The committee — chaired by Assemblyman Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara) — chose Culver City for the second in a series of oversight hearings devoted to the environmental hazards of oil drilling, coming on the heels of a similar gathering two weeks ago in Hermosa Beach.
With the ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico serving as a backdrop, the committee heard more than three hours of testimony from city leaders, the California Department of Conservation (DOC), local community organizations and homeowners regarding the need for environmentally safe oil drilling in the 700-acre Inglewood Oil Field that borders Culver City.
“We have been absolutely clear from the outset that our intention has been to provide appropriate regulations for health, welfare and safety,” said Culver City Councilman Andrew Weissman at one point during the testimony he offered on the city’s behalf. “It’s not to stop oil drilling.”
Following opening remarks by Nava and vice chair Jeff Miller (R-Corona), Weissman took center stage, offering testimony regarding such issues as the noxious odor release that occurred in the oil field in early 2006, the city’s ongoing litigation with Plains Exploration and Production (PXP), and recommendations to the committee about what needs to be done at the state level to help local communities enact and enforce regulations designed to foster environmentally safe drilling practices.
Joining Weissman at the table were fellow councilman Micheal (Mehaul) O’Leary and David E. Cranston, an attorney with Greenburg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger LLP, the law firm representing the city in its ongoing legal battles with the County of Los Angeles and PXP.
“We cannot understand why a neighborhood shopping mall would be required to prepare an environmental impact report, but no EIR was required for the drilling of oil wells,” said Weissman, pointing to one of the city’s many perceived shortfalls in its examination of the Community Standards District (CSD) established by the county, in which the majority of the oil field resides.
Looking to buffer the -environmental-impact argument, Weissman next referenced last month’s explosion aboard an offshore oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico that has created a massive oil slick now threatening the coastlines of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida.
“In light of the tragedy in the Gulf, our concerns are certainly well-founded,” Weissman said.
However, the portion of Weissman’s testimony that generated the most dialogue with the committee centered on the enormous legal costs incurred by small municipalities while trying to hold “deep-pocketed” oil companies to environmentally safe standards. After a lengthy back-and-forth discussion between Weissman and Nava about the more than $1 million spent by the city in litigation, and in what other areas of government the city could use that money were it not needed in the oil drilling fight, O’Leary offered his lone remarks of the hearing.
“We are elected officials. It is our obligation to protect the health and welfare of our residents,” O’Leary said. “We will not be bullied.”
Weissman concluded the city’s remarks with a list of recommendations for how the state — and specifically DOC’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) — could help local communities create environmentally safe drilling standards, including a comprehensive study about risks associated with drilling in urban areas and the need for DOGGR to work collaboratively with jurisdictions in which drilling permits are being sought.
“I want to thank the city for the specific recommendations,” Nava said. “Thank you for taking a stand in support of your residents.”
The next round of testimony came via Bridget Luther, director of DOC, and Rob Habel, chief deputy of DOGGR. Each detailed the process in which oil drilling permits are issued at the state level, and each also tried to absolve their particular departments of some responsibility when it comes to how the permit process plays out at the municipal level.
“The department does not generally have cause to deny permits,” said Luther, pointing to the legal guidelines under which DOC must operate. “Unless they have a violation against them, I don’t have any authority to deny a permit.”
Habel went on to describe the inspection process DOGGR uses to check out new wells and to make sure they are in line with what had been requested in permit applications.
Near the close of their remarks, Nava succinctly summed up what may be the biggest issue of all as the entire oversight process moves forward.
“My gut feeling … is that environmental safety has been divided among a number of agencies that don’t necessarily talk to one another,” Nava said.
It’s a problem local homeowners representatives also latched on to in their remarks later in the hearing.
“Who is our advocate? Who’s going to speak for us?” asked Irma Munoz, representing Baldwin Vista.
“I am hoping that through your influence, through your legislative powers, you will be able to see where some of the loopholes are and close them.”
