Sable Offshore, a convenient creation of ExxonMobil, seeks to reopen the same failed oil pipeline that caused the catastrophic spill of May 2015. Almost 150,000 gallons of toxic and cancer-causing crude flooded our water and beaches, contaminating one of the most biologically diverse areas of the West Coast and leaving taxpayers with the economic consequences.

The U.S. remains, by far, the world’s biggest oil producer. And job growth in clean energy fields continues to far outpace employment in fossil fuel industries.

Now ExxonMobil’s proxy wants to start up the same old corroded pipeline, after what they say will be “repairs.” Against all common sense and with a dangerous level of arrogance they are asking for a special waiver to allow them to avoid employing a protection system that prevents corrosion. This is the definition of irresponsibility.

The Board of Supervisors, Gov. Newsom and the State Fire Marshal can and must stop this corruption of our system of regulatory control of public health and safety hazards.

And, we are not powerless to tilt the balance. Sit-ins, boycotts, protest marches, and civil disobedience can help tilt the balance and save the county from the next inevitable, toxic catastrophe.

Seth Steiner
Los Alamos

The post LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Avoiding the next catastrophic oil spill appeared first on Santa Ynez Valley Star.

As California grapples with crime, much of the media’s attention has focused on high-profile smash-and-grab incidents in places such as San Francisco and Los Angeles. While these stories may dominate the headlines, an equally concerning trend is unfolding in the state’s agricultural and rural communities.

Unfortunately, farmers and ranchers are increasingly finding themselves in the crosshairs of criminals. With valuable equipment and commodities on site, agricultural businesses are attractive targets for theft, which often has costly consequences for farmers and ranchers —something I am all too familiar with as district attorney in Fresno County.

Rural areas have always presented unique challenges for law enforcement. The vast expanses and remote locations that characterize California’s agricultural heartland make it difficult for law enforcement to maintain a strong presence. A local sheriff described the challenge in a recent warning: “Crime is not confined to the cities. It is a growing problem in rural areas.”

One recent example underscores just how costly the problem is: Thieves made off with 200 beehives near Fresno valued at approximately $40,000 and had stolen hives worth about $150,000 from other businesses in the area. Unfortunately, these thefts are not isolated events but a broader trend. The lack of accountability in the law is encouraging this behavior among the criminal element.

Cargo theft is another major challenge. California is ranked as the top state for losses, and cargo theft costs nationwide are estimated at $15 billion to $30 billion annually. For California’s agricultural sector, these thefts can be devastating. One San Joaquin Valley pistachio company lost $170,000 in products in an incident, while another saw 40 loads of nuts stolen valued at several million dollars.

In response to this growing threat, law enforcement agencies across California ramped up efforts with dedicated agricultural crime prevention programs. Public-private partnerships such as the California Rural Crime Prevention Task Force was created to coordinate across communities and provide training. While these efforts are vital, they are not enough on their own.

To truly address rural crime, changes in state law are needed that a popular ballot measure, Proposition 36, aims to deliver.

The initiative is set for a statewide vote this November and offers commonsense reforms designed to crack down on theft and strengthen the tools available to law enforcement. Proposition 36 has garnered bipartisan support from mayors, sheriffs and district attorneys hailing from large and small agricultural counties across the state. It includes provisions that will be beneficial to farmers and ranchers who are the victims of rural crime.

One of the most significant aspects of the initiative is its focus on increasing accountability for high-value thefts. California does not permit additional jail time for thieves who steal more than $50,000 worth of property. With agricultural thefts sometimes extending into the millions, this is a glaring hole in current law. Proposition 36 seeks to change that by allowing judges to impose additional penalties depending on the value of the stolen property — ranging from $50,000 to more than $3 million. This new provision is crucial to deter criminals who target high-value agricultural equipment and commodities.

The ballot measure also addresses the issue of coordinated thefts, a tactic often employed by organized crime groups. It would allow judges to add one, two, or three years to the sentence of any offender who steals property while acting in concert with at least two other individuals. This provision is particularly relevant for agricultural thefts in which multiple perpetrators often work together to steal large quantities of goods or equipment.

Beyond protecting the agriculture industry directly, Proposition 36 offers broader benefits that will help retailers and other businesses that purchase products from farmers and ranchers.

California has a notorious loophole that allows repeat offenders to nearly avoid any consequences by stealing less than $950. Proposition 36 fixes this problem by permitting the cumulative value of stolen property from multiple thefts to be combined together, allowing for felony charges for the career thieves who exploit this legal gap.

The measure will also allow prosecutors the authority to file felony charges against repeat offenders with two prior misdemeanor theft convictions. It includes provisions to include stiffer penalties for fentanyl sales and trafficking — issues that, unfortunately, have not spared rural areas.

Proposition 36 will be 2024’s most important California ballot measure.

It is the most relevant piece of legislation we have seen in more than a decade that would start to swing the pendulum of overly excessive criminal justice reform back to the center and demand responsibility and accountability in the law. It would offer real solutions for reducing rural crime and protecting California’s farmers and ranchers. Please join me in voting yes on Proposition 36.

Lisa A. Smittcamp has served as Fresno County district attorney since first being elected in 2014. She may be contacted at lsmittcamp@fresnocountyca.gov. This commentary is courtesy of agalert.com.

Feature image: Valuable farm equipment is a target for criminals. On Sept. 1, authorities said deputies and agricultural detectives in San Joaquin County recovered this stolen tractor and returned it to the owner. Photo Courtesy of California Rural Crime Prevention Task Force.

The post COMMENTARY: To tackle rural crime, we should pass Proposition 36 appeared first on Santa Ynez Valley Star.

By Michelle de Werd

The Los Olivos community’s involvement in deciding whether the whole town needs a sewer system is essential.

In 2018, the Los Olivos Community Services District was formed, and five board members were sworn in to address the perceived need to replace aging septic systems on the 390 parcels within the district’s boundaries.

Six years later, many neighbors share concerns over escalating assessment fees and ever-increasing expenditures for professional services, projects, planning, and studies already totaling approximately $1 million in taxpayer money. 

There are also concerns that a sewer system will lay the groundwork for unchecked sprawl that will overwhelm our bucolic town. 

At the same time, the town’s tiny commercial core clearly needs more restrooms, so prioritizing a plan that will address the aging systems struggling to serve the downtown businesses has obvious advantages. 

“The lots in the downtown core, on average, generate more wastewater effluent,” according to the Santa Barbara County Environmental Health Services’ Los Olivos Wastewater Management Plan from 2010. 

The district’s last proposal, unveiled in early 2022, included construction of a sewage treatment plant. 

The proposed site for the sewage plant, located outside the district and complete with effluent ponds and 24-hour outdoor lighting, raised a host of concerns.

Costs for engineering, construction, environmental review, operation and maintenance, and financing for such a large project can conservatively be estimated at well over $100,000 per parcel owner. 

While owners would have to pay that cost in the form of increased assessment fees, every parcel owner would also be required to pay upfront and out-of-pocket for their lateral connection to the old-fashioned sewer system. 

After repeated neighbor complaints and concerns that such a large and expensive system did not seem warranted, the elected board finally listened, stepped up, and agreed to perform groundwater testing six months ago.

Even before the groundwater monitoring data started to come in, community members were divided about the size of the problem and the size of the solution. Ultimately, the debates come down to “Who should pay?”

Unfortunately, the controversies have sometimes devolved into mistrust, with threatening messages mailed anonymously, neighbors not talking to one another, personal attacks on social media, and a board that views with suspicion offers of donations for a sound system intended to help elderly neighbors hear what is being said during public meetings. 

Is there hope for a unified path forward, or is Los Olivos on track to become the next Los Osos? The answer might lie in the results of the groundwater testing.

Fifty years ago, the tiny, historic town of Los Olivos was designated a “Special Problems Area” based on 1974 groundwater monitoring data showing the potential for increasing nitrate levels. 

It seems that wells within Los Olivos were not showing levels exceeding the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrates, but the concern was that, because Los Olivos was on septic, it was anticipated that nitrates levels would rise to dangerous levels.

It is important to acknowledge that the presence of high levels of nitrates in groundwater is not just a concern: it is a significant threat to our health and the health of our environment.

The MCL for nitrates in groundwater is 10 mg/l.

Just last month, the results from the CSD’s five new groundwater monitoring wells were presented to the public. 

Three of the wells show levels well below the MCL. The other two wells (near the downtown core) reflect nitrates at 11 mg/l: one point above the MCL.

According to the EPA, the MCL for a contaminant is based on the MCLG (maximum contaminant level goal), which is “the maximum level of a contaminant in drinking water at which no known or anticipated adverse effect on the health of persons would occur, allowing an adequate margin of safety.” 

In other words, there are no known or anticipated adverse health effects — none — when nitrates measure at or below 10.

Thus, although this Special Problems Area has two wells with nitrate readings of single point over the MCL, those readings are far better than had been anticipated, and it seems reasonable that the 11 mg/l readings, while suboptimal, are still near or within the “margin of safety.”

Questions arise with the first of the two wells showing nitrates at 11 mg/l at the very northeastern corner of the district, and the second well with an 11 mg/l located immediately south of that first well and the commercial core.  

In fact, the test results have already led many to question whether the groundwater is already contaminated with slightly elevated nitrate levels when it enters Los Olivos from the north, particularly because the nitrate level is substantially lower (4.5 mg/l) when the groundwater is flowing out at the southern end of this tiny district.

The scientific consensus is clear: aging septic systems generally are not the sole or even the primary, source of nitrates in groundwater. 

Nitrates enter groundwater from various sources, including septic systems, animal feed lots, agricultural fertilizers, manure, industrial wastewaters, and landfills.

Some community members are beginning to consider whether the path forward might include revisiting whether district residents — those who have already paid several years of CSD assessment fees in support of this undertaking — should now be able to look to other sources to help remediate contamination that may not even generated by residents of the township. 

In other words, if sources north of the district are causing the nitrate levels in two of the town’s monitoring wells to exceed the MCL, that could alleviate a lot of the pressure on the owners of the 390 parcels inside the district’s boundaries to solve the problem with a large sewer system and to pay for it all on their own.

The next general meeting of the LOCSD is scheduled for 6 p.m. on May 15 at the Los Olivos Grange Hall, 2374 Alamo Pintado Ave. Please attend and bring your questions and concerns. 

The agenda packet for the meeting can be found at www.losolivoscsd.com/regular-board-meetings. The agenda also contains a link to view the meeting by Zoom.

Michelle de Werd is a resident of Los Olivos

The post COMMENTARY: Drilling in on who should pay for the Los Olivos Sewer Project: The six-year saga continues appeared first on Santa Ynez Valley Star.

I cannot speak highly enough in praise of Supervisor Joan Hartmann and her commitment to the residents of Santa Barbara County’s 3rd District.

We live in an amazing place, but it comes with challenges. Rural residents are facing increasing threats from illegal activity, especially rooster-keeping operations where hundreds of birds are kept close together. The noise is inescapable at all hours. The traffic is an increasing problem on our narrow roads. And the associated criminal activity is a threat to law abiding families. (There is a strong correlation between these operations and cockfighting — why else would you have hundreds of roosters living close together, when they aren’t raised for food and they aren’t needed for egg laying hens?)

Some of us approached Supervisors Hartmann and 4th District Supervisor Bob Nelson for help. Hartmann’s response was amazing. When it turned out that the law wasn’t there to address the problem, she worked with staff to create a new law that will limit the size of non-commercial rooster operations. She made sure to exempt commercial poultry farms as well as 4-H and FFA project participants. 

While Nelson sided with the rooster keepers — even when they shouted threats at the Board of Supervisors for reining in their activities — Hartmann held firm and shepherded through an ordinance that will protect legitimate poultry farms as well as rural residents. 

We need leaders who will put in the time to help their constituents, and do what is necessary to protect law abiding business people and community members.

Susan Ashbrook

Lompoc

EDITOR’S NOTE: Susan Ashbrook is the author of this letter. The wrong name was attributed to this letter in the Santa Ynez Valley Star’s Jan. 16 print edition.

The post LETTER TO THE EDITOR appeared first on Santa Ynez Valley Star.