to back them up with political support, as well as assistance identifying and applying for funding sources. The California Coastal Trail has federal buy-in, but there are still details to be sorted out. The project is a collaboration between various partners, so it is necessary to foster cooperation between state, local and federal public agencies in the planning and implementation of the trail.


www.yournec.org18

Redevelopment Funding:

How would you work to help communities like Eureka clean up and redevelop contaminated former industrial properties?

Adams: I have the experience through my work in local government in accessing resources to restore watersheds, clean up brownfield sites for redevelopment, clean up a mining operation, open trails along rail lines, and turn an industrial complex into a health and wellness campus using tobacco settlement money. As a congressional representative, I will use these skills to access the resources for the 2nd congressional district.

Caffrey: That would all be covered in bioregional conversion efforts.

Courtney: I would encourage local entities to plan, zone, develop and preserve, and federally stop these areas from being contaminated in the first place. Corporate polluters are the ones that must be held accountable for this expensive clean up. I support termination of Corporate Personhood and Limited Liability to stop the social and environmental damage they cause. I would continue to fund the EPA and ask for other federal agency grants, including research for novel ideas. The Kazakhstan government planted cannabis to reduce the radiation from Chernobyl—cannabis can be used to help clean up contamination and fix CO2.

Huffman: I strongly support brownfield cleanup and reuse, and will work to ensure federal funding for programs to remediate contaminated sites, and to ensure cooperation from federal agencies in cleanup and redevelopment projects.

Lawson: I believe it is prudent for the federal government to be a part of toxic waste cleanups. In regards to Eureka specifically, the state of California has eliminated redevelopment agencies. Therefore I will of course do everything I can to help this area become an economic center again.

Lewallen: A high priority is a congressional investigation into the contaminated sites in the Northcoast and nation, to develop federally-driven programs to clean them up. The Superfund does not have any funds; we should consider resuming the tax

on polluting industries which used to feed this trust fund. I know of several sites in Mendocino County needing federal aid for cleanup, including the chromium pollution from Remco in Willits. Again, this effort depends on a major shift in federal funding and priorities away from military spending and financial bailouts, and fundamental tax reform.

Renee: In Petaluma, our city council has received Brownfields grants to assist property owners with environmental clean up. Increased funding for these grants is essential to businesses being able to address the environmental clean up an cities attracting and retaining businesses. It can also remove blight to improve and create smart growth and adaptable reuse in neighborhoods, increase property values and improve vehicle miles travelled, as many sites are more central to urban areas.

Solomon: The elimination of state redevelopment makes continued federal support for local environmental cleanup and redevelopment activities more important than ever before. This support consists of a number of successful programs, including EPA Brownfields, EPA Clean Water State Revolving Fund, HUD Brownfields and Economic Development Initiative, and HUD Community Development Block Grants, just to name a few. I will fight to defend – and where possible expand – funding for these vital programs. I will also work closely with local government leaders, nonprofits, and businesses to identify and apply for grants for specific local projects.

Community Development: As a member of Congress, what would be your top priorities to improve the quality of life in rural communities such as those within the Second District?

Adams: My top priority would be to work with the communities to identify community priorities and work toward realizing the local community goals. As a county supervisor, I understand how the rubber hits the asphalt at the local level and how state and federal government can either assist or provide obstacles.

In my travels up and down the coast, the concerns I hear include job development, rural health care,



schools, broadband access, road conditions, resource management and stewardship and transportation including the possibility of Short Sea Shipping as an economic development opportunity.

I support each of these and have delivered the goods as a county supervisor in each of these areas. I will work hard to do the same in Congress for the 2nd congressional district. I have the experience that money can’t buy.

Caffrey: My Bioregional Conversion plan means we meet all of our needs for food, clothing, shelter, transportation as close to home as possible. That is a massive jobs program unlike any ever seen before.

Courtney: Supporting development of a sustainable local economy. I would fund environmentally grounded job creation through utilization of our 600 mile long coast as a unique resource for the production of bottom-based hydrokinetic zero CO2 energy. Specifically, I will introduce jobs in installation, maintenance, and distribution of Clean Energy. We can create an exportable hydrokinetic technology that can replace unsustainable energy sources - ‘clean coal’, oil, gas and nuclear energy. It is my duty to preserve and protect the coast and our planet, for future generations.

Huffman:1. Ensuring universal, affordable broadband service

for rural residents. I have heard loud and clear how critical this is to rural economic development and quality of life, and will work tirelessly to get it done.

2. Supporting the sustainable resource-based economy is increasingly vital to the North Coast economy and environment. Including: sustainable timber harvesting and agriculture, aquaculture, commercial and recreational fishing, biofuel and biomass energy development, and the watershed restoration.

3. Support for rural healthcare and education. An important part of my job representing the North Coast will be ensuring adequate federal support for the unique healthcare and education needs of rural communities.

4. Forging a coherent marijuana policy. My preference is to decriminalize, regulate, and tax marijuana similar to the way we regulate alcohol. But that is unlikely to happen soon, so until it does we must focus on reconciling the production and consumption of medical marijuana under California law with federal law enforcement policies, so that well-regulated, honest medical marijuana activities are not subjected to harassment and prosecution.

Lawson: The best way to improve the quality of life in rural communities like many in the Second District is to bring back the high-wage, middle-class jobs that will send our children to college and provide a secure retirement. In order to do this, we must revitalize our manufacturing economy, focus on sustainable agriculture, and local food-sources. I’ve proposed a detailed plan that will bring back manufacturing jobs, restore our middle class, and help move us towards a sustainable future. This will be my number one priority in Congress.

Lewallen: California’s Northcoast is home to many groups, individuals, and tribal communities, all working to improve our quality of life. I am part of the food sovereignty movement, the Ocean Protection Coalition, Veterans for Peace, the Mendocino Environmental Center, and many other local groups.

I defend our local rights and freedoms to be in harmony with each other and the environment. I work to change unfair USDA regulations which take away our rights to produce and sell food locally on small farms and dairies. We need to change National Marine Fisheries Service policies which are eliminating small, shore-based, harmonious fishermen.

Renee: I would support the programs that as an elected representative, I have seen improve the quality of life in rural Petaluma. Focusing growth inward, through smart, transit and pedestrian-oriented infill policies that create a vibrant yet quaint downtown, while providing protection to rural farmland and ecological habitats maintains the ability to have clean air and water with access to locally-grown, organic food.

Solomon: My top priorities for rural areas include job-creating programs, universal access to high-quality health care, viable public transportation, education and low-cost broadband – while protecting the environment and sustaining fisheries and the forests. (I’m proud that I’ve been endorsed by Forests Forever in this race.) As a longtime rural resident who has lived close to Tomales Bay for nearly 15 years, I’m keenly aware of the imperative of revitalizing rural economic strength. We need access to health care, transportation, education and state-of-the-art Internet service—and those essentials must be affordable. We need a Green New Deal.

The Candidates

Susan Adams, Nurse/County SupervisorDemocratic Party PO Box 4429 San Rafael, CA 94913 (707) 376-8683www.susanadamsforcongress.com [email protected]

Andy Caffrey, Green Conversion ConsultantDemocratic PartyP.O. Box 324Redway, CA 95560(707) [email protected]

Brooke Clarke,* Small Business OwnerNo Party Preference 3425 Deerwood Drive Ukiah, CA 95482 (707) 468-8783www.end2partygovernment.com/[email protected]

William Courtney, Physician/Inventor/ResearcherDemocratic Party3390 Redwood DriveRedway, CA 95560 (707) 961-1420www.courtneyforcongress.org [email protected]

Larry Fritzlan,* Psychotherapist/Interventionist/BusinesspersonDemocratic PartyLarry Fritzlan for U.S. CongressP. O. Box 910Mill Valley, CA 94942 www.larryfritzlanforcongress.comlarry@larryfritzlanforcongress.com

Mike Halliwell,* College ProfessorRepublican Party271 E. Cotati Avenue Cotati, CA 94931 Telephone: (707) 792-2250 [email protected]

Jared Huffman, Environmental Attorney/AssemblymemberDemocratic PartyP.O. Box 151563San Rafael, CA 94915(415) 459-2012www.jaredhuffman.com

Stacey Lawson, Educator/Small BusinesswomanDemocratic Party 369-B Third Street #663San Rafael, CA 94901(510) [email protected]

John Lewallen, Business OwnerNo Party PreferenceP.O. Box 455, Philo, CA 95466(707) 895-2996www.johnlewallenforcongress.org [email protected]

Tiffany Renee, Petaluma Vice-MayorDemocratic PartyP.O. Box 750536Petaluma, CA 94975(707) 285-7193www.tiffanyreneeforcongress.cominfo@tiffanyreneeforcongress.com

Dan Roberts,* Securities Broker DealerRepublican Party Dan RobertsPO Box 1738Mill Valley, CA 94942(415) 956-2000www.danrobertsforcongress.comdan@danrobertsforcongress.com

Norman Solomon, Educator/AuthorDemocratic PartyP.O. Box 150775San Rafael, CA 94915-0775(707) [email protected]

* Clarke, Fritzlan and Halliwell were not declared candidates at the time this questionnaire was distributed. Roberts was sent the questionnaire, but did not respond to our inquiry.

California’s 2nd Congressional District

Documents

NEC's 2nd District Candidate Questionnaire 2012