FEATURE

EYE ON OIL Referendums under fire

by Kimberly Rivers kimberly@vcreporter.com

Groups allege oil industry misled the public

Four local environmental groups argue a Sacramento-based political action committee (PAC) has violated state laws by intending to mislead the public during a signature-gathering referendum effort in Ventura County aimed at overturning recent changes to the county’s oil and gas permitting processes.

Ventura County Counsel Michael Walker confirmed that his office has received and is reviewing a complaint letter dated Dec. 18, 2020, from Kevin Bundy, attorney with Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger LLP, representing Climate First! Replace Oil and Gas (CFROG), Los Padres ForestWatch, Sierra Club Los Padres Chapter and Food and Water Watch. Walker declined to comment further on the matter.

That letter, addressed to Mark Lunn, Ventura County Clerk-Recorder, Registrar of Voters, alleges the process used by Working Families for Jobs and Energy Independence (WFJEI) to collect signatures submitted in support of their referendums violated state law, and therefore Lunn should not certify the signatures.

Assistant Registrar of Voters Tracy Saucedo, spokesperson with Lunn’s office, confirmed that 45,764 signatures were submitted for the referendum against the NonCoastal Zoning Ordinance 4568 and 45,548 signatures were submitted supporting the referendum against Coastal Zoning Ordinance 4567. She said 30,912 valid signatures are required for each referendum. Lunn’s office has until Jan. 26 to certify the signatures.

“Activists are obviously desperate to prevent Ventura County voters from having the final say on this important issue,” said Sabrina Lockhart, spokesperson with WFJEI and vice president of communications for California Independent Petroleum Association (CIPA), a membership-based trade group for oil companies in the state. WFJEI is a registered committee with the state and lists CIPA and Aera Energy, a Shell/Exxon company, as its sponsors.

WFJEI paid signature gatherers working at various locations throughout the county as part of its referendum effort.

Saucedo explained that all signers “must be a Ventura County registered voter at the address he/she listed on the petition at the time the person signed the petition. Each petition page...is entered into the Elections Division’s voter registration petition module. The system randomly selects 3% of the signatures to be verified and each signature is then compared by Election Division staff against the voter’s registration records.”

If Lunn’s office certifies the signatures, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors will have the choice to either reverse its previous changes to the oil drilling permitting process, or the referendums will be placed on the ballot in 2022 in a regularly scheduled general election. The supervisors also have the option of holding a special election.

Due to the referendum effort, the oil and gas permitting changes, duly authorized by a majority vote of the elected supervisors, are currently inactive. The changes, which WFJEI is working to overturn, subject all new oil drilling and some re-drilling and reworking of wells to modern environmental review. Opponents of the new permitting rules have said it will decimate the oil and gas industry in the county, and cause the loss of thousands of jobs. The groups in support of the changes say they are needed to ensure oil companies are held to modern standards like all other business sectors — something decades-old permits paired with county processes failed to require.

Continued on Page 8

Continued from Page 7 Are ordinance changes vulnerable? Lockhart called these claims “legally and factually groundless,” without providing further

Two of the supervisors who voted in favor of the changes are no longer on the board. clarification. Former supervisor for Dist. 1, Steve Bennett, is now seated as the State Assembly represen tative for Dist. 37. John Zaragoza, former supervisor for Dist. 5, is now serving as mayor Misleading the public? of Oxnard. Newly sworn into those seats are Supervisors Matt LaVere (Dist. 1) and Carmen The objection letter also points to reports from members of the public that signature gatherRamirez (Dist. 5). ers themselves provided false information which, if true, would constitute a misdemeanor vio-

Bennett, Zaragoza and Supervisor Linda Parks, (Dist. 2) voted for the changes last year, lation of Election Code Section 18600, which states that anyone is in violation of this section with Supervisors Bob Huber (Dist. 4) and Board Chair Kelly Long (Dist. 3) voting against. who “as principal or agent or having charge or control of the circulation of, or obtaining signa-

Ramirez is widely known to be no friend of the oil industry, with the sector spending tures to, any state or local initiative, referendum or recall petition, intentionally misrepresents nearly $1 million to defeat her in her successful 2020 campaign. LaVere has a thin record on or intentionally makes any false statement concerning the contents, purport or effect of the oil drilling issues after serving just one term as mayor and city council member in Ventura, petition…to any person who signs, or who desires to sign, or who is requested to sign, or who but he “looks promising” according to Tomas Rebecchi, Senior Central Coast Organizer makes inquiries with reference to it, or to whom it is presented for the person’s signature.” with Food and Water Watch, in terms of taking a strong stand on climate change issues. Lockhart declined to comment on the alleged false information being provided by signature

Rebecchi points out that during LaVere’s campaign “he took the no-fossil-fuel-money gatherers, other than to refer to her comment that the charges are groundless. pledge” and said he’d support a ban on fracking at a meeting of the Ventura Democratic James Brehm, 32, of Ventura, was part of a group of concerned residents who respondClub during the 2020 campaign. LaVere also denounced an oil industry-funded PAC that ed to a call to action during the signature gathering. Brehm said he saw an email for the listed LaVere as a candidate the PAC was supporting (it later dropped LaVere from the list). Decline to Sign campaign and what most concerned him wasn’t that folks would sign the According to Rebecchi, when asked whether he’d support a ban on extreme extraction tech- petition, but that they wouldn’t fully understand what they were signing. He told the Ventura niques like cyclic steam, LaVere said he’d need to look into it more. County Reporter that when he went out to multiple locations and spoke with signature gath-

Projects involving cyclic steam and other processes could be impacted by the permitted erers, his concern grew. changes and be subject to more extensive environmental review. “People should be properly informed if they’ve signed this,” said Brehm. He was told by

Each referendum addresses one of the changes supervisors made to county zoning ordi- signature gatherers that if he didn’t sign the petition “20,000 jobs would be lost” in the county nances that require modern environmental review under the California Environmental Qual- and that by signing he would help “lower gas and electricity prices.” Neither of which, Brehm ity Act (CEQA) for new drilling. The November action of the supervisors, made in a 3-2 said, is true. “It is just misleading.” vote, amended the Ventura County Coastal and Non-Coastal Zoning ordinances requiring Brehm provided recordings and written transcripts of conversations he had with several sig“new” oil and gas exploration and production in any active oil field in the county, regardless nature gatherers to those objecting to the signatures submitted. The transcripts are attached to of the type of permit that currently governs operations, to be reviewed in a discretionary the objection letter. process by Ventura County Planning. The groups objecting to the referendum point to a 2019 Economic Profile Report on 2018

“The [changes to the] zoning ordinances will only result in more local workers losing data from the Ventura County Community College District that shows there were 887 jobs in quality careers at a time when the county can’t afford to lose a single job or critical tax the mining, quarrying and oil and gas sector in the county. dollar,” said Lockhart, citing the stresses on the local economy from the pandemic. “We are Brehm pointed out that the new permitting rules wouldn’t mean the existing oil wells confident Ventura County residents will understand that keeping energy production local...is are shut down. He said the referendum effort is a “propaganda campaign” with “infinite” good for both the economy and the environment.” amounts of money to fund it. The objections companies immune to environmental laws,” said Brehm. He noted that one talking point of the

The groups objecting say the process was a clear attempt to mislead the public in order to industry is that California has some of the strictest laws on oil and gas drilling in the world, get enough signatures. but he said that the laws are only as good as the enforcement. According to Brehm, Ventura In the Dec. 18 letter, Bundy alleged that signature-gathering documents failed to include the original text of the ordinances and that the paid signature gatherers provided false and County oil companies want to remain “exempt” from those existing laws. Brehm also criticized the referendum/initiative process in California. “It was enacted to be AD PROOF misleading information to the public to convince them to sign the petition. Bundy argues that these constitute “fatal defects in the petitions,” and “require that the Registrar reject both petitions.” The first objection is that WFJEI violated California’s Election Code Section 9147, which states, “Each section of the referendum petition shall contain the title and text of the ordinance used by individuals...grassroots efforts...it’s not supposed to be 100 people paid to get signatures...it’s an abuse of the initiative process.” Margot Davis, 80, of Ventura, also went to speak with signature gatherers and said she felt it was her “duty” to her children and grandchildren to reduce the environmental impacts of local oil drilling. She supports the county’s new ordinances because they will bring local oil Client: Salzers Ad Executive: Warren Barrett (805) 648-2244 Please check this proof over carefully and indicate all corrections clearly. You will have a “1st Proof”, “2nd Proof”, and “Final Proof”. If we receive no proof after the 1st or 2nd Proofs, AD WILL RUN AS IS. If this proof meets your approval on the 1st proof, check off “FINAL PROOF (APPROVED)” box, date and sign at the bottom ISSUE: 1/14/21NOTICE: PLEASE FAX THIS PROOF TO (805) 648-2245 ASAP or the portion of the ordinance which is the subject of the referendum.” operations up to current environment review standards.

The documents used by signature gatherers only included the language proposed by WFJEI, Davis said she feels a responsibility to help shed light on what the oil and gas industry is rather than showing the current language, and the language the referendum, if passed, would trying to do in the county. “It’s unconscionable...the short term greed.” approve. Bundy states this omission renders the petitions invalid. “They are not telling [the public] that if they get all the signatures it would make the oil

The objection letter points to the intention of the law, which Bundy writes is aimed at ensur- Read the Dec. 18, 2020 letter from Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger to the office of Ventura ing anyone who provides their signature fully understands what they are signing and that by County Clerk-Recorder-Voter Registrar and the petition documents used to gather signot including both versions of the ordinance language, WFJEI intended to cloud the public’s natures online at: https://vcreporter.com/2021/01/eye_on_oil_referendum_under_fire_ understanding and circumvented the intention of state laws that govern referendums. groups_allege_public_misled/