San Benito County Fracking Ban Initiative, Measure J (November 2014)

Voting on Fracking
Policy
Fracking policy
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot Local Local fracking

A San Benito County Fracking Ban Initiative ballot question was on the November 4, 2014 election ballot for voters in San Benito County, California. It was approved.

This measure was designed to prohibit hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, and related gas and oil extraction activities, as well as other "high-intensity petroleum operations," including acid well stimulation and cyclic steam injection. It also banned any new gas or oil drilling activity - even conventional, low-intensity activity - in areas of the county zoned for residential or rural land use.

This initiative was started by the group called San Benito Rising, which needed to collect 1,642 valid signatures to get its initiative on the ballot. On April 22, 2014, San Benito Rising turned in over 4,000 signatures to the county elections office for certification. On May 6, 2014, the city council voted to put the proposed measure on the November ballot.

In June of 2014, San Benito Rising was joined by a number of community endorsers to form the new Coalition to Protect San Benito to campaign in favor of the initiative. Andrew Hsia-Coron, an organizer with the Coalition to Protect San Benito, said, “We’re sitting here on this giant deposit of Monterey Shale, so we’re trying to stop it before oil companies even get started and invest in infrastructure.”

See also: Energy and the 2014 election: the ballots and beyond

Election results

---

This ballot measure article has preliminary election results. Certified election results will be added as soon as they are made available by the state or county election office. The following totals are as of 100 percent of precincts reporting.

---

San Benito County Measure J
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		5,021	57.36%
No		3,733	42.64%

Election results via: San Benito County Elections Office

Text of measure

Ballot question

The question on the ballot appeared as:

“

Shall San Benito County's General Plan be amended to ban High-Intensity Petroleum Operations (such as hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, acid well stimulation, and cyclic steam injection, but not Low-Intensity Petroleum Operations) throughout all unincorporated areas, and all Petroleum Operations in residential general plan designations of Rural, Rural Transitional, Rural Residential, Rural/Urban, and Sphere of Influence Rural/Urban, with related zoning changes to implement the new General Plan policies?

”

Ballot title

The ballot title and summary were changed to speak more positively of the measure by the county supervisors at the behest of the initiative proponents, members of the Coalition to Protect San Benito. The board of supervisors also agreed to put the entire text of the initiative on the ballot as requested. The final ballot language that was on the ballot is displayed below, as well as a link to the full text of the initiative.

The following official and final ballot title was prepared by the county counsel according to recommendations made by the Coalition to Protect San Benito:

“

Initiative to Ban Well Stimulation Treatments and Enhanced Recovery (such as Fracking and Steam Injection) throughout all Unincorporated Areas of San Benito County and to Ban All Petroleum Operations in Residential General Plan Designations in Unincorporated San Benito County and Make Related Zoning Changes

”

Ballot summary

The following official and final ballot summary was prepared by the county counsel according to recommendations made by the Coalition to Protect San Benito:

“

The proposed initiative would adopt new General Plan policies to prohibit: (a) the use of any land within the County's unincorporated area for "High-Intensity Petroleum Operations," as defined by the initiative to include well stimulation treatments (such as hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, and acid well stimulation treatments) and enhanced recovery wells (such as cyclic steam injection), and (b) the use of land with a residential General Plan land use designation - i.e., lands designated Rural, Rural Transitional, Rural Residential, Rural/Urban, and Sphere of Influence Rural/Urban - within the County's unincorporated area for any Petroleum Operations. "Petroleum Operations" includes all activities in connection with the exploration, drilling for, and the production of petroleum, gas and other hydrocarbons. The initiative would establish a one-year amortization period for any existing High-Intensity Petroleum Operation(s) land use that has obtained a vested right under state law, as determined by the Planning Commission. The initiative provides a process by which well owners and operators may seek a determination from the Planning Commission to allow vested "High-Intensity Petroleum Operations" land uses to continue by an extension of the amortization period up to a maximum of three years. The initiative would not apply to any "Low-Intensity Petroleum Operation," as defined, that has obtained a vested right under state law by the time the measure becomes effective. The measure would also add new section to the Zoning Title (Title 25) and the Oil and Gas Well Chapter (Chapter 19.21 of the San Benito County Code to implement the new General Plan policies. Section 25.29.161 would prohibit any development or construction or use of facilities or equipment for "High Intensity Petroleum Operations." Section 25.29.162 would prohibit the development, construction, or use of any facilities or equipment for Petroleum Operations in Rural and Residential Zoning Districts, e.g. Rural (R), Rural Transitional (RT), Rural Residential (RR), Single-Family Residential (R1) and Residential Multiple (RM), except to the extent that "Low-Intensity Petroleum Operations" had already obtained a vested right. General Plan policies and County Code provisions adopted through the initiative could not be amended or repealed except by a vote of County voters. The San Benito County Board of Supervisors may grant exceptions to application of the Initiative if the Board finds that the application would constitute a unconstitutional taking of property and the exception would be such to allow land uses only to the minimum extent necessary to avoid a unconstitutional taking. The Initiative provides that the Board of Supervisors shall take all steps reasonably necessary to enforce the Initiative and defend it against any challenge. If another measure appears on the same ballot and conflicts with any portion of the Initiative, then the measure receiving the most votes shall prevail.

”

San Benito Rising, "San Benito Supervisors Meeting about ballot language," July 8, 2014, accessed July 14, 2014

Full text

The full text of the initiative included on the ballot is available here.

Ballot language changes

The original ballot title and summary prepared by the county counsel did not use the phrase "hydraulic fracturing" or "fracking," using instead the more technical "high-intensity petroleum operations," and did not specify that other low-intensity or more conventional drilling techniques would not be banned by the measure. Moreover, the county had originally decided not to place the full text of the initiative measure on the ballot. Coalition to Protect San Benito representatives pled their case to the county board of supervisors during its meeting on July 8, 2014. The supervisors were receptive to the speakers, who said that the ballot language was not designed to give voters the best information since it lacked the common name of the process in question, did not inform voters that certain kinds of drilling would still be allowed in non-residential areas and did not include the full text of the initiative, denying voters a chance to fully read the law on which they were being asked to vote. The board voted four against one to change the ballot language to the version displayed above and include the full text of the initiative measure on the ballot. Supervisor Margie Barrios, an opponent of the initiative, was the sole dissenter.

Dispute process

The San Benito County Planning Commission introduced the possibility of enacting a county ordinance ahead of the Measure J election in November that would provide a process by which certain mineral owners and oil drillers could apply for an exemption from Measure J, provided the initiative is approved. According to Commissioner Dan DeVries, this process, which is largely supported by Measure J proponents, would try "to put the county in the best position possible in that event to deal with those types of claims that will undoubtedly result if this measure passes."

Oil driller Steven Coombs of Patriot Resources claims Measure J will harm his business. Coombs does not use fracking, but he does use certain other processes banned by Measure J, such as acid washing and water disposal. The dispute process proposed by the planning commission would attempt to provide people like Coombs with an alternative to suing the county. Coombs, however, was not very enthusiastic about the commission's work so far. He said, "While they're trying to define a process in which you would obtain an exemption, it doesn't sound like their proposed exemption would allow us to continue moving forward with those really common practices."

The proposal still needs to be approved by the San Benito County Board of Supervisors.

Support

Supporters

• A group called the Coalition to Protect San Benito was behind this initiative.

• The county's branch of the Sierra Club also supported the measure.

The following individuals signed the official arguments in support of Measure J:

• Robert Rivas, San Benito County Supervisor, District 3
• Tim Shellito, former principal of San Benito High School
• Margaret Morales Rebecchi, retired teach & community leader
• Dr. Katherine Foster, teacher and owner of Pinnacle Farm
• Dr. Benedict Corota, medical doctor

Arguments in favor

Andrew Hsia-Coron of the Coalition to Protect San Benito said, “Regulations are just a way of giving the industry a road map to frack. States like Pennsylvania and Texas have regulations, but that hasn’t stopped the process. It’s only made a mess. We realized we needed to ban the process entirely."

The petition listed the following reasons to support a ban on hydraulic fracturing and other oil and gas industry activities:

“	The impact and risks of high intensity petroleum operations are too great for county residents to accept. Our limited water supplies should be preserved for agricultural and municipal uses. San Benito County cannot afford the risk of groundwater pollution. High intensity petroleum operations are inconsistent with our agricultural heritage and rural character. Earthquake risks in San Benito County are already too high. High intensity petroleum operations will further degrade our air quality. High intensity petroleum operations will degrade our scenic vistas and rural quality of life. High intensity petroleum operations could harm the county’s biological resources. Permitting high intensity petroleum operations is not the way to grow a healthy economy. Petroleum operations are incompatible with residential uses.	”
—SAN BENITO RISING FILES ANTI-FRACKING INITIATIVE, by Deborah Luhrman

Andrew Hsia-Coron, a founder of the Coalition to Protect San Benito, said, "People are thinking about the future of water in their county and where their future is going. They're not interested in an industrial zone."

Hsia-Coron also said, "I was out at farms and ballparks and the Post Office, just walking the streets and talking to folks. The folks that I talked to thought that fracking and other advanced oil extraction techniques had no place in this county."

Official arguments

The following was submitted as the official arguments in favor of Measure J:

“	San Benito County has a bright future if we build on our agriculture, tourism, and abundant solar and wind resources. Fracking and dangerous oil extraction put that future at risk Measure J lets the people decide their future, not outside oil companies. The oil industry wants to expand oil drilling in San Benito County. They will be using dangerous oil extraction techniques like steam injection, fracking and matrix acidizing. These techniques endanger our water, health, jobs and way of life. Measure J protects our water. It bans fracking, steam injection and matrix acidizing which: Generate toxic waste that can contaminate our ground water and environment Misuse millions of gallons of water in times of extreme drought Measure J protects our health and safety Toxic chemicals used in fracking can cause cancer, birth defects and infertility. Matrix acidizing chemicals can have acute and chronic health effects. Children and the elderly are especially at risk: Air pollutants from fracking, steam injection and matrix acidizing can cause asthma and other respiratory ailments. Fracking and cyclic steam injection can trigger earthquakes and sinkholes. San Benito County sits on the San Andreas and Calaveras faults, so these oil operations pose a greater risk. Measure J protects our economic future. Fracking, steam injection and matrix acidizing endanger our water and environment which are essential for San Benito County's: Agriculture ($269 million in annual revenue and 1,570 jobs) Tourism ($82 million in annual revenue and 900 jobs) Pinnacles National Park, home of the rare California condor, brings in $13.1 million annually. Protect Our Water, Our Health, and Our Future ... Vote YES on Measure J.	”
—Robert Rivas, Tim Shellito, Margaret Morales Rebecchi, Dr. Katherine Foster and Dr. Benedict Corota

Opposition

Opponents

Craig Moyer, an attorney for the California Independent Petroleum Association, said that the initiative would inevitably be challenged in court if it were to be approved.

The main group who opposed Measure J was called San Benito County United for Energy Independence.

The following individuals signed the official arguments in opposition to Measure J:

• Larry Barr, member of the San Benito County Business Council
• Richard Bianchi, president of the San Benito County Farm Bureau
• Allan Renz, president of the San Benito County Cattlemen Association
• April England, member of the American Farm Bureau Federation & the Young Farmers and Ranchers committees
• Stan Pura, a San Benito County Farmer

Arguments against

Opponents of fracking bans, especially local ones, claim that the process is relatively safe and well regulated and that prohibiting it will cause economic depression and job loss. They also argue that the proper jurisdiction for such regulation is on the state level, not through local initiative.

Craig Moyer, a lawyer for the California Independent Petroleum Association, wrote, "A local regulation that attempts to impose a moratorium on or severely limit the use of hydraulic fracturing or other forms of well stimulation, is preempted by state law and unenforceable, and most certainly would be challenged on such basis."

Armen Nahabedian, president and CEO of Citadel Exploration, defended the oil and gas industry, arguing that businesses in the industry make it a priority to improve extraction technology to minimize environmental impacts. Nahabedian said, "There's never been an instance of water contamination, and $4.1 billion in agriculture gets water from drainage that runs off the San Ardo Oil Field. To say that agriculture and the oil and gas industry can't exist together is just a farce."

Official arguments

The following was submitted as the official arguments in opposition to Measure J:

“	Join San Benito County's Farmers and Ranchers in the Fight to Protect our Rural Qualify of Life -- Vote NO on Measure J Measure J is opposed by the San Benito County Farm Bureau, Cattlemen and other leading agricultural and ranching organizations, because it is an extreme, unnecessary and misleading proposal that threatens the quality of life we've worked so hard to build here. Measure J was hatched by activists and lawyers from outside San Benito to serve their own political agendas. Their objective is a total shutdown our county's small but vital petroleum industry. Measure J is presented as a ban on one controversial drilling practice - one that isn't even used in San Benito - but is written to prohibit virtually all current and future oil exploration and drilling in the county. It would increase pressure on farmers and ranchers to sell out to residential developers by preventing them from benefiting from their mineral rights. Measure J would harm the environment by encouraging sprawl, generating more traffic and more carbon emissions, the chief cause of global warming in the first place. It would eliminate a reliable potentially growing source of revenue for public services provided by local government. Measure J would increase dependence on unreliable, sometimes hostile foreign governments and expose us to increased environmental and economic risk associated with bringing in oil by ship and rail. Lastly, Measure J fails to acknowledge that San Benito County's petroleum industry already is carefully monitored, regulated and controlled under newly passed county and state laws that protect people and water supplies. Join San Benito County farmers and ranchers us by visiting www.sanbenitounited.com and learning the truth about Measure J. Together, let's reject this threat to our rural heritage, quality of life, fiscal wellbeing and energy independence. Together, let's vote NO on Measure J.	”
—Larry Barr, Richard Bianchi, Allan Renz, April England and Stan Pura

Background

See also: Fracking in California

Map of oil and gas wells in San Benito County, CA

The process of fracking is under heavy scrutiny in California. The 2014 California Democratic Party Platform called for an immediate moratorium on fracking, a position not supported by California's Democratic Governor Jerry Brown. Fracking has been occurring in California for more than 30 years.

Native Americans are the first recorded group to have collected oil in California. The first oil company began mining and distilling oil in 1856, and, in 1950, California produced 331 million barrels of oil. Several large natural gas fields were found throughout the 1970s and 1980s. The Monterey Shale formation in California was expected to hold 15.4 billion barrels of oil, or 65 percent of the technically recoverable shale oil in the lower 48 states, according to a 2012 report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In May 2014, however, they adjusted their estimate. Due to "the industry's difficulty in producing from the region," the estimate was revised down to 600 million barrels of recoverable oil. To the right is a map of all the oil and gas wells in San Benito County as of May 8, 2014. A black star denotes an area of oil and gas well activity. There are three pockets of oil and gas activity across southern San Benito County.

The Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) oversees oil and gas development in California. Water resources are regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). According to the DOGGR, most of the oil and gas production in California is happening using vertical wells that are drilled into traditional oil and natural gas reservoirs. The DOGGR regulates well casings, cements and the other aspects of protecting underground and surface water resources. Under current law the DOGGR does not need to be notified when a well is fractured. In 2013 the California State Legislature passed Senate Bill 4, regulating well stimulation, which includes fracking and other activities. Senate Bill 4 requires interim well regulations that are now in effect, a separate set of regulations that go into effect in 2015, the adoption of environmental impact reports in 2015 and well stimulation permits. These permits are publicly available on the DOGGR's website.

Reports and analyses

County impartial analysis

The following impartial analysis of Measure J was prepared by the office of the San Benito County Counsel:

“	If approved by a majority of voters voting thereon, Measure J: 1) Prohibits through new General Plan policies and new County zoning code section land uses in support of: a) all Petroleum Operations in County Residential General Plan land use designations and in Rural Residential Zoning Districts County Residential General Plan designations include: Rural, Rural Transitional, Rural Residential, Rural/Urban, and Sphere of Influence Rural/Urban Rural and Residential Zoning Districts include: Rural, Rural Transitional, Rural Residential, Single-Family Residential and Residential Multiple b) all "High Intensity Petroleum Operations", as defined, in all unincorporated areas "High Intensity Petroleum Operations" include well stimulation treatments (such as hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, and acid well stimulation treatments) and enhanced recovery wells (such as cyclic steam injections, waterflood injection, steamflood injection) 2) Provides exemptions when the general prohibitions woudl: a) Violate the Constitution of laws of the United States or the State of California; or b) Constitute an "unconstitutional taking of property", with any such exception allowable only to the "minimum extent necessary" to avoid an unconstitutional taking. The Initiative further does not prohibit "Low-Intensity Pretoleum Operation(s)" that have obtained a vested right under state law. The Initiative requires existing "High-Intensity Petroleum Operations" to discontinue operations within one to three years. Interaction with other laws: If a local law conflicts with state law, it is preempted. It is unresolved whether the initiative is preempted, in whole or in part, under state law. The Initiative states that the County shall take all steps reasonably necessary to enforce and defend the Initiative against any challenge. Other: The Initiative may be amended or repealed only through a vote of the people.	”
—Barbara Thompson, Assistant County Counsel

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

The sponsoring group San Benito Rising needed to collect 1,642 valid signatures to qualify its initiative for the November ballot. The group planned to collect at least 3,500 signatures by April 19, 2014. The group announced on the weekend of April 5 that circulators had collected enough signatures to bring them halfway to their goal. Then on April 22, 2014, San Benito Rising turned in over 4,000 signatures to the county elections office for certification. When the signatures were certified, the county supervisors had a chance to enact the ordinance themselves. They chose, however, to put the measure before voters on November 4, 2014.

Similar measures

See also: Notable 2014 local measures

Local measures

a Denton, Texas (November 2014)
a Athens, Ohio Issue 7 (November 2014)
d Santa Barbara, California Measure P (November 2014)
a San Benito County, California Measure J (November 2014)
a Mendocino County, California Measure S (November 2014)
d Gates Mills, Ohio Issue 51 (November 2014)
d Youngstown, Ohio Issue 4 (November 2014)
d Kent, Ohio Issue 21
City of Niles "Community Bill of Rights" Fracking Ban Initiative (November 2014)
d City of Loveland Two Year Fracking Suspension Initiative, Question 1 (June 2014)
d Youngstown "Community Bill of Rights" Fracking Ban Charter Amendment (May 2014)
d Johnson County Fracking Ban Referendum (March 2014)

Statewide measures

Colorado Fracking Ban Initiative (2014)
Michigan Fracking Ban Initiative (2014)

See also

• Local fracking on the ballot
• Fracking
• Butte County, California ballot measures
• November 4, 2014 ballot measures in California

External links

Suggest a link

Basic info

• San Benito County Election Department website

Support

• Coalition to Protect San Benito website
• Coalition to Protect San Benito facebook page
• San Benito Rising website

Additional reading

• CBS SF Bay Area, "San Benito County Divided Over Fracking Measure On November Ballot," September 30, 2014