[Community Rights Network] FW: Californian almond farm ruined by fracking company operations

[Shannon Biggs]

Hi all, 

Just thought I would forward this. This is farmland here in California, and
it is fracking waste contaminating ground water.  It appears not to be a new
story either, though its just circulating on the fracking lists. Of
particular note was the the following:

In a practice he called Œdevoid of morals¹, Wegis drew attention to Aera¹s
use of an accounting concept known as ³net present value² to make, or help
make, strategic decisions. By using the system, Wegis claimed Aera used net
present value to determine that it was more profitable over the long run ‹
even in the event of a jury¹s award of punitive damages ‹ to let the
groundwater pollution continue into Mr Starrh¹s farmland, rather than offer
remediative or preventative measures.

Best to you all. 

IN solidarity to protect your precious water,

Shannon 


------ Forwarded Message
From: Jillian Johnson <cookiesinheaven at gmail.com>
Reply-To: "unfrack-california at googlegroups.com"
<unfrack-california at googlegroups.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 11:59:40 -0700 (PDT)
To: "unfrack-california at googlegroups.com"
<unfrack-california at googlegroups.com>
Subject: [unfrack-california] Californian almond farm ruined by fracking
company operations

In January 2010, a farmer was awarded USD$8.5million damages
<http://www.hcn.org/issues/42.21/oil-and-water-dont-mix-with-california-agri
culture>  by an unconventional shale gas extraction (USGE) company that had
been found guilty of contaminating local waters that had accessed his
farmland.
Farmer Fred Starrh of Kern County, California owns 6,000 acres of farmland
that harvested pistachios, alfalfa, cotton and almonds.
Oil and Gas company Aera Energy are estimated to have dumped 2.4billion
barrels of Œproduced¹ fracking waste water into unlined percolation ponds on
the edge of Mr Starrh¹s land.
Mr Starrh noticed the environmental damage after he mixed his ground water
with local aqueduct water that watered his cotton plants, before they wilted
heavily. The water also killed off almond trees that he had managed to farm
at 155 per acre.
Mr Starrh had considered that contaminants of the produced frack waste water
could have caused the pollution. Well waters within his land were tested and
were found to be positive for boron and chloride ­ two chemicals associated
with the USGE callied out by Aera Energy, a joint venture between Shell and
Exxon Mobil.
After a nine year court case, Mr Starrh was awarded $8.5million in damages
by Kern County Court. However, despite winning his case against Aera Energy,
Starrh appealed the court decision, stating that, as a result of the damage
caused by Aera, he will need as much as $2 billion to rehabilitate his land
and construct terraced ponds to properly ³flush² his soil and groundwater of
toxins.
Mr Starrh was in court again last year
<http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/business/x837007080/Aera-Starrh-lawsu
it-goes-to-jury>  as a jury retired on 8th March 2013 to determine wether Mr
Starrh be awarded further punitive damages from Aera Energy in order to
fully remediate his land.
As a result of previous findings about Aera¹s responsibility for the
pollution, much of the case has revolved around the usefulness of Starrh¹s
native groundwater with regard to irrigation.
Aera¹s lead attorney, Stephen Kristovich recalled testimony that the area¹s
groundwater has long been understood to be too salty and with too much boron
to work on crops, hence the farming boom that arrived with the California
Aqueduct in the 1960s.
Starrh¹s attourney Ralph Wegis countered by referencing studies suggesting
that at least 20 different crops can live on Starrh¹s native groundwater.
In a practice he called Œdevoid of morals¹, Wegis drew attention to Aera¹s
use of an accounting concept known as ³net present value² to make, or help
make, strategic decisions. By using the system, Wegis claimed Aera used net
present value to determine that it was more profitable over the long run ‹
even in the event of a jury¹s award of punitive damages ‹ to let the
groundwater pollution continue into Mr Starrh¹s farmland, rather than offer
remediative or preventative measures.
Kristovich responded by saying that net present value has been just one of
many criteria guiding Aera¹s decisions, and that the others include
environmental responsibility. He added, ³There¹s nothing wrong with using
economics and using that as part of your decision-making process.²
In his rebuttal, Wegis told the jury that Aera decided it was in its best
financial interest to wait rather than stop the pollution.
The jury returned 13th March 2013
<http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/business/oil/x738927654/Kern-grower-g
ets-another-bumper-crop-of-disappointment>  to deny Mr Starrh further
punitive damages, stating that Aera Energy¹s contamination of the adjacent
aquifer was accidental.
Mr Starrh was dissapointed in the result, ³I was totally devastated, that¹s
all,² Starrh said. ³I couldn¹t accept it from a personal perspective.²
Mr Starrh and his attourney Ralph Wegis will re-appeal the decision.
http://www.frackaware.com/wordpress/?p=1829



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Unfrack California" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to unfrack-california+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mcn.org/pipermail/crn/attachments/20140410/958a948c/attachment.html