City of La Habra Heights Ban on New Oil & Gas Wells and Fracking Initiative, Measure A (March 2015)

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

An initiative to ban all new oil/gas wells and fracking was on the ballot for La Habra Heights voters in Los Angeles County, California, on March 3, 2015. It was defeated.

If approved, Measure A would have banned:

• the drilling of any new oil and gas wells
• the reactivation of any old, unused wells
• all fracking

The initiative was designed, in part, to target plans by Matrix Oil Co. to drill for oil on an 18-acre parcel at 2490 Las Palomas Drive, which was owned by the Southern California Gas Company.

Supporters said that the initiative would have protected the city from the environmental, community and health threats of fracking and other oil and gas extraction activities, while allowing owners with vested mineral rights and already operating oil companies to continue their operations, keeping the oil industry intact.

Opponents claimed that fracking and energy extraction had been safely accomplished for decades. They also argued that the initiative was badly written and could be used to, despite its stated intentions, put a stop to oil and gas operations that were already active, hurting the economy and violating property rights. Some also claimed that restricting new oil and gas operations and fracking was the wrong direction to take the city because increased energy industry operation could make the city more prosperous.

Similar measures were put before voters in Santa Barbara, Mendocino and San Benito counties on November 4, 2014. Two out of the three were approved.

Election results

La Habra Heights, Measure A
Result		Votes	Percentage
d No		1,061	57.0%
Yes		802	43.0%

Election results from La Habra Heights City Elections Office

Text of measure

Ballot question

The question on the ballot:

“

Shall an ordinance be adopted that prohibits land use for certain treatments of oil or gas wells that are designed to enhance production or recovery, any new oil and gas wells, and reactivation of idle wells?

”

Ballot title

The following title of the initiative was prepared for the initiative by the office of the city attorney:

“

Initiative Measure to Prohibit Land Use for New Oil and Gas Development including High Intensity Petroleum Operations, New Oil and Gas Wells, and Reactivation of Idle Wells.

”

Ballot summary

The following summary of the initiative was prepared by the office of the city attorney:

“

This Initiative would amend the City of La Habra Heights General Plan and the City of La Habra Heights Municipal Code to prohibit land use for new oil and gas development. This Initiative would add Land Use Policy 28A to the General Plan prohibiting land use for new oil and gas development, including high-intensity petroleum operations, new oil and gas wells, and reactivation of idle wells. This Initiative would also add definitions and conforming amendments to the General Plan to implement this prohibition. Land Use Policy 28A would exempt the following cases from the prohibition: A person or entity that has obtained, as of the effective date of this Initiative, and wishes to modify a vested right to conduct high-intensity petroleum operations, drill new oil or gas wells, or reactivate idle wells, upon required findings of the City Council A situation where this Initiative effects an unconstitutional taking of property rights, upon required findings of the City Council Exemption determinations for vested rights modifications or unconstitutional takings made by the City Council shall be made after a duly noticed public hearing. This Initiative would amend Sections 7.3.50 and 7.3.70 of the Municipal Code regarding the OS-RP and SPO Zone Districts to incorporate the prohibition in Land Use Policy 28A. This Initiative would also amend Section 8.6.10 and add Section 8.6.30 to provide specific procedures to process applications for exemption from Land Use Policy 28A based on vested rights or unconstitutional takings. Lastly, this Initiative would amend Section 12.2.10 to add definitions and conforming terms relevant to the prohibition and procedures. Majority voter approval is required for this Initiative. This Initiative will go into effect ten (10) days after the date that a majority vote in its favor is declared by the City Council. If approved, the General Plan and Municipal Code amendments set forth in this Initiative may be repealed or amended only by a majority vote of the people of the City.

”

Lawsuit

James Pigott, a resident of La Habra Heights, sued the city over the ballot language provided for the initiative. Specifically, Pigott's attorneys claimed the phrase "high-intensity petroleum operations" used by the ballot title and summary was not neutral language. They claimed that the phrase has acquired political charge that could sway voters in their decision. The city council met on December 1, 2014, to discuss a compromise that could end the lawsuit. The city council voted four against one to replace the objectionable language with "land use for any treatment of oil or gas wells that is designed to enhance production or recovery." Petitioners filed a counter suit seeking to revert the ballot language to the original version, keeping the phrase "high intensity petroleum operations." The suit claimed that the new language might mislead voters into thinking the initiative would prohibit already existing oil and gas operations.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Joanne O’Donnell ruled on December 31, 2014, in favor of Measure A proponents. She stated that the new language of "land use for any treatment of oil or gas wells that is designed to enhance production or recovery" would be misleading to the average voter. She affirmed that the use of the phrase "high-intensity petroleum operations" accurately represented the substance of the initiative. After this ruling, the city council scheduled a meeting to draft and propose new ballot language. This language was set to be presented on January 6, 2015, with any objections heard in court on the following day.

Full text

The first two sub-sections of the initiative read as follows:

“

Section 1: Purpose and Findings A. Purpose: The purpose of this Initiative is to protect the City of La Habra Heights’ air, water, and health for the general welfare of the City’s residents by prohibiting the use of land within the City’s jurisdiction for the purposes of any new oil or gas development, such as drilling or, conducting High-Intensity Petroleum Operations, or reactivating Idle Wells. B. Effect: Upon adoption, the Initiative will amend the City of La Habra Heights General Plan and Municipal Code to clearly provide that land use for any new oil or gas development including High Intensity Petroleum Operations, new oil and gas wells, and reactivation of Idle Wells, is prohibited within City limits. This Initiative includes provisions to safeguard vested rights and constitutionally protected property rights. Nothing in this Initiative is intended to interfere with the operation of existing oil and gas wells, provided the operation does not involve new High-Intensity Petroleum Operations.

”

The full text of the initiative is available here.

Heights Oil Watch logo

Support

Supporters

The group called the Heights Oil Watch (HOW) was behind this initiative.

Arguments in favor

HOW displayed the following arguments in favor of the initiative on its website:

"La Habra Heights vs The Oil Company," July 3, 2014

“	The initiative's goal is to preserve our beautiful city, by restricting expansion of new oil and gas developments and more intense methods such as fracking. You might ask, but there is no fracking in our city and no one has proposed to frack. This is true, so if it is not occurring and there are no known intentions to frack, why worry about banning something that does not even exist? While proponents of new oil development or fracking might debate that it can be done safely, put that aside and consider the accompanying fleets of heavy trucks and tankers, equipment, and explosives used in perforation guns as only a few examples of operations that may not be very safe at all in a residential community? If an Environmental Impact Report states that heavy Hazmat trucking on our windy and steep roads is safe, is it really safe? That is a personal question you have to ask yourself. Does the initiative take away the rights of current oil companies on land zoned for resource production? The initiative does not take anyone's property or mineral rights away, but it does restrict how their land is used. Is this unfair because "their land is zoned for resource production"? As a homeowner you have a right to own your land, but city and state law restricts you from certain intrusive, unsafe or offensive activities. Could you build a 5 story house on your property? Is that your right to do so? It may be your personal right, but your community as a collective restricts you from doing that - in fact, the city code regulates us a lot more than it regulates the oil companies.	”
—Heights Oil Watch

Editorials

• The Los Angeles News Group, which controls nine daily news papers in the Los Angeles County area, released an editorial urging voters to approve Measure A. An excerpt of the article is below:

“	City Council members imply the measure would ban all current drilling; it wouldn’t. Oil companies say they don’t frack anyway, but are spending big to oppose the measure. We think A is a reasonable measure to keep current drilling but not allow new wells or possibly dangerous — seismically, and to our water table — fracking in the city of just 5,000 residents. We recommend a Yes vote.	”
—Los Angeles News Group editorial board

Opposition

Opponents

A group called La Habra Heights Citizens Against the Energy Ban, largely funded by Californians for Energy Independence, ran a campaign in opposition to this initiative.

Arguments against

The La Habra Heights Citizens Against the Energy Ban released the following arguments in opposition to the initiative:

“	A deceptive and poorly-drafted ballot measure will appear on the March ballot that would reduce funding for local services and infrastructure, negatively impact the value of our property and end payments we receive from oil production in La Habra Heights. The special interests behind this initiative aren’t telling residents the facts about a local energy ban. The City’s analysis of this measure identifies many devastating impacts on our community, including: CUTS IN SERVICES “The measure could result in annual loss of $370,000 in general fund revenue (13% of the general fund) risking the loss of the Paramedic program and further cutbacks in patrol” COSTLY LEGAL CHALLENGES “The initiative is vulnerable to legal challenge in the areas of pre-emption and vested rights, in which case City taxpayers would bear the cost of very expensive and extensive litigation” HIGHER TAXES Elimination of prospective funding from new oil development could place further reliance on the residents to pay for badly needed road and infrastructure improvements REDUCED INCOME FOR RESIDENTS “Current mitigation payments to local property owners…are dependent on existing production. The Initiative puts them at risk.” Bans on domestic oil production like this one, and the similarly drafted measure that was overwhelmingly defeated in Santa Barbara, are misguided. They make us more dependent on oil from foreign countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq that don’t have California’s strong environmental protections.	”
—La Habra Heights Citizens against the Energy Ban

Campaign finance

The statewide pro-energy PAC Californians for Energy Independence donated $200,000 towards an organized effort to defeat Measure A. Although this was a small amount compared to the millions spent in 2014 by the oil industry against similar measures in Santa Barbara, Mendocino and San Benito counties, in the city boasting only 3,615 registered voters, the opposition war chest amounted to over $55 per potential voter.

Former city council member Jean Good Lietzau, who was opposed to Measure A, said, “I am absolutely stunned that anyone would give $200,000." Lietzau, confident that this amount surpassed any spent on a political campaign in the city's history, continued, “We’re Mayberry USA. I’m quite sure that $200,000 is a record.”

Bob Henderson, a former city council member in the neighboring city of Whittier said, “It’s pretty much out of the ordinary to see these amounts but (the oil issue) is a different animal. It affects more than one oil company. It’s a challenge to the entire industry.”

The anti-Measure A side did not seem unanimously grateful for the donation, however. Council Member Jane Williams, an opponent of the initiative, stated that she was unsure whether the large financial contribution would help the pro-oil campaign or hurt it since some local voters might have seen the huge campaign spending as distasteful outside meddling. Williams said, “We are our own community and they’re outsiders. I think people may get their backs up. That really disturbs me because I’m against A. I don’t know what they’re going to do with $200,000.”

City council candidates

Three candidates vied for the two available seats on the La Habra City Council, a council designed to be elected at large by all city voters, rather than by district. The candidates taking part in the election on March 3, 2015, were:

• Roy Francis, an incumbent
• Alex Villanueva, a challenger to the incumbent candidates
• Jane Williams, who was appointed to a seat on the council in 2012 and was seeking an elected term

Williams predicted that the fracking issue - epitomized by Measure A - would decide the council election, making the candidates' stance on Measure A one of the most important issues during election season.

Supporting Measure A

Roy Francis and Alex Villanueva both supported Measure A, earning HOW's endorsement in the process.

Francis said, “I’m not against big oil. I have two hot rods at home. (But) I’m not in favor of allowing unconventional drilling in the city of La Habra Heights. Nor am I in favor of (oil companies) temporarily trucking it out of the city.”

Villanueva said that Measure A would allow oil companies and property owners to ask the city for a permit to continue drilling, while also protecting the citizens of La Habra Heights from the negative consequences of fracking and oil operations. Responding to Measure A opponents who claimed the initiative would violate the property rights of those who wish to harvest oil from their land, Villanueva said, “There are also takings when property owners have the use of their property impinged by a high-intensity operation. That’s what Measure A is designed to prevent.”

Oppose Measure A

Jane Williams opposed Measure A. Concerned it would spark expensive lawsuits, Williams said, “It will be a disaster for the city if (the initiative) passes. It’s poorly drafted and inconsistent.” She said she was worried oil companies would sue based on unconstitutional taking of property. “That’s one more legal case we’ll have. It’s very dangerous for the city to get into legal trouble.”

Regarding a drilling project proposed by Matrix Oil Co. that was a driving force in the anti-fracking movement, Williams said she wasn't concerned. She stated, “They have every right to propose what they damn well please for a project. We don’t have to approve it.”

Background

See also: Fracking in California

Map of oil and gas wells in the La Habra Heights area

The process of fracking was under heavy scrutiny in California during the 2014 election cycle. 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 some of the oil and gas wells in the La Habra Heights area as of November 17, 2014. A black star denotes a notice or permit, a black circle represents a productive well and an orange circle marks the location of an injection well. Not all wells can be shown due to the size of the viewing window. To see where wells are in more specific areas of California, click here. A legend explaining the other symbols is in the upper left corner of the map.

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 uses 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 called for interim well regulations that went into effect immediately, separate regulations that went into effect in 2015, the adoption of environmental impact reports in 2015 and the use of well stimulation permits. These permits are publicly available on the DOGGR's website.
Note: This information was last updated in June 2014. See "Fracking in California" for updated information.

Reports and analyses

Impacts analysis

The city released a report on its website showing an analysis of estimated impacts that would have followed upon the approval of Measure A. The report was described as "an analysis of impacts that may come about if an initiative to ban the drilling of new wells, the reactivation of idle wells, and the use of high intensity petroleum development were to be adopted by the voters on March 3, 2015." The following individuals were involved in the preparation and publication of the report:

• Shauna Clark, La Habra Heights City Manager
• Patricia Chen, PC Law Group
• Ben Kim, La Habra Heights Planning Manager
• William Priest, Best, Best and Krieger
• Trevor Smouse, an administrative intern

The report started out with the following summary.

“

The following is a brief abstract of some of those impacts: The proponents have attempted to avoid impacts on Occidental Petroleum and the royalties paid to residents; however, representatives of the company state that the initiative would limit, if not end their operations in La Habra Heights and the royalties paid to residents The measure could result in annual loss of $370,000 in general fund revenue (13% of the general fund) risking the loss of the Paramedic program and further cutbacks in patrol The initiative is vulnerable to legal challenge in the areas of pre-emption and vested rights, in which case City taxpayers would bear the cost of very expensive and extensive litigation Eliminating oil extraction could have a positive impact in La Habra Heights by reducing traffic impacts, noise, and manmade hazards This measure amends the General Plan and the Development Code in the absence of public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council and without CEQA review The initiative is likely to require additional amendments to the General Plan and Development Code due to inconsistencies Elimination of prospective funding from new oil development could place further reliance on the residents to pay for road and infrastructure improvements Limits on oil drilling and extraction may discourage reinvestment in pipelines and other infrastructure maintained by current operators If the 70 acres of Sempra land were converted to mixed-use, commercial and high-density residential development, the City could meet state mandates for low income housing and recoup the lost revenues that resulted from the ban of oil development in La Habra Heights

”

The analysis also contained a section that said, "While the Prohibition on New Oil and Gas Development is Likely Valid, the Prohibition on Fracking and Other High-Intensity Petroleum Operations May be Preempted by SB 4."

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

Public comments and council meeting on initiative

The group behind the initiative, Heights Oil Watch, collected 515 signatures during its week-long initiative signature petition drive. City and county elections officials certified that 396 of the submitted signatures were valid, exceeding the required threshold of 377 by 19 signatures. This forced the city council to either approve the initiative directly or put it before voters. During their meeting on November 13, 2013, the council members voted to let the city's electorate decide.

Proponents stated that it was qualify their initiative for the ballot, collecting enough signatures in one week. Mike Hughes, president of Heights Oil Watch said, “We were able to rally and gain the support of enough residents in one week to get this matter on the ballot. We were given six months to get enough signatures.” He continued to imply that proponents would start a recall petition if the city council tried to stand in the way of the initiative: “We did it in a week. If this doesn’t send a message to our City Council as to what the citizens of this community want, then how long would it take to get enough signatures for a recall?”

See also

• Local fracking on the ballot
• March 3, 2015 ballot measures in California
• Los Angeles County, California ballot measures

External links

Suggest a link

• Los Angeles County Elections Office website

Support

• Heights Oil Watch website

Opposition

• La Habra Citizens Against the Energy Ban website, accessed November 17, 2014

Additional reading

• 89.3 KPCC, "Sleepy La Habra Heights jolted into lively public debate over oil by Measure A," January 2015
• Whittier Daily News, "La Habra Heights group racing to place oil drilling, fracking ban on March 3 ballot," October 20, 2014
• San Gabriel Valley Tribune, "Anti-fracking measure in La Habra Heights a step toward justice: Guest commentary," December 2, 2014