Ventura County Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business

1

Newsletter

COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE A Make or Break for LOCAL Agriculture

Volume 5, Issue #7, August 2015

(continued on page 2)

By: Leilani Rosenthal (intern)California is in the midst of yet another drought and is desperately seeking a reliable water supply. Ocean desalina-tion has sparked some attention in recent years, and the prospect of having a reliable supply of water is prompting some cities and counties to actively pursue desali-nated water projects. Comparisons of six plants worldwide are presented in a chart on page 3.

Ocean desalination is the process of removing salt from seawater. The most common method of purification, seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO), implements mi-cro-filtration through membrane screens and chemical treatment in order to obtain a product that is potable and can be intro-duced into the water grid for distribution.

Tapping into the vast ocean’s water supply and transforming it into a drink-able resource would certainly provide a safety net during droughts by decreasing California’s dependence on imports, lifting the burden off of the Sacramento Delta, groundwater aquifers, and the Colorado River. However, desalination is expensive and energy intensive, requiring an average of 5,000 kWh per acre-foot (AF) of energy (enough to power one California home for 7 months, US Energy Information Ad-ministration) and millions of dollars per

County General Plans are high-altitude planning documents that set the tone and intent of land use and development policies. As a majority of our members live, work and/or own property in the county, they will be greatly impacted by a “compre-hensive update” to this set of goals, policies and programs that was adopted in 1988 and has since been amended 52 times.

While we would like to remain optimis-tic about the process, the “General Plan Update Work Program Joint Study Session” held on July 7, 2015 was telling with respect to the interests of the business community. The purpose of the session was to solicit comments from the elected Board of Super-visors and their appointed Planning Com-missioners. The hired consultant firm, Mintier Harnish, presented a set of slides explaining the work program as “a process to evaluate the existing General Plan, identify county assets, issues and op-portunities and develop options, roles and responsibilities and costs for updating the general plan.”

The presentation included a laundry list of options for adding separate new “elements” to the General Plan with five that were pre-sented by the consultants as appropriate for this county: Agriculture, Water, Healthy Communities, Sustainability/Resiliency and Economic Development.

Both CoLAB and VCEDA testified at the hearing in support of a separate Economic Development Element. Even in a cursory look at the current general plan, one can (continued on page 2)

By: Lynn Jensen

IS THE OCEAN THE ANSWER?

see there is no mention of business or eco-nomics in the goals, policies or programs. In particular, the future of local agriculture hangs in the balance of decisions to be made by general plan policy going forward.

Supervisors Parks and Bennett both pledged support for the “Guidelines for Orderly De-velopment” as the key policy for the county. This policy states:

• Urban development should occur, whenever and wherever practical, within unincorporated cities which exist to provide a full range of municipal services and are responsible for urban land use planning, and,

• The Cities and County should strive to produce general plans, ordinances and policies which will fulfill these guidelines.

As we testified, these guidelines relate to urban development and do not address the

numerous business activities that take place in the open space, agricultural and rural general plan designations in the unincor-porated county. Agriculture, mining, oil and gas and other productive activities are part of the fabric of the county and provide jobs and products that we should be proud of.

CoLAB supports a separate Agricultural Element, one that has broader goals than just preserving agricultural land by a land use designation. The new general plan must support the business of agriculture and be committed to its economic success.

Mintier Harnish prepared a Work Program Options document gathering feedback from

2

Ventura County Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business Volume 5, Issue #7, August 2015

(Desal: cont. from Page 1)

(continued on page 3)

year in maintenance and operation costs. In comparison, local ground and surface water require 1,000 kWh/AF, while imported water requires 2,700 to 4,700 kWh/AF (Heather Cooley, Pacific Institute 2014).

Due to its high energy requirement, desali-nated water typically costs between $1,900 and $3,000/AF, a hefty amount when compared to the approximately $1,300/AF cost of local imported water from Met-ropolitan Water District. However, recent studies by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) show that desalinated water in Southern California will become cost competitive with the increasing price of imported water by the year 2035.

Other major concerns regarding desalina-tion include a higher carbon footprint from the facilities that are operated on fossil fuels and small marine life being killed in the intake pipes. Furthermore, the wastewater (or brine), which has a much higher salinity than the ocean, must be properly mixed to mitigate adverse effects to coastal ecosys-tems.

Desalination has been considered in Califor-nia for quite some time now. The drought-stricken ‘80s left the City of Santa Barbara scrambling for water and hastily approving the construction of the $34 million Charles Meyer Desalination Plant (OCWD). The plant was completed in 1992 but never made it past the pilot testing phase as the rains returned and it was shut down due to high operating costs. The City recently approved a project to update and restart the plant at a cost of $40 million plus an annual $5 million in operating costs (City of Santa Barbara).

Australia has also had difficulty implement-ing desalination, having had to shut down multiple facilities due to high operation costs and inefficiencies. However, two suc-cessful plants are in operation today, de-livering water to Perth and the surround-ing region. The Kwinana Desalination Plant cost $330 million to build with another $17 million per year to operate and maintain, hence bringing the price of water to $1,221/AF (Pacific Institute Executive Summary 2012). A second plant went live in 2012 in nearby Binningup. Together, the facili-ties produce water to meet 45% of Perth’s water demands, and the energy required is completely offset by nearby wind and solar

three community workshops and numerous interviews with “key stakeholders” includ-ing myself and many other CoLAB members and partners. Section 4 of the Work Program presents a Stakeholder Interview Summary with “common themes and ideas that emerged.” From their list of assets, issues, and opportunities, we identified a polarization of interests in our community with respect to growth and development, SOAR, and agriculture, as follows:

While stakeholders generally thought that directing development to cities was an asset, they recognized that the resistance to infill and high-density development in cities (NIMBYism) has lead to our current jobs/housing imbalance. Angst was expressed over pressure for development on one hand and the lack of available industrial land for job creation on the other. Opportunities for job growth included more flexibility in open space areas for filming, and expansion of allowed uses in agricultural areas for infra-structure and support industries.

Both SOAR and the Guidelines for Orderly Development were seen as assets by stake-holders in defining curb lines and limiting growth to cities. However, the great divide over SOAR reflects the general population’s desire for no-growth policies to protect the status quo versus SOAR’s real impact to the economy, stifling business growth, limiting needed housing (especially farm-worker housing) and raising the price of housing beyond the affordability of younger residents. And, most interestingly, SOAR is not seen as a long-term solution as it prevents the opportunity for open space and agricultural easements in perpetuity.

For the future, stakeholder recommenda-tions included: “work with the SOAR board to explore options to allow some growth and development.” CoLAB believes that the SOAR organization should incorporate input from stakeholders and city officials before placing a renewal initiative on the ballot.

Agriculture and farmland were clearly iden-tified as an asset by stakeholders with its diverse and high value crop production and as an end user for green waste. Issues included lack of water and farmworker housing; burdensome regulations; and in-compatible uses like bike trails, urban en-croachment and schools. Lack of support for farming in County policies and actions was noted including policies that restrict agricultural processing activities. And, the fact that out-of-area water and sewer con-nections are not allowed to unincorporated projects was considered an issue. There was also concern about big versus small “ag”, disappearing small family farms, and pes-ticide use near schools. The identified op-portunities were numerous, spanning the spectrum from the need for agricultural land preservation through conservation easements, to more flexibility in allowed practices and encouragement of infrastruc-ture and innovation.

From our perspective, the escalating costs and threats to local farming are eroding its profitability. The risk of planting crops cannot be sustained without a strong economic foundation. The current SOAR does not contain the language necessary to support the agricultural industry in the future. Without a key commitment, in SOAR and the general plan, to the sustainability of

(General Plan: cont. from Page 1)

(continued on page 4)

3

Ventura County Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business Volume 5, Issue #7, August 2015

DESALINATION COMPARISONS (Leilani Rosenthal, 2015)

(Desal: cont. from Page 2)farms (Alfred Deakin Research Institute).

Israel, a pioneer of desalination, is the leading example of cost efficiency. Accord-ing to a June article in NPR News, desali-nated water now accounts for one quarter of Israel’s water consumption. In 2013 the largest desalination facility in the world was completed in Soreq. With a 122,000 AFY capacity, and operating on only 4,562 kWh, the plant delivers water for $620/AF and provides for 10% of the national demand (Pacific Institute and IDE Technologies). Low costs can be attributed to an innova-tive design, reducing the facility’s footprint and increasing energy efficiency through an energy recovery system (MIT Technology Review). Also, these lower costs are likely due to lesser regulatory constraints and mit-igation costs, unlike California.

Currently, various desalination projects are underway in California. The state’s largest facility is projected to begin operating early next year in Carlsbad, to serve the San Diego area. With a maximum capacity of 56,000 AFY, Poseidon Resources Corp’s $1 billion SWRO facility will meet 7-10% of the region’s potable water demands (SDCWA). Metropolitan water to the SDCWA averages $1,000/AF and desalinated water will cost between $2,014 and $2,257/AF due to high operation and maintenance costs (PIES).

After 17 years of planning, permitting, and opposition, Poseidon is in the final planning stages of a 56,000 AFY desalination facility in Huntington Beach. The $900 million plant

will meet 8% of the city’s water demands by providing water with an estimated price of $1871-$1,922/AF (PIES and OCWD). A recent Huntington Beach Independent news article disclosed that the OCWD cur-rently purchases potable water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County at a rate of $1,003/AF. While desalinated water is more expensive, the project will ultimately lessen the amount of imported water transported from Northern California and the Colorado River by 56,000 AFY, lifting a huge burden off limited supplies (OCWD).

Ocean desalination, in combination with other solutions such as recycled wastewa-ter, brackish water desalters, and water conservation, could serve as an effective drought hedge.

California has been gradually integrat-ing recycled wastewater into the current supply. Over 525,000 AF of wastewater is recycled every year according to the Cali-fornia Department of Water Resources. Recycled wastewater has a comparatively lower energy and carbon footprint with prices that range between $1,200-$2,600/AF (Nat Geo). However, direct potable reuse of recycled wastewater is not allowed in California at this time.

Locally, the City of Oxnard’s Groundwa-ter Recovery Enhancement and Treatment Project (GREAT) has recently started to provide recycled wastewater for landscap-ing and golf courses and will soon deliver water to agricultural lands through Calle-guas’ Salinity Management Pipeline.

In the Las Posas Valley, Camrosa’s Round Mountain brackish water desalter went online in April, projecting to produce 1,000 AFY for $1,200/AF. The Cities of Camarillo and Moorpark also have desalters in the planning stages. Brackish water desalting is much less expensive because the source water has a significantly lower salinity.

Ocean desalination is a costly technology that has the benefits of consistency and a vast supply. However, jurisdictions along the California coast that want to implement the technology will first need to develop other supplies, use their existing supplies effi-ciently and reduce environmental impacts per Coastal Commission requirements.

Locally, Calleguas Mutual Water District, has been looking into desalination to increase the reliability of water delivery to their cus-tomers. Per Susan Mulligan of Calleguas: “In response to the increasing cost and decreasing reliability of imported water supplies, Calleguas has initiated preliminary studies to determine the feasibility, cost, environmental considerations, and partner-ing opportunities associated with develop-ment of a seawater desalination project in Ventura County.”

CoLAB agrees that desalination should be a part of a diversified resource portfolio that integrates recycled wastewater, desalina-tion, and aggressive water conservation measures. With this added option, Ventura County could ultimately obtain the water security it has been searching for.

References Associated with Article/Chart

4

Ventura County Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business Volume 5, Issue #7, August 2015

These emissions account for an estimated 40,000 tons of methane per year. Methane is one of the planet’s most harmful GHGs with an environmental impact roughly 25 times greater than carbon dioxide.

The seeps are also responsible for roughly 24 tons of reactive organic compounds (ROC) every single day. As a precursor to ozone, ROC’s are a health hazard. Almost one fifth of the ROC emissions in Santa Barbara County are a result of these natural releases.

Marine life is also significantly impacted. With between 4,200 to 25,000 gallons of oil naturally flowing into the ocean every day, it’s not hard to imagine the influence on surrounding wildlife. The seeps affect fish, sea stars, shrimp and other ocean animals. It certainly didn’t seem to bother the seals as several followed our boat and gazed cu-riously at all aboard. The oil turns massive sections of the ocean’s surface into a sort of rainbow oil painting. It is ironic that some-thing with such an appealing look can have such a negative environmental impact.

Perhaps the most interesting fact about the area we toured is the relationship between the natural seeps and Venoco’s Platform Holly, located nearby. Evidently, oil and gas production in the area significantly decrease the volume of natural seepage. This reduc-tion has been attributed to the release of pressure in the natural gas and oil reservoirs created by oil produced by Platform Holly. In fact, a University of Santa Barbara (UCSB) press release cited a study that revealed that natural seepage was cut in half by ac-

In mid-July, I had the pleasure of taking a trip aboard the Condor Express out of SEA Landing in Santa Barbara for a tour of the natural oil and gas seeps in the South Ellwood Field, located near Venoco’s Platform Holly. No wind and little swell made for an ideal boat ride along our amazing coastline. Our tour took us to a part of the Santa Barbara Channel which en-compasses one of the most prolific natural oil and gas seeps in the world. Oil and gas flow continually from the sea floor into the ocean. Oil slicks created by these natural seeps can travel on ocean currents for more than 100 miles north and south along the coast.

Our Captain and tour guide were a wealth of information and provided a thorough ed-ucation for everything we were seeing (and smelling) along the way. The natural seeps are one of the largest sources of green-house gas (GHG) emissions in Santa Barbara County. The boat stopped several times to allow us to witness methane gas bubbling to the surface. In some cases it looked as if someone turned the jets on in a Jacuzzi.

By: Matt Guthrie

A Tour of Santa Barbara’s Natural Oil Seeps

agriculture, it will likely not survive.

This is a critically important process for all industries operating in the unincorporat-ed county and we will keep our members informed. We are appealing to the business community to step up and participate in this public process in representative numbers. Our goal is to be true to our mission: “...to enhance Ventura County’s economic vitality while protecting the local quality of life”.

The Board of Supervisors will be considering the work program options in two Tuesday meetings: August 4th (3:00 PM), and August 11th (1:30 PM). Please join us for these forums at the County Government Center on Victoria Avenue in Ventura. And, stay tuned for more information via email blasts!

(General Plan: cont. from Page 2) tivities conducted from the platform.

The pursuit of a lease-line adjustment (LLA) to allow more efficient recovery of remain-ing oil could also impact the seeps. Venoco believes there is as much as 60 million addi-tional barrels to recover with deeper drilling from the same platform. UCSB Professor Emeritus Jim Boles reported that produc-tion within the LLA in question could have further significant impacts on the seeps. According to the report, a reduction of as much as 3 million cubic feet of natural gas seepage per day could result if the project was approved. That is the equivalent of taking 100,000 cars off the road every day.

There is another technology that signifi-cantly mitigates the natural release of oil and gas in the area, but you won’t see it on this tour. Far below the surface, 50 foot tall steel pyramids often referred to as “seep tents” capture escaping oil and gas. The pyramids were constructed in 1982 as part of the Seep Containment Project, conceived and developed by companies in the oil and gas industry.

The concept of oil and gas production reducing the natural flow of oil into the ocean is not a prevalent perception. After all, “pollution” most often elicits assump-tions of human culpability. In this case, the relationship seems to be mutually ben-eficial. We are able to take advantage of a resource in high demand while mitigat-ing the uncontrollable and unpredictable release of pollutants by nature itself. This is something to keep in mind the next time you step on a tar ball on the beach.

5

Ventura County Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business

Officers and Board of Directors

John Hecht, Sespe Consulting | Chairman Stephen Greig, California Resources Corp. | Director

Jurgen Gramckow, Southland Sod | Vice Chairman Patrick Loughman, Lowthorp Richards | Director

Bud Sloan, Sloan Ranches | President Neal Maguire, Ferguson Case Orr Patterson | Director

Lynn Gray Jensen | Secretary | Executive Director David Martinez, Marz Farms | Director

John Lamb, Camlam Farms | Treasurer Matt Meyring, Silverbay Seafoods | Director

Patty Waters, Water’s Ranches | Membership Chair Kioren Moss, Moss & Assoc. | Director

Richard Atmore, R.A, Atmore & Sons | Director Jack Poe - Kirchbaum Inc. | Director

Tim Cohen, Rancho Temescal | Past Chairman Alex Teague, Limoniera | Director

Volume 5, Issue #7, August 2015

NRG Energy Presentation at July WHEEL Committee

A comparison of NRG’s proposed Puente Power Project (left) and the current Mandalay Gererating Station (right).CoLAB welcomed over 40 members to our second WHEEL Committee meeting on July 15th. July’s meeting included our first featured speaker, Tony Cordero, to discuss NRG Energy’s Puente Power Project proposal at the Mandalay Generating Station in Oxnard. A few hours after our WHEEL Committee meeting, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) held a forum in Oxnard to hear input from the public. The next step in the process for this project is an August 26 public hearing before the Califor-nia Energy Commission.

CoLAB will continue to consider the impli-cations on the reliability and sustainability

of our local energy supply. NRG has offered to remove the existing Mandalay Generat-ing Station (as shown) as part of the deal to build the Puente Power Project. They have also offered to remove a second generating station at Ormond Beach.

As always, there is no shortage of pressing issues to discuss, and we heard thorough and informative updates from our Advisory Chairs on issues relating to water, housing, energy, the environment and land use.

The large number of attendees prompted a discussion of whether or not an alterna-tive venue might be necessary to accom-modate everyone for future meetings. This is an issue we are pleased to address as it reflects the interest and engagement of our

members. We will always make certain to accommodate all of our attending members and keep everyone posted on any changes. Also, a special thanks to our July lunch sponsor, Cali-fornia Resources Corporation!

Our WHEEL Committee will be dark for the month of August and resume again on September 19th. For more info please contact Matt Guthrie at 805-633-2257 or mguthrie@colabvc.org

VC CoLAB to Host U.S. Senator John Boozman

VC CoLAB will host U.S. Senator John Boozman (Arkansas) at a special Circle the Wagons Education Series Event on August 25 from 5:00 to 7:00 PM at the Pierpont Inn in Ventura. Senator Boozman serves on several committees including the Commit-tee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry and the Committee on Environment and Public Works. This will be an opportunity for CoLAB members and guests to hear a unique perspective on relevant issues from a leader at the national level. The event will include light appetizers and a no host bar. Please RSVP to Lauren Swift at 805-633-2260 or lswift@colabvc.org.

Agricultural Summit at CSUCIThe Ventura County Agricultural Commis-sioner’s Office is proud to host the third annual Ventura County Agricultural Summit, adding the Taste of Local Exposition for the first time. The Agricultural Summit will be held on Friday, September 11 and Taste of Local Expo will take place on Saturday, Sep-tember 12. The Summit will feature 3 panel discussions with the topics for this year in-cluding Water, Distribution and Economics. For details, sponsorships and tickets visit www.venturacountyagsummit.com/

Ventura County Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business

CoLAB Ventura County Important Links:

COLAB VC Website: www.colabvc.org COLAB SBC Website: www.colabsbc.org COLAB SLO Website: www.colabslo.org Andy Caldwell Talk Radio Show: Weekdays 3:00 to 5:00 PM

SAVE THE DATE for Our Annual Meeting

October 14, 2015

Do you Like this Newsletter? Not a Member? Please join us!

Its easy - Online! Only $100/year (for an individual membership)

Please Visit us on:

Volume 5, Issue #7, August 2015

VC CoLAB FoundationOur Foundation purpose is to advance education and science, combat com-munity deterioration and lessen the

burdens of government.

Please help us match the generous $100,000 gift from the

Esper A. Petersen Foundation.

Click HERE to learn more.

All interested donors are directed to contact Dr. Aubrey Sloan, President

of the Foundation, at (805) 633-2291 or Donate Online HERE.