SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Elections in less than two months are the talk of two small southern California communities where voters will decide the future of oil and gas drilling in their areas – and the results could set the tone for other parts of the state.

In La Habra Heights, residents have been to court twice in recent months about the wording of a ballot measure to restrict new oil and gas development.

And in Hermosa Beach, where drilling has been banned since 1995, voters will decide whether to end the ban or reauthorize it.

Adrian Martinez, an attorney with Earthjustice, says these towns may be small, but the fact that this issue is on the ballot is significant.

"I don't think you should look at the size of these cities and say they're unimportant,” he states. “Local residents are taking control, and local city councils, to kind of push back against what's a real big increase in oil and gas exploration in southern California."

Earthjustice represented some La Habra Heights residents in their quest for what they saw as a more fair description of what's known as Measure A on the ballot.

Martinez says the oil and gas industry made multiple attempts to change the wording of the ballot label or description.

The first southern California oil boom was in the 1890s, and it radically changed the landscape.

The La Habra Heights initiative doesn't allow old wells to be reactivated, and would restrict the use of some types of drilling technology.

But Martinez says it stops short of banning drilling altogether.

"They crafted it in a way that would allow existing operations to continue,” he explains. “But it would stop new development of oil and gas – and importantly, it would stop high-intensity oil and gas operations like fracking and acidization."

Acidization, or so-called acid fracking, is used to push older wells to produce more by pumping acid underground to dissolve sediment and allow oil to flow more easily.

Both the La Habra Heights and Hermosa Beach votes are on March 3.




get more stories like this via email

The federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulates carbon dioxide pipelines, and is holding a two-day conference in Des Moines to take public input and discuss issues surrounding the pipelines.

Opponents believe they threaten air and water quality as well as the people who live near them. Ethanol producers say removing carbon dioxide via pipelines and burying it deep in the ground through a process known as carbon capture and sequestration is an effective way to address safety and environmental concerns.

Ava Auen-Ryan, director of farming and environment for the group Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, said environmentalists want a federal moratorium on the pipelines until they can be studied more thoroughly, and will make it clear to federal regulators at the conference.

"I think we hope to build pressure on the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to do their job well," Auen-Ryan explained. "Also to build pressure on state and federal entities to enact a moratorium on CO2 pipelines."

The agenda showed the committee will discuss public awareness, emergency response and effective communication with emergency first responders and with the public during the conference, which takes place today and tomorrow.

Beyond the potential long-term environmental impacts and health implications, Auen-Ryan also cautioned about the immediate human threats posed in the event a pipeline should rupture, and pointed to a break in Mississippi three years ago, sickening 45 people.

Ryan emphasized the very nature of carbon dioxide, which displaces oxygen in the environment, makes it extremely dangerous in an emergency.

"Gas-combustion vehicles; they can't work," Auen-Ryan pointed out. "They need oxygen to work, so that means that emergency response folks cannot get into those communities and people cannot leave the communities via car. And we also know that rural communities in Iowa are not equipped to respond to something like that. "

The agency will also discuss safety expectations for pipeline operators as well as the general state of pipeline infrastructure. There are currently three companies planning to build carbon dioxide pipelines in Iowa.

New research shows ancient chili peppers were likely growing in Southwestern states like New Mexico millions of years earlier than previously thought.

Scientists believe birds - which, unlike people, lack heat receptors and don't wince, or worse - when eating the spicy "berry-like" fruits, and spread their seeds across vast areas.

Now, researchers at the University of Colorado say a previously collected fossil shows they were growing in the Americas as much as 50 million years ago - much earlier than the 15 million years ago previously thought.

Study senior author, Stacey Smith - an associate professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology - said finding a fossil that upends settled facts is unexpected.

"All of these sort of distinctive members of the family made of eggplants, chile peppers, tobacco," said Smith, "all of these were around long, long before humans ever encountered them. So they were sort of hanging out waiting for us."

As of March 2023, "roasting green chile" is now the official scent of New Mexico. Lawmakers approved and the governor signed a bill making it the first state in the country with an official aroma.

It's estimated the Land of Enchantment produced a whopping 53,000 tons of the peppers in 2022.

Researchers say the chile-pepper fossils originally were collected from the Green River Formation in northwestern Colorado. The findings challenge the previous scientific understanding that nightshades originated from South America.

Smith said she's a bit awed and happy she's able to relate how the fossil discovery has transformed her understanding of plant diversification.

"'Oh that's a fossil of that kind of lizard' or 'That's a fossil of this kind of plant,'" said Smith. "So, it just so happens that we are the people who study those kind of plants and we look at that fossil and say, 'Hey, that's a chile pepper' - and we're 100% certain that it's nothing else."

The findings were recently published in New Phytologist, noting the entire nightshade family - including peppers, tomatoes, potatoes and more - is much older and was more widespread than previously documented.




get more stories like this via email

A U.S. Supreme Court case that began in Idaho has weakened protections across the nation under the Clean Water Act.

The justices on Thursday handed down a 5-4 decision that will undo federal safeguards for wetlands. The case stems from a couple's attempt to build a house in Priest Lake, Idaho. The Environmental Protection Agency informed the couple that backfilling on the property violated the Clean Water Act because it was affecting sensitive wetland habitat. The couple sued the agency.

Alex Funk, director of water resources and senior counsel for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, said the decision is a blow in many respects, including to people who enjoy the outdoors.

"For the hunting, fishing and sporting, and even kind of the broader outdoor rec community," he said, "these wetlands provide so many public values that are now at significant risk from development and other impacts."

In its decision, the majority wrote that Clean Water Act protections extend only to wetlands "indistinguishable" from larger bodies of water. It could affect up to 90 million acres of wetlands across the country.

Funk said wetlands are vital ecosystems providing benefits that tend to go unrecognized.

"If anything," he said, "this is going to put major setbacks on things like our ability to adapt to climate change, respond to extreme weather events, drought."

He noted that these habitats are essential for clean water, flood mitigation and storing carbon. Wetlands cover 386,000 acres in Idaho, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.