Oil vs. Parks

Unless Mr. Williams was granted a special privilege in order to obtain his support for new offshore oil drilling (PXP) he has never read the confidential agreement that would change California Sanctuary Act policy designed to protect our coast. If he hasn't read it that means he is willing to make changes to successful statewide programs and policies without having complete information and relying entirely on people with a vested interest in a particular result-not a good place to start if you want make informed decisions so you can represent your district in the Assembly.

If he did read the agreement, then he can provide the rest of us with the details, i.e., who gets paid what, how much of the proposed donated land isn't owned by PXP, but instead is held in partnership with others not parties to the agreement and more. And he can explain to us why he hasn't fought to have the confidential agreement made public.

The thing I find most upsetting about this whole thing is what the PXP proposal has led to. It is unfortunate that EDC was so shortsighted that when they started into their secret deal with unknown compensation, they didn't recognize that this would effect the state and national debate. For example, when EDC was tacitly supporting the SLC budget bill last year by sending letters to every member of the Assembly and Senate the day before the vote that would've resulted in an end run around the SLC to approve the PXP proposal they unwittingly spawned Assemblymember Devore's new bill which takes away all oil and gas authority from the Lands Commission and gives it to the new sham board. See (http://www.scpr.org/programs/patt-mor...)
Thanks EDC and Das Williams for opening the door to offshore oil up and down the coast! Despite their previous efforts to protect the environment, they've been duped by big oil and it's sad.

As much as I disagree with our governor on most topics, and I agree with Das Williams that we do NOT want legislation to circumvent the State Lands Commission, I believe the tax revenue the PXP deal will bring to our distressed economy is worth considering.

It is not the money alone (no amount of money is worth destroying our coastline), but the guarantee to end offshore drilling permanently after an agreed upon number of years, as well as the land that will be acquired by the state that will never be able to be developed adds to this proposal's merits.

Das Williams' vision to find and support a solution that will end drilling once and for all is admirable. Of course it's a seriously complex issue and one where negotiation and compromising skills must be used in order to come up with a "win-win" solution (which, in this case, as in most compromises, is also a "lose-lose" solution). No one (other than the oil companies) wants to see more drilling off our coast, but if the long-term benefits outweigh the short-term concessions we have to make, that's what needs to be done.

As far as I know, we have had drilling off the coast for decades and this is one of the first ALMOST executed solutions that would have, ultimately, ended drilling forever.

I believe Das Williams has our best interests at heart as well as our environment. He has proven that he has the ability to see beyond the short-term problems and effectively create long-term solutions. Had the State Lands Commission voted for this deal as the EDC and many other local environmentalists supported, we would not be in this situation with the governor and Devore now.

Governor Schwarzenegger’s cynical move to hold state parks funding hostage to an overthrow (or shifted balance of) the power of the State Lands Commission to open Tranquillon Ridge (and later the entire CA coast) to offshore drilling is wrong-headed on many fronts. Balancing the budget is a revenue-based solution, not to be done at the expense of our coasts and parks.

First, we need to levy fair share fees on ongoing oil extraction in our state — Assemblyman Pedro Nava’s Oil Severance Tax, that would fund the systems that keep the trains running on time, kids having books to read, keeping college students away from loan-sharks, and protecting our neighborhoods from crime and disaster. Texas, Florida, and Alaska levy this fee in exchange for dealing with the significant external costs of public resource extraction and their oil industry seems to operate just fine. Without government, without governmental revenue, our society will become a Third World disaster.

Second, we need to protect our coasts from destructive Carbon Age overtures, feeding our addiction to oil, polluting the skies, and fouling our climate. As the State Lands Commission (SLC) and the legislature voted this PXP-EDC gambit down twice, the facts haven't changed. You cannot end oil drilling by opening up the coast to more drilling. Federal authorities have the last say, not a backroom deal between an oil company and a few lawyers with good intentions gone seriously bad. Reference Assemblyman Chuck DeVore's proposal to do away with State Coastal Sanctuary Act and the SLC all in the name of selling our coasts to Big Oil. We can thank EDC for creating that skewed business model.

Schwarzenegger’s plan would bring sunbathers, surfers, luxury hotels, sunset diners, fragile wetland and tidal habitats, and already-stressed fisheries within three miles of oil spills, blowouts, toxic drilling muds, pipelines, erosion, and rig air pollution. Ask residents of the Kimberley Coast of West Australia what they think about their three-month-long high-technology-blowout last year.

Political and financial capital must be invested in renewable alternatives now to protect our climate and sustainability, as well as achieving that theoretical “energy independence.”

Say no to Mr. Schwarzenegger’s throwing our parks and coasts into the hands of Big Oil!

Jack Eidt
Wild Heritage Planners

“offering a rent reduction to a victim of domestic violence in exchange for forcing them to go back and live with the abuser.”

Good one Pedro. You show us again and again your lack of character.

Like I said, unless CentralCoastGal 2010 works for PXP, (which might be a possibility) and has read the agreement, she too is promoting new offshore oil drilling (just like Das Williams) without ever having read the confidential agreement. Unless she has read the document, she has no idea what is really in there. Call me crazy-but as an attorney, legislator and advocate for coastal protection-that really bothers me.

If you are buying a car, you read the contract. If you are buying a house, you read the contract. If you are buying a cellphone, you read the contract. But if you want to undermine long existing statewide policy that has served our state well and protects the interests of the 37 million people of California-you don't need to know much of anything-except what someone else told you they felt you needed to

I am not alone in my objection to this drilling scheme. I am joined by the California State Assembly, the State Lands Commission and over 100 environmental groups who don't believe that the way to end drilling is to have more drilling and who refuse to put a price tag on our coast.

Sounds like a good plan. Since CA imports 2/3 of its energy needs, then if it won't step up to producing from its rich deposits, then people shouldn't spend precious energy driving to the parks.

One more time, folks: oil and gas for things that move, wind, waves, solar, coal, and nuclear for stationary generation.

Perhaps Pedro Nava and Susan Jordan could introduce legislation to end offshore oil drilling in California. Pedro has had 4 years to do it but hasn't. He hasn't offered anything to help end offshore oil drilling.

I might hurt his political career. Lord knows he has enough Indian casino money to launch a campaign to do it. Indian casino money is tax-free money.

If Susan gets elected you watch and see. She won't introduce legislation to end offshore oil drilling either. Just an educated guess. Politics before progress.

Note to CentralCoastGal: this was not "Das Williams' vision to find and support a solution that will end drilling once and for all"-- in fact when the proposal was first brought forth, discussed and voted on locally, Mr. W was nowhere near the forefront. not until it was clear that the divisiveness the pxp deal created among local progressives would forge a wedge big enough for him to speciously justify a run for higher office. Nothing more. Nothing less. calculation. let's not lionize purely pragmatic positions. there will be plenty of time for historical revisionism up ahead.

We are all dogs now.

http://www.sessionmagazine.com/img/li...

So here's my question-EDC/PXP covet a confidential agreement, negotiated between 3 parties, that changes statewide policy for the state of California, with consequences for all of us, 37 million, from the Smith River in the north to Imperial Beach in the south. David Landecker has now said there are amendments that make things better and he welcomes a skeptical review of the proposal.

How are the rest of us-the great excluded-supposed to engage in a meaningful way, evaluating what EDC/PXP want to do to our coast? It is ultimately "our" coast, when we can't read, assess and evaluate your confidential deal. Why doesn't EDC/PXP post the documents on the internet so the public can make up their own minds? Where is the harm in that?

To begin with there is already legislation on the books that prohibits drilling in State waters- the Sanctuary Act. That is why State Lands was able to deny the PXP proposal, and rightly so. They determined the deal was not enforceable, it would NOT benefit the State, it would set a dangerous precedent (already come true) and the deal was confidential. So Nava doesn't have to introduce new legislation, only defend what is on the books, which is what he is doing.

Secondly, EDC has recently stated that the secret deal has been amended to make it workable, but we haven't seen the original agreement or the new one. How dare they tell us to simply believe them about this deal. Don't they think we all have the right to see the facts and judge for ourselves, particularly when they now tell us to believe that they have amended the agreement to make it work when they told us the original agreement was bullet proof. They lied to us then so why shouldn't we think they they are lying to us now?

As for Das Williams, he is nothing but an opportunist. He talks out of both sides of his mouth- he supports new drilling in State waters but is opposed to off shore oil drilling. Now that's the definition of a slimy politician!

I guess the State forgot to notify Venoco and Chevron that they couldn't drill. Nine active offshore drilling and production locations remain in state waters, one platform and one artificial island in the Santa Barbara Channel, and four artificial islands and three platforms in San Pedro Bay/Long Beach Harbor. Do you know when their leases expire? And what about Federal leases, when do you expect those to expire? I don't think you can just sit back and say things are protected. Legislation is meaningless unless the drilling stops.