All posts by BenIndy

Join the Movement to Stop Dangerous Carbon Capture and Storage in Solano County

The Montezuma NorCal Carbon Sequestration Hub imagines a new carbon dioxide pipeline system in the Bay Area.

BenIndy Contributor Kathy Kerridge, July 18, 2024. Images added by BenIndy.

Hi All,

I am reaching out to invite you to an upcoming Info-Session & Petition Training to stop the Bay’s first proposed carbon dumping scheme. The project is a grave threat to our communities, wetlands, and way of life, and is a dangerous distraction from real climate solutions.

The Montezuma NorCal Carbon Sequestration Hub proposes to drill an injection well near the Montezuma wetlands, across Suisun Bay from Pittsburg & Antioch. Dangerously compressed carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel facilities around the Bay would be collected and transported by barge and pipeline to the injection site, ultimately expanding the lifespan of the dirty facilities and putting our communities at risk. Large enough quantities of CO2 can be fatal.

Join Communities Against Carbon Transport & Injection (CACTI) for an Info-Session & Petition Training on Wednesday, July 31 at 6pm over Zoom to learn more about the project and sign up to petition in your community! 

We need all hands on deck to get the word out and stop this dirty and dangerous project from being built in our backyards! See event details and RSVP here.

We hope to see you there!

Satartia victim Debrae Burns, with oxygen tank, about one week after the 2020 Satartia, MS  pipeline explosion. On February 22, 2020, a pipeline carrying carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide exploded, causing cars to stop and some victims to lose consciousness due to lack of oxygen; 45 were hospitalized, 200 were evacuated, and three people nearly died. | DeSmog.com / Dan Zegart.

Learn more about Carbon Capture in Solano County

Read More on BenIndy>> Click for coverage of this project and other dangerous pipeline projects in the United States.

Listen on KPFA >> Terra Verde is joined by guests Dr Marjaneh Moini of PSR-SF and Kathy Kerridge of 350 Bay Area Action to discuss the public health risks and environmental concerns arising from an emerging proposal to establish a carbon capture and sequestration injection site at Montezuma Hills in Solano County to ostensibly address carbon pollution from the electricity generating facilities, hydrogen plants and refineries operating in the San Francisco Bay Delta area.

Watch on YouTube >> “Carbon Pipelines: Stories from Satartia.” On Monday, January 24, Food & Water Watch and the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club brought together Satartia residents and a first responder to the incident in a discussion moderated by Dan Zegart, the investigative journalist who broke the story nationally in 2021. Additional speakers include Representative Ro Khanna (CA-17), Food & Water Watch Senior Iowa Organizer Emma Schmit, and Jessica Mazour of the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club.

Largaespada and Macenski Apparently Enter Benicia City Council Race (We Guess? Kind Of?)

[BenIndy: To our knowledge, neither current Council Member Trevor Macenski nor former member Lionel Largaespada has officially announced their candidacy. However, we can infer a few things from the labor council’s announcement. First, we can guess that these two intend to run. That’s an easy one, and not surprising at all.  Second, the filing period hasn’t closed yet, indicating that the council is not interested in considering a full field of candidates before anointing their favorites. (To be fair, early endorsements aren’t uncommon, but frequency and equitability aren’t the same thing.) Third, this suggests that neither Macenski nor Largaespada plans to challenge Mayor Steve Young in his reelection bid. Fourth, it shows that the labor group is willing to endorse GOP candidates, assuming Largaespada has not changed parties since this 2018 SF Chronicle profile. While labor unions sometimes endorse conservative candidates, it is rarer due to the GOP’s history of blocking minimum wage increases, weakening safety and health protections, cracking down on union activity, and ignoring violations of workers’ rights to benefit mega-corporations. Although the labor council may have stolen some of the apparent candidates’ precious potential thunder by preempting their actual announcements, we’ll share them when we see them.]

Napa-Solano Central Labor Council announce endorsements for election

They include Largaespada for Benicia City Council, Dr. LaTanya Young for Vallejo School Board

Vallejo Times-Herald, by Thomas Gase, July 20, 2024

The Napa-Solano Central Labor Council, representing workers across both Napa and Solano counties, announced its early November election endorsements on Saturday.

Officials say the candidates were interviewed by the United Workers for Local Government, which consists of representatives from the Napa-Solano Central Labor Council and the Napa-Solano Building Trades Council, as well as workers from across all parts of the local economy, from the public sector to construction, and from manufacturing to teachers, nurses, and the service sector.

The endorsements:

  • Michael Silva, Vacaville City Council
  • Trevor Macenski, Benicia City Council
  • Lionel Largaespada, Benicia City Council
  • Ana Petero, Fairfield-Suisun School Board
  • Dr. LaTanya Young, Vallejo School Board
  • Scott Sedgley, Napa Mayor
  • Beth Painter, Napa City Council, District 2
  • Bernie Narvaez, District 4
  • Measure G, Napa City Bond Measure

Following in-depth interviews, these candidates were evaluated based on their track record of support for workers’ issues. Additionally, ballot measures in the City of Napa (Measure G) and the City of Benicia (Measure F, also known as the Save Our Streets measure) were evaluated and endorsed based on their impact on workers and broader communities.

Over the coming weeks, the Napa-Solano Central Labor Council will interview candidates in all other races across these two counties.

Biden Declines Nomination and Endorses Harris, According to Twitter/X Posts

 

What is Local Media Saying About Solano County’s East Solano Plan Impact Report?

[BenIndy: Here are some initial takes on the report from the Vallejo Times-Herald. All emphasis (bolded sections) was added by the BenIndy and was not in the original article.]

Cars drive over hills on Highway 12 between Suisun City and Rio Vista. California For ever released a survey this week with economic data regarding Solano County. | Chris Riley / The Reporter.

Vallejo Times-Herald, by Nick McConnell and Matthew Brown, July 19, 2024. Also published in The Reporter.

Solano County raised concerns about the impacts of California Forever’s East Solano Plan, citing questions over water, traffic, taxes, agriculture, Travis Air Force Base, and other issues in its initiative report released Thursday evening.

The county estimates that the first phase of the project would lead to an estimated annual fiscal deficit of $5.9 million for the county and $6.5 million for the fire district, and the full buildout would lead to annual deficits of $103.1 million and $ 88.8 million, respectively.

The report was compiled to outline the potential impact and magnitude of the plan and was agreed upon at a Board of Supervisors Meeting last month. The report will be presented to the board on Tuesday morning when supervisors will decide whether to place the initiative on the ballot or enter a development agreement directly.

“We hope this report inspires a constructive debate of the issues facing this community,” said Bill Emlen, Solano County Administrator. “Compiling this impact analysis on the new community proposal has been a herculean effort by the county team given its size and scope nearly doubling our current county population at buildout — and its sweeping impacts on our environment, economy, and mobility.”

The East Solano Plan would be significantly larger than any other developments proposed in the county or across the state in recent years, weighing in at well over 10 times the size and number of residential units the county has seen proposed. As this initiative was filed only a few months after the intentions of the landholders were announced, the report explains that the county did not have sufficient time to create an EIR before November.

As stated in the report: “The fact that the Initiative will be presented to the voters without the benefit of an EIR, or objectively prepared planning and engineering studies expected for a new community proposal of this magnitude, is a significant issue that warrants further public consideration as the Initiative is discussed and debated during the months leading up to the November vote.”

From 2019 to 2023, California Forever, then known as Flannery Associates, expressed to the county that it only wished to use the land for agricultural purposes. They asked questions about drilling for irrigation, the report explains, and reportedly indicated an interest in planting olive trees on a “substantial portion” of the property. The county learned of the organization’s intentions along with the public when the New York Times published a story about the company last September.

The initiative does not include sufficient information for county approval at this stage, the report indicates, and an EIR and Development Agreement with the county would be necessary to iron out those details. It is unclear, however how those changes could be made after the initiative is passed, as the initiative does not include a mechanism to solve those issues.

“The Initiative does not specifically address obligations of the proponents to make changes to the plan if, for example, a significant environmental impact is identified,” the report reads. “As a result, the Initiative places the voters in a difficult position because they will not have available the type of important site-specific environmental information typically available.”

Without the ability to review or influence developments in the new community beyond a “superficial level”, the report explains that both county government and the public could be left without recourse if California Forever wishes to alter the plan at a later time.

The county’s assessment of California Forever’s infrastructure and public utilities needs detailed a miles-long price tag, but with little to no information on funding sources, Solano County isn’t quite sure who’s fronting the bill. California Forever’s proposed initiative cites the implementation of a Public Facilities and Financing Plan that would “finance, build, own and maintain” local infrastructure and public service facilities, without charging other Solano cities or the county.

California Forever CEO Jan Sramek talks to journalists after the company announced the proposed location of the new city they would like to create west of Rio Vista. | Chris Riley / The Reporter.

However, the county’s report notes several times that it hasn’t even seen this plan yet, meaning it isn’t sure where the money would be coming from to build and upkeep a massive infrastructure venture –– or if the funding even exists. Just because California Forever says it will pay, the report says it doesn’t guarantee that “adequate facilities and services would be provided.”

In the county’s projection, water treatment appears to be one of the biggest standalone price points on the public utilities bill. Under Phase 1, a projection of 20,000 dwelling units, wastewater output is estimated at 3.56 million gallons per day. The county estimates this would jump to nearly 24.5 million gallons per day with the project’s Buildout estimation of 160,000 dwelling units. The county expects output to be even higher, as these estimates don’t even include non-residential wastewater.

Under these projections, the new community would need extensive plumbing and new treatment plants. California Forever has proposed two sites for the treatment. Totaling the new sites and the pipeline infrastructure to feed them, the county estimates a cost of $996 million to accommodate California Forever’s Buildout scenario. Water from the seasons must also be accounted for –– since there is no existing stormwater drainage system, California Forever would have to build one from scratch, costing an estimated $625 million to accommodate the Buildout scenario.

California Forever’s proposal maintains that it wouldn’t require the diversion of water resources from other jurisdictions to feed its own by relying primarily on surface water, groundwater, and recycled water. The county projects Phase 1 water needs to be between 10,000 and 13,000 AFY, jumping to 44,000 to 75,000 AFY, meaning the Buildout phase would require between 14.3 billion to 24.4 billion gallons of water per year to accommodate the new community.

Sheep graze in a plot of land east of CA 113 in Rio Vista owned by the government that California Forever hopes to exchange for a section of Jepson Prairie. | Chris Riley / The Reporter.

According to a water study released in June, California Forever claims to have already acquired 5.3 billion gallons of water per year. However, the county report states that California Forever has not explicitly identified a surface water source for the new city. Relying on groundwater and recycled water would add more to the infrastructure bill. The county estimates that treatment plants for groundwater and a distribution system would cost $354.6 million by Buildout. A recycled water distribution system was estimated at $100 million. As for other services and amenities, the Buildout phase’s projection of a population of 400,000 would make California Forever’s city the most populated in Solano County.

The report notes that the various civil services –– law enforcement, firefighters, libraries and schools –– required to accommodate the Buildout population would far surpass the current level of services provided in each jurisdiction. Schools alone would occupy a huge portion of these costs. The county estimates just over 8,000 students after Phase 1 and nearly 66,000 by Buildout, which would require nearly $6 billion in school facility costs alone.

Rezoning California Forever’s land holding, the county estimates, would have impacts on the value of the land itself and the natural services the land provides. The county says that it would lose out on $6.7 million in annual earnings from the agricultural land the project would occupy, which includes the Rio Vista Parkland area. An ecosystem services valuation, which included water, climate regulation, waste treatment, erosion prevention, biodiversity and aesthetics, estimated an added loss of just over $11 million. Biodiversity alone was priced at $8 million, accounting for most of the value, followed by aesthetics at $1.1 million and waste treatment at $518,000.

A spokesperson for California Forever indicated that the organization has yet to review all of the report’s findings. Still, reports commissioned to consultants by California Forever came to “different conclusions,” finding that the project would provide “53,000 and 87,000 permanent new jobs across all of Solano County, and a net tax revenue surplus of $44 to $54 million per year for Solano County.”

“We look forward to working with all stakeholders to review the collective findings and deliver the information everyone needs to gain confidence that this project would create a stronger Solano County,” the spokesperson said.