As both Presidents Clinton and Obama have stated, “We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of
laws.”
 
At the same time, we must always be willing to acknowledge difficult truths. While the vast majority of those who have entered this country illegally did so in search of a better life and have remained otherwise law- abiding, there have also been many serious crimes committed by unlawful entrants. Americans across our nation worry about criminal activity by members of violent gangs, organized theft groups, smugglers, and dealers of illicit and often lethal drugs (which killed almost 350 people in our county in just the last three years), and other serious and violent crime committed by undocumented criminals. These have included some
notorious homicides here in Santa Barbara County, including the brutal murder of Marilyn Pharis, a 64-year-old Air Force veteran who was sexually assaulted, strangled, and fatally beaten with a hammer by a repeat undocumented offender who broke into her home in Santa Maria in 2015. The following year, during a sting called Operation Matador in Santa Maria, 13 of the 16 suspects arrested for the MS-13 gang-related murders of 10 victims — and the attempted murder of 14 others — were identified by ICE as undocumented.

These heartbreaking tragedies underscore the need for immigration law and enforcement reforms that protect public safety while still upholding our collective values. Over the past two years, while president of the MCSA, I engaged directly and candidly with members of both the Biden and Trump administrations, as well as with members of Congress and other law enforcement leaders, on the issues of border security, immigration enforcement, their impact on local jurisdictions, and the urgent need for reform. As MCSA president, I was present at the White House when the bipartisan-supported Laken Riley Act was signed into law in January 2025. This law was named after a 24-year-old nursing student who was assaulted with intent to commit rape and beaten to death by an undocumented, repeat offender in Georgia in 2024. The act requires the Department of Homeland Security to detain undocumented criminals who are arrested for certain crimes like burglary, assault on a peace officer, and some thefts, several of which her killer had previously committed. Although I recently passed the gavel to a new MCSA president, I’ll continue my efforts as a member of its executive board, advocating for secure borders and fair, effective, and humane enforcement practices that will keep our nation and its communities safe.
 
It’s important to remember that Americans don’t think alike on undocumented immigration. A Jan. 20, Harvard CAPS (Center of American Political Studies)/Harris Poll of 2,000 likely voters, divided almost equally between Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, showed that the vast majority favored the deportation of undocumented immigrants who have committed violent crime (82%), any crime (73%), and a majority of them (52%) still supported the deportation of all immigrants who are here without legal status. With our nation split in half on the issue of immigration enforcement, there is plenty of contention on both sides. Even though we are polarized, we are all part of the same democratic republic. Again, listening to one another is important. Each side has valid points to make, and both sides matter. Although our country is deeply divided on immigration, sooner or later we must find a solution to this problem. This complex and deeply emotional issue will only be resolved through meaningful changes to existing immigration law, with related changes in enforcement policy, training and practices. I believe there are some areas where consensus or compromise is possible. That change should include thoughtful reform that properly addresses border security and public safety, while at the same time ensuring fairness, proportionality, and humanity in enforcement and detention operations. That reform should also allow federal authorities appropriate access to our nation’s jails, so they can safely take undocumented criminal offenders into custody there, instead of doing so unsafely and alarmingly in our neighborhoods.

In the meantime, everyone should adhere to the law, and it should be enforced fairly, courteously, and professionally. We can support the law, or we can work to change it, while still having empathy and compassion for others. We must support the right to peaceful protest and civil discourse, whether we agree or disagree with what’s being said. Respect and decency must remain the standard.
 
Abraham Lincoln once warned that “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” While the challenges before us are complex and difficult, we owe it to one another to engage on issues respectfully, seek common ground, and urge our congressional leaders to work together in good faith, compromise, and craft and pass comprehensive bipartisan immigration reform. That is the key to meaningful change in the immigration quandary.

The post On immigration, two viewpoints: Can both be valid? appeared first on Santa Ynez Valley Star.

What has been the Democrats’ response to this so far? They’ve certainly been in a rush to mock the Republican cowardice for refusing to meet face-to-face with their own constituents and listen to what they have to say. A little irony here as it’s been quite a while since Democrats have actually listened to and understood what it is Democrats expect from their elected officials. But I digress. Well, here’s a thought for elected Democrats since they’ve had little of that lately: Instead of mocking Republicans for not holding town hall meetings, why don’t elected Democrats fill the gaping hole left by elected Republicans’ disengagement? First, elected Republicans don’t care at all if Democrats mock them. In fact, they feed off it. And second, they’ve made it clear they no longer care what their own constituents have to say. But here’s the thing: Republican constituents still want to be heard voicing their disapproval of this administration eliminating federal programs created to help Americans, and I believe they want to be heard by anyone at this point.

This is where an opportunity for Democrats has been created. Elected Democrats everywhere should give both Democrats and Republicans the venues to engage face-to-face with their government representatives since elected Republicans apparently are not. Elected Democrats should be holding town halls all over the country, filling the gap by encouraging both Democrats and Republicans to attend and speak up. Answer their questions and possibly even alleviate some of their concerns. No matter the party affiliation, all Americans are worried at this point — about rising prices, inflation, tariffs, federal programs, downward stock market trends, undermining Social Security and Medicare, alignment with Russia and other dictators, possible recession, quality of life in America, and the Republicans now casually throwing about the words “World War III” like it’s nothing more than a video game.

So I urge elected Democrats everywhere to take this opportunity to engage with both Democrats and Republicans because they ALL want to hear from and engage IN-PERSON with Congress right now. Elected Republicans are taking that opportunity away from their constituents so please, Democrats, step into the breach and reach out instead of mocking. Well, OK. You can still mock, but only because elected Republicans deserve it for shutting off their own constituents. But who knows? Reaching out and listening just might make a difference to Democrats winning back some much-needed seats in Congress in the mid-terms and maybe winning back the White House in 2028.

Sincerely,

M. Slivinske

Arroyo Grande

The post LETTER TO THE EDITOR: A big opportunity for elected Democrats, but will they seize it? appeared first on Santa Ynez Valley Star.

Dear Editors and all Citizens:

Solvang, like other Santa Ynez Valley towns, is small and built on strong community values — a place where people know their neighbors, where scenic views define the landscape, and where residents assume that, through their elected representatives, they have a voice in decisions affecting their future. But action by city staff and inaction by City Council regarding the Wildwood development application has shaken that sense of community to its core.

Wildwood is a proposed 100-unit high density apartment complex covering a steep hill and scenic viewscape at Alamo Pintado and Old Mission Drive.

On Jan. 13, residents gathered at the City Council meeting, demanding that council follow the law and act to stop the Planning Department from pushing through a defective Wildwood application. Instead of action, residents were metwith silence.

City Council first failed to follow the law in 2023 when it was eight months late submitting to the state an approved General Plan Housing Element. The proposed Wildwood project is a blatant attempt to take advantage of that failure.

Wildwood will irrevocably damage Solvang’s small-town character. It will add over 200 vehicles coming and going through an already congested main gateway into Solvang, and will create serious hazards for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. A requested waiver allowing insufficient on-site parking will result in increased illegal parking as 250 new residents and their visitors fight for spaces. Taxpayers will have to pay for new infrastructure to deal with blocked intersections, increased erosion runoff, and flooding.

The developer’s Builder’s Remedy application attempts to bypass Solvang’s General Plan and zoning laws and shorten normal public review procedures. Wildwood, promoted as addressing the affordable housing crisis, falls far short, the developer proposes only 13 affordable units — far below the 36-unit goal proposed in Solvang’s General Plan, a goal we strongly support. Eighty-seven higher income units are not needed, will damage Solvang’s vital tourism business, burden its infrastructure, consume precious resources, and serve only to increase developer profits.

By following the law now, Solvang could easily recover from its past failures. From the beginning, the Wildwood application has failed to meet the clear and basic State Code requirements, and therefore is void. However, instead of following the law and declaring it void, staff has overlooked the application’s deficiencies, and pushed it along, therebyprioritizing developer interests over those of the community. The City Council has a duty to oversee and correct staff’s failure to follow the law.  Instead, council does nothing.

Residents have stated many times that council cannot continue to give “our hands are bound by state law” as an excuse for inaction, when council’s own staff continues to selectively follow that very law in favor of the developer — first by applying the State Code to invite the developer to file a Builder’s Remedy pre-application, then ignoring the code when it clearly provided rules, mandates, and multiple remedies to reject the pre-application for initially failing to provide code-required information and later for failing to provide requested documentation before code-prescribed deadlines. There is no excuse for council’s failure to insist that staff consistently follow the law. This is not how good government functions.

This failure cannot go unchallenged. Without action from  council, residents are left with no choice but to consider legal action. Residents have asked council to either hear and act on their appeal of staff actions or act itself to direct staff to follow the law, stop processing the pre-application, and direct that a new, non-Builder’s Remedy application be submitted. But council still does nothing. 

This is about more than one project. It is about the future of Solvang and the Valley, and whether or not our local governments will serve the people who live in this unique place or serve the developers who seek to profit from that uniqueness and irrevocably damage it in the process.

All residents are urged to write, call, or email Solvang City Council members and demand that they follow the law and stop processing the current Wildwood application. Call (805) 688-5575, ext 204, or email council@cityofsolvang.com

Sincerely,

Mark Oliver; Susanne Powell; Chantal Cloutier; Craig Kent; Katie Kusske; Brian Carrillo; Stephen Martin; Kathleen Day; Dan Martin; Janet C. Forster; Paul Matthies; Suzi Matthies; Barbara Allen; Susan Shehab; Felicia Carroll; Al Cortese; Peggie Holley; Bill Powell; Dr. Cythia Matthews; Diana Story; Michelle Neels; Sandra Mills; Heidi Iwasko; Linda Martin; Ginny Erlich;    Elaine Morris; Kelley Davis; Bob Snyder; Ted Allen; John Alexander Moisan; Joseph Kalina; Jacqueline Kalina; Mark Frank; Kent Lockart; Lansing Duncan; Dennis Beebe; Phyllis Martinez; Karen Waite; Patricia Snyder; JoAnn Taylor; Jeff Nelson; Linda C. Smith

Residents of Solvang and the Santa Ynez Valley

The post Letter to the Editor: Solvang must follow the law appeared first on Santa Ynez Valley Star.

In our ‘Pyrocene’ era

We live in the “Pyrocene” era … the age of fire. Supercharged Santa Ana winds, and record high temperatures and drought have fueled the current wildfire crisis. There is death in Los Angeles County, tens of thousands have been displaced, and countless homes are reduced to ashes.

In the far north of our state, massive fires have torn through rainforests where climate change burned off the region’sprotective layer of fog and mist.

As with increasing hurricane devastation in Florida, and massive flooding in many other states, insurance losses mount. Our insurance premiums continue to rise … if coverage is even available.

We are in the midst of natural disasters caused by climate change. The burning of fossil fuels is the main culprit. Profits for ExxonMobil officers and shareholders continue to grow, while we pay the price. 

ExxonMobil seeks to restart oil production off Santa Barbara and, via its creation called Sable Oil, ship it in the same pipeline that caused a catastrophic spill 10 years ago. 

The U.S. is already the world’s biggest producer of oil and gas. No new production is needed. Unless we actively favor a clean energy economy over the short-sighted mercantile interests of Big Oil, wildly destructive weather events will only escalate in frequency and ferocity.

Our County Planning & Development folks must do more thorough, creditable, and rigorous reviews of proposals pushed by Big Oil. And if County Supervisors Bob Nelson and Steve Lavagnino would truly work in the best interest of constituents, we could all navigate climate change with less calamitous damage and with less onerous insurance premiums for us all.

Seth Steiner

Los Alamos

The post Letter to the Editor: In our ‘Pyrocene’ era appeared first on Santa Ynez Valley Star.

Dear Neighbors,

I write to thank the Santa Ynez voters who voted for Measure L. Unfortunately, we did not reach the 55 percent threshold to pass the measure. We fell about 100 votes short. This leaves the district, our teachers, Bobcats, and Dragons in a tough spot. 

This was a measure that would have enabled critical safety and modernization facility enhancements for College Elementary School, Santa Ynez Elementary School, and the Santa Ynez Valley Charter School.

Although we have state-recognized high academic achieving students — and also for kindness — and award-winning teachers, our buildings are near the end of their lifespan.

The only way we can keep our buildings safe and modern is with support from the community. This is a quirk of the state funding model. Your property taxes empower amazing learning opportunities and best-in-class educators for our local students. But student dollars do not translate to facilities. 

Some buildings that our TK and kindergarten students currently learn in have not been renovated not just since I graduated from Santa Ynez Elementary in 1998 but since they were built decades before. 

Our Valley is as strong as our public education. I thank you for your Yes votes on Measure L. If it was not on your radar when you cast your ballot last month, I welcome the opportunity to speak with you about how critical a school facilities bond is to the whole Santa Ynez Valley. 

Dr. Peter Wright

Board President

College School District

The post LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Measure L failure leaves local schools in tough spot appeared first on Santa Ynez Valley Star.

Dear Editor,

The October 2023 Hamas attack on Israeli and other citizens was horrific. Over 1,200 innocent people were beaten, raped, and killed. The Israeli response was to bomb and invade Gaza and Lebanon and to bomb Iran, resulting in killing over 40,000 civilians, including over 15,000 women and children, and driving millions from their homes, turning infrastructure and houses into rubble. Many more civilians have been injured, as well as UN peacekeepers. The announced Israeli goal is to “destroy the Hamas (and Hezbollah) threat to Israel.”

Among those killed were Hamas and Hezbollah fighters and leaders, including the man who planned the original terrorist attack. It can therefore be argued that Israel is achieving its goal. But only for the short term and at a tremendous cost in lives and resources, to say nothing of Israel’s loss of respect and stature in the world.

It is naive to think, in today’s world of asymmetrical guerrilla and terrorist warfare, that Israel’s strategy has really permanently eliminated threats from Hamas, Hezbollah or other organizations. For every innocent Arab civilian killed, a family becomes an angry source of future terrorists. For every community and its institutions reduced to rubble and chaos, a breeding ground is created for anti-Israeli movements. For every resource devoted to weapons of destruction and resulting reconstruction, resources are unavailable for creating a vibrant economy for both Israeli and Arab societies. For every day that Israeli leaders make clear they have no intention of allowing the creation of a separate Arab Palestinian state, more desperation is created to fuel the vicious cycle of terror and destruction. The Israelis must know that this massive military response to terror is not a long-term solution. They have tried it in the past and failed. They have watched the U.S. try it in Afghanistan for 20 years and fail.

There has to be a better way. Within a civilized nation of laws, when horrific acts of violence occur, the perpetrators are found, charged with crimes, tried, convicted, and punished. We must seek a similar system for international justice. There already are both national courts and an International Court. There are excellent intelligence techniques and technologies for tracking down villains. The Israelis themselves have shown how to do this — albeit unilaterally — with the extraction of Adolph Eichmann from Argentina for Nazi war crimes and his trial and execution.

We need world leadership to foster treaties of cooperation, which define international crimes and which facilitate capture of perpetrators. We need leaders who respect the rule of law and who will support the use of national and international courts to mete out appropriate justice. We need leaders to promote institutions for resolving issues of ethnic, tribal, and religious discrimination, boundaries, and autonomy.

Of course an international system of justice is not without issues. We must show that a limited international justice system dealing with terrorism and crimes against humanity is not the same as establishing a one-world order or eliminating national sovereignty. We must provide a justice system with timely and efficient  processes at reasonable costs shared by all. We must contend with opposition from those in industry and politics who profit from arms and destructive responses.

But all of these issues pale in the face of the much costlier cycles of terror and massive retaliation. Vengeance may feel good at the moment and more popular with the angry public, but it is a narcotic that in the long run destroys everyone, when the victim becomes indistinguishable from the terrorist. SHALOM – SALAM – PEACE.

Stephen Martin is a resident of Solvang. 

The post Letter to the Editor: Israel-Hamas conflict: There is a better way appeared first on Santa Ynez Valley Star.

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.