Help stop fracking this week!

Worried about fracking dangers in Culver City? As it turns out, Monday, 5/20, through Thursday, 5/23, are critical days for you and me. We face a difficult challenge. And we desperately need you to influence members of the California State Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

Many of us have been applauding our local legislator, Assembly Member Holly Mitchell (54th Assembly District), because her fracking moratorium bill was passed by the state Committee on Natural Resources. And what a victory that was!

But suddenly we turn around and two fracking moratorium bills will be voted up or down by members of the state Appropriations Committee this Friday. The bills will live or die, and with it an important opportunity for all of us who want to keep our community—and for that matter, our state—safe.

If ultimately the Governor signs Ms. Mitchell’s bill or a similar bill by Assembly Member Richard Bloom (Santa Monica), the oil industry will be ordered to desist from fracking here for several years, while thorough studies to assess fracking's impacts, both positive and negative, are conducted.

Fracking—as most readers know—endangers our health. It contaminates the air, water and ground. Millions upon millions of gallons of water necessary to frack, which could otherwise be used for drinking and crop irrigation, are wasted. After the land has been continually fracked, it becomes unstable—a problem especially important on hills, such as Culver Crest.

In recent weeks, we’ve felt earthquakes nearby, reminding us that fracking has produced numerous earthquakes in other parts of the country and that earthquakes are threatened to happen here.

If you’d like more information about fracking and the moratorium, you’ll find it in a previous article in The Patch, and on the Citizen's Coalition for a Safe Community website. Remember: the bill wouldn’t ban fracking; it only calls for a moratorium.

During this period of, yes, a few years, California would fund research and studies regarding the safety of fracking were certain regulations established. Isn’t it only common sense that studies be conducted before undertaking fracking--if it is to be allowed at all?

Jobs. Revenue. Opponents of Ms. Mitchell’s bill cite the prospect of new jobs fracking would bring to California. They will tell the Appropriations Committee that if the members pass her bill or a similar one, and the governor signs it into law, those jobs would be delayed or lost. After all, the studies conducted during the moratorium would take a few years. And after that, fracking might be banned.

Of course all of us want more jobs created statewide—but certainly not at the expense of our safety. If you’re worried about the dangers of fracking, I urge you to phone members of the Assembly Committee on Appropriations to register your support for both fracking moratorium bills.

If you reside in Culver City, you are outside the districts the committee members represent. Nonetheless, we can phone the office of each of them and voice our opposition. Those answering the phones will simply take down our names, city of residence and whether we’re pro or con. I’m told that committee members pay attention to the tally. All you have to say is “the two fracking moratorium bills,” and they’ll know exactly what you mean.

As I mentioned earlier, the battle in the Appropriations Committee will focus on oil industry propaganda, that the economic benefits of fracking outweigh concerns about public safety and environmental damage.

"Don't fall into the industry's trap," warned Douglas Shields, 20-year veteran of the Pittsburgh City Council. Shields, who a few weeks ago spoke before the Culver City City Council. Shields in 2010 successfully lobbied his city council to pass a ban on fracking in Pittsburgh, the first such ban in the nation.

I phoned Doug recently, and this is what he told me: "I've seen the devastation fracking has caused throughout Pennsylvania, and I hope to help California avoid that," Shields said. "When the oil industry tells you that fracking will benefit your state economically, remember that the burden of proof falls to the moving party, the industry, "Shields said.

"When the industry quotes the number of jobs to be gained or retained and the potential revenue to the state, start asking questions: Where's your evidence? What are your assumptions? Where's your baseline data? What's your methodology?

"These people make wild projections with no basis in fact. The numbers are actually hard to come by. "The industry's key talking point is always jobs, because that polls well with the public. The industry doesn't want to discuss the down side."

Shields suggests the value of a cost benefit analysis: "What are the other economic impacts? What are the negative impacts to other businesses? Because there are negative impacts, such as local hyperinflation. The history of the oil and gas industry is one of a boom and bust cycle, which is problematic for communities.

"What are all the risks of fracking? What are the costs of cleaning up polluted water and soil? What are the costs of treating serious illnesses and the costs of lost productivity when ill people can no longer work? If there's a serious accident, how well-trained and protected are the first responders?," Shields asked.

"There should be a serious economic impact study by academic researchers," the former Pittsburgh city council member told me. He pointed to Maryland, which passed a moratorium to allow sufficient time for researchers to conduct at least seven different studies.

I urge you to share information with your family, friends and neighbors, and ask them to phone the Appropriations Committee too. Because fracking endangers all of us.