On Thursday, renewable energy company RWE announced that it entered into a $1.22 billion agreement with the Trump administration to relinquish its offshore wind leases. RWE is one of two companies, alongside Vineyard Offshore, that hold wind leases off California’s North Coast through its RWE U.S. Offshore subsidiary.According to a press release published by RWE Thursday morning, the company’s settlement with the U.S. Department of Interior will “resolve claims against the U.S. government and relinquish its offshore wind leases off the coasts of New York, California and Louisiana.”“RWE U.S. Offshore secured these leases from the U.S. government with a long-term commitment to develop offshore wind capacity in American waters and invested more than $1 billion toward the leases and the development of these projects,” RWE’s release reads. “These leases provided legal rights to develop offshore projects and represented years of planning, investment, and partnership with federal agencies.“After careful consideration, it was determined there is no path forward to permit these projects in the U.S. for the foreseeable future. The settlement resolves RWE U.S. Offshore’s legal claims and provides $1.22 billion in settlement funds. The company determined that this resolution best serves the interests of its stakeholders and allows it to direct resources toward energy projects that can be advanced with certainty.”RWE’s press release says that the agreement will allow the company to “redeploy its capital to accelerate value-accretive opportunities that deliver reliable and affordable energy.” That “redeployment” is described as including “$900 million to acquire an indirect 16% stake in the Louisiana LNG Project” — a large-scale natural gas development that has been criticized as a major source of greenhouse gas pollution — and other natural gas projects throughout the U.S.Keep Reading
A 16-year effort to hold a McKinleyville-area property owner accountable for polluting Little River hit a major turning point today after the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board unanimously voted to refer the case to the state Attorney General’s Office for review. Now the case will play out in the courts.Since December 2010, state agencies and environmental advocacy groups have sounded the alarm over allegations of unpermitted solid waste disposal and unauthorized grading at the 226-acre property, which is just upstream from Moonstone Beach. Water board staff assert that “poorly managed livestock grazing” and abandoned cow and horse carcasses have contaminated Little River with bacteria, specifically E. coli and fecal coliform, putting beachgoers and threatened salmonid species at risk.The property, owned by the Vern C. McGaughey Trust, has been the subject of dozens of warning letters and violation notices from the California Coastal Commission, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), state water authorities and various local agencies. Despite numerous attempts to resolve the matter and threats of fines exceeding $6,000 per day, 88-year-old Vern McGaughey has yet to comply.***All who spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting urged the board to approve the resolution and forward the case to the attorney general for review.Michael van Hattem, a senior environmental scientist with CDFW, described McGaughey’s property as “one of the worst” he’s ever seen for environmental violations. He described “countless solid waste dumps,” including derelict vehicles and RVs, as well as “land and habitat abuse.”“CDFW recognizes the Little River Watershed as a critically important resource for salmonid recovery,” he said. “Given the ongoing harm to Little River and its floodplain, wetlands, sensitive species, habitats, tributaries, and the responsible party’s refusal to comply with the cleanup order, judicial enforcement of the water code is the most appropriate and efficient option [for enforcement]. CDFW and our … partners fully support fixing the issues in Little River once and for all, and that starts with the McGaughey property.”Several other speakers, including Jen Kalt, executive director of the Humboldt Waterkeeper, raised concern about the presence of fecal bacteria in Little River and the potential for people to get sick from accidentally ingesting the water.“We’ve received numerous complaints from people who have children who experience explosive diarrhea and vomiting after playing in the river or after rinsing off their wetsuits in the river,” she said. “As you heard, Little River also supports spawning coho and other protected species. It’s a really important watershed … and it could be a really incredible place if it could be cleaned up and restored. … The Little River doesn’t belong to any individual landowner; it belongs to all of us.”***After some additional conversation, the board voted unanimously to approve the resolution and forward the case to the attorney general for review. The document can be read in full at this link.Read Original Article
State regulators will consider escalating enforcement this week against a landowner accused of years of illegal dumping, grading and unmanaged cattle grazing along Little River, where fecal bacteria levels have remained high for more than a decade.The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board will meet on Thursday in Crescent City to decide whether to refer the case to the California Attorney General’s Office, a rare step that could lead to judicial civil enforcement after years of violation notices and warnings.“We’ve known that there are elevated fecal bacteria levels in Little River for many, many years,” said Jen Kalt, executive director of Humboldt Waterkeeper. “It’s been documented for 15 years with various agencies giving notice of violation, and yet the landowner continues to act like they can do whatever they want, even though the river belongs to all of us.”Little River, which flows directly into Moonstone Beach, has been listed as an impaired water body under Section 303(d) since 2015 due to fecal pathogens. The designation requires state regulators to identify pollution sources and develop a plan to reduce contamination, a process that can take years and often involves multiple agencies.Humboldt Waterkeeper and the Surfrider Foundation have repeatedly raised concerns about contamination at the river mouth, where children routinely play in the water year‑round, and hundreds of local youth have learned to surf.The North Coast Regional Water Board, the California Coastal Commission, California Department of Fish & Wildlife, and Humboldt County Department of Environmental Health have issued numerous violation notices over the past 15 years for illegal dumping, grading and unmanaged grazing on a 226‑acre property upstream of Moonstone Beach.Kalt said the pattern of violations has persisted despite repeated directives to stop the damage and restore the riverbanks.“Something else needs to be done other than just sending letters with fines and requirements,” Kalt said. “Humboldt Waterkeeper completely supports the regional board’s proposal to refer the matter to the attorney general’s office and finally get some action on this.”Moonstone Beach remains one of Humboldt County’s most heavily used recreation sites, hosting surf camps, weddings, memorials and year‑round family gatherings. Kalt said the ongoing pollution threatens both public health and the river’s ecological value, noting that Coho salmon still spawn in Little River.The Water Board’s Thursday hearing marks the first time the agency has considered referring the matter to the Attorney General’s Office for judicial civil enforcement.The meeting begins at 9 a.m. and can be attended remotely. It will be held in person on Thursday at Elk Valley Rancheria, 2332 Howland Hill Road, Crescent City. The meetings are streamed at https://cal-span.org/Read Original Article
After a debate that focused on security and disability issues, Humboldt County’s Board of Supervisors approved changes to the county’s lighting ordinance in a 3-2 vote.At a July 27 special board meeting, changes to the coastal version of the ordinance were approved and staff was directed to apply the amendments to the inland version, which will go through Planning Commission review.Requested by the state’s Coastal Commission, the coastal version changes add a lighting restriction and apply it broadly.A limit of 2,700 kelvins – a measurement of light “temperature” or color – is applied to the coastal version with the change.The 2,700 kelvin range is considered as warm lighting on the yellow end of the spectrum as opposed to blue.Keep Reading
The Humboldt County Planning Commission is rolling up its sleeves on a considerable chunk of work – the Humboldt Bay Area Plan – and how to handle port terminal uses is an early focus of discussion.The extent of restricting heavy lift marine terminals – which will be necessary for wind energy but could also be used for other industrial purposes – was weighed as the commission held a June 16 workshop on the plan.During a public comment period, Jen Kalt of Humboldt Waterkeeper voiced support for the plan’s disallowance of support facilities for oil and gas drilling in a port overlay zone.The port overlay is a separate, higher-level policy project and at this point it includes facilities for offshore wind energy as well as “other permitted heavy lift port operations.”Waterkeeper is warning against the “other” operations part.“We’re really concerned that closing the door on one really heavy industrial extractive industry that would be devastating to the bay and our coast would just be replaced potentially with another one,” Kalt said.She added the plan can be changed in the future and “there’s really no reason to open the door to this kind of use right now.”Justin Mojonnier of Hog Island Oyster Company asked for “coastal food production overlays” on industrially-zoned land to protect the aquaculture industry.“I urge the county to continue to support sustainable industries like aquaculture instead of chasing large industrialized dreams,” he said.Much of the commissioners’ discussion focused on whether the heavy lift terminal policy should only allow support for wind energy.Some commissioners were reluctant to keep it that narrow.“They used to make ships here, so if they decided to make ships here again, they wouldn’t be able to do it because we took that out,” said Commissioner Peggy O’Neill on the allowance for other uses.Commissioner Noah Levy said the narrow focus is useful to “signal that we don’t want this to be used for a major cargo shipping facility.”But there was pushback on that from Commissioner Todd Fulton. “We’re dying for jobs,” he said. “Yes, it’s a very sensitive bay, I’m with you on that, but I’m not comfortable restraining ourselves from anything done in the future.”After more discussion, commissioners agreed to revisit the policy language later.Another topic under debate is high density housing of more than 30 units per acre.Keep Reading
