SUBJECT: Restore Climate and Equity Language to Work Plan
TO: SMBRC Chair Martha Tremblay – MTremblay@lacsd.org
CC:
Jacob Burman, CD 11 staff – jacob.burman@lacity.org,
Karen Mogus, State Water Board – karen.mogus@waterboards.ca.gov,
Annelisa Moe, Heal the Bay – amoe@healthebay.org,
Michael Quill, Los Angeles Waterkeeper – mquill@lawaterkeeper.org,
Tracy Lovric, Resource Conservation District of Santa Monica Mountains – tlovric@rcdsmm.org
Erica Yelensky, EPA – yelensky.erica@epa.gov,
Eric Gillman, Commission legal counsel – eric.gillman@waterboards.ca.gov,
Tom Ford, NEP Director and Bay Foundation CEO – tford@santamonicabay.org,
Luke Ginger, Commission Administrative Director – luke.ginger@waterboards.ca.gov,
Caitlin Gray, Commission Environmental Scientist – caitlin.gray@waterboards.ca.gov
Aaron Ordower, Staff of County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath – AOrdower@bos.lacounty.gov
Dear Chair Tremblay,
Thank you for your efforts to ensure that the fiscal year 2026 work plan of the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission (Commission) will accurately reflect the goals and values of the Commission. Trying to uphold core environmental and equity commitments while attempting to avoid “trigger words” like “climate change” and “disadvantaged communities” is an approach fraught with risk. Once the precedent is set that the federal administration can dictate the language that local decision-makers can use to discuss scientific policy issues, there will likely be an endless stream of new executive orders, threats of non-payment and other forms of intimidation.
I appreciated your acknowledgement at the March 20th meeting of the Commission’s Executive Committee that one option for consideration would be to leave the existing language intact. I am writing to urge you to give each member of the Commission’s full Governing Board the opportunity to vote separately on the specific issue of whether to retain the existing language or to replace that language with new language. The Commission’s own leadership admitted that removing the term “climate change” made certain action items less coherent. Similarly, stripping references to “disadvantaged communities” erases the very populations who are most impacted by environmental degradation. These changes appear to stem more from a fear of political backlash than any credible legal requirement. Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA cannot unilaterally reject local work plans for using phrases previously approved by the Commission and by EPA during a multi-year public process.
I understand the pressure to protect vital funding, but I also believe we cannot build a resilient, just future by self-censoring in the face of unfounded threats. The Commission has a responsibility not just to preserve ecosystems, but to speak the truth about what threatens them—and who is most vulnerable when we fail to act boldly. The least the Commission can do at this pivotal moment is to allow a transparent vote by the full Governing Board on whether to restore this critical language, so that each member has a say in deciding whether we stand for science and equity, or whether we allow fear to dictate our commitments. That kind of open process would send a powerful signal—to the community, to the EPA, and to future generations—that we will not quietly abandon our values.
Thank you for your service and for considering this request. I hope you will take action to ensure the governing board has a real choice in how we move forward.
Sincerely,