Though the counties of San Mateo and Santa Clara have both banned the use of plastic bags in unincorporated areas, there are still some cities in the South Bay and Peninsula that have not done so at the city level.
This week, the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) issued a statement urging city governments that have not already done so to approve such bans.
BASMAA representatives say, plastic bags lead to water pollution, increased litter, and stormwater drain issues.
"In a baseline survey of Bay Area litter conducted by BASMAA in 2012, single-use plastic grocery bags accounted for 8 percent of litter in the region," the statement indicated.
Plastic bags also present unique cleanup problems, the statement suggested.
"With exposure to sunlight and water, they break into smaller toxic pieces that entwine in vegetation, contaminate soil and water, and may be consumed by animals and birds," BASMAA said. "Removing these shreds of thin plastic is challenging and time-consuming. That’s why reducing use of single-use plastic grocery bags as a litter source can help."
The statement said, the City of San Jose has already seen a reduction in plastic bag litter from 12 percent of all litter in 2010, to four percent of all litter in 2012.
The statement further said, litter is a major cause of water pollution, as it travels down storm drains and flows directly to local creeks, the Bay and the ocean.
"It degrades water quality and adversely affects fish, wildlife and aquatic habitats," the statement said.
BASMAA indicated, that fact is why a State Stormwater Permit issued to municipalities in five Bay Area counties in 2009 - Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Solano - required them to take actions to "virtually eliminate trash in stormwater run-off" by 2022.
"By 2014, a 40-percent reduction in trash must be met," BASMAA explained. "It is expected that these requirements will also be part of future stormwater permits issued to other Bay Area counties."
Some expect plastic bag bans to go state-wide, and soon - last month, state Assemblyman Marc Levine (San Rafael) introduced AB 158, a bill that calls for the ban of single-use plastic bags at the state level by 2015. The bill focuses on large retailers with 10,000 or more square feet and grocery stores with annual sales of $2 million or more.
While some applaud the push toward a world with no plastic bags, others lament it, citing reasons such as the cost of reusable shopping bags, the dangers of food contamination from germs and bacteria that get trapped in reusable bags, and having to remember to carry reusable bags with them wherever they go and bring them into stores with them when they shop.
"We realize it takes time for people to make these kinds of behavior changes," said BASMAA Executive Director Geoff Brosseau. "The reusable bag movement has been a process of first encouraging people to bring their own bags, then having some stores offer incentives for doing it, and now having ordinances in place."
Brosseau likened the move to reusable bags to the moves toward the mandated use of seatbelts in cars, and ordinances prohibiting smoking in public places.
"Both changes once seemed unthinkable, and are now part of daily life," he said.
BASMAA offered the following tips for acclimating to a life without plastic bags:
- For big shopping trips, keep reusable bags on the front passenger seat of your car so you remember to bring them into the store.
- Always keep a small reusable bag in your purse or backpack to be ready for last-minute errands.
- If you do opt to buy a paper bag when out, make sure to recycle it later.
For more tips on preventing stormwater pollution, visit BayWise.org
What do you think of local bans on plastic bags? Do you agree with BASMAA's reasons why plastic bags should disappear for good? Tell us your thoughts in the comments below.
You say that "San Francisco estimated that it cost the city $8.4 million a year to deal with plastic bag litter before it's bag ordinance went into effect." Please post a link to the San Francisco study. Let's see the calculation. I'm sure that everyone following these comments would love to read it. We are waiting Ian.
The London Times wrote in an editorial: "There is a danger that the green herd, in pursuit of a good cause, stumbles into misguided campaigns…. Many of those who have demonized plastic bags have enlisted scientific study to their cause. By exaggerating a grain of truth into a larger falsehood, they spread misinformation and abuse the trust of their unwitting audiences." David Laist, a senior policy analyst with the federal Marine Mammal Commission, has stated: "In their eagerness to make their case [against plastic bags], some of the environmental groups make up claims that are not really supportable."
It appears as though Ian has fuly adapted the "end justifies the means" philosophy of his mentors at the Center for Biological Diversity, Earth First! and WEI. Once you fully understand the prism through which Ian and his teachers view environmental issues, you will know how to filter the vast majority of their self-serving, baseless statistical assertions.
There is a trend throughout the park systems (local, state and federal) to discourage people from dumping their trash in the parks. In order to discourage this dumping many of the park managers (e.g., the GGNRA and SFRPD) are systematically removing garbage cans from their respective parks. The conventional thinking (at least amongst high paid government employees) is that if the parks don't have garbage cans for people to dump their stuff into, they will just take it home and dispose of it in their own garbage. It doesn't take a genius to imagine what the unintended consequences of this brilliant piece of logic might be.
Here is one of many articles that references the 2004 SF Environment Department study that concluded their cost of dealing with disposable bags was $8.5 million annually: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-22-sf-grocerybags_x.htm The original study may or may not be online. And Bag Lady, you are mischaracterizing my position on Sharp Park, since 2008 I have been looking for a solution that protects the species while keeping an 18 hole course, which puts me at odds with CBD and WEI.
If the SF Dept of the Environment did a study, then it must online. Find it for me please, Ian. Show me how the figures are calculated. Or try to obtain it from the SF Dept of the Environment. Good luck with that. (Don't hold your breath.)
I walked along Coyote Creek starting from the Coyote Hellyer County Park and heading south. This is a notorious litter “hotspot.” I searched for plastic bags and found three. I removed two. I saw a third caught in a tree on the other side of the creek which could easily be removed. I saw no plastic bags in the water. While there may be litter hotspots elsewhere along the creek, it is hard to believe based on this walk next to a park where picnickers bring many plastic bags that the plastic bag litter issue is not grossly exaggerated.
smart bay area environmentalists. let's reduce our waste by 40% by going after the 8% that is estimated to be plastic bags. careful kids, the nanny state will outlaw candy, chips, and soda next . . .
Editor: I finally got to ask the question, face to face, about WEI/CBD's new report being accepted as "the primary scientific reference on Sharp Park." This widely circulated, and as yet unsubstantiated, claim appeared most recently in the invitation to last Thursday's Wild Equity Institute presentation at the Hilton library that was announced in last week's Pacifica Tribune and posted in John Maybury's Pacifica Riptide blog, and was signed by John Bowie. I spoke during the brief question and answer period following the two-hour tightly choreographed dog and pony show. The three presenters of the evening's program quickly backed away from the "primary scientific reference" claim, and I asked if John Bowie, whom I had never met, was in the room . . .
Paul Slavin Fairway Park
By Ian Butler http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_13954873
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UOZZYCQBY8
Please refrain from defamatory, abusive, obscene, profane or offensive comments or from posting content that is hatred of any kind against any group or individual. We do our best to keep tabs on what is posted on the site, however Patch is under no obligation to screen or monitor Content, but may review Content from time to time at its sole discretion to determine compliance with the Patch Terms of Use. Patch will make all determinations as to what Content is appropriate at its sole discretion. We may include, edit or remove any Content at any time without notice. Thank you!
The waterfall picture in that area looks like it was taken after Ian, together with his friends and eventually the city, worked on cleaning it up. When we first started working on it, it was ghastly, and yes, there were a lot of plastic bags in there.