Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Napa Valley has lush vineyards and wineries – and a pollution problem

News Feed
Sunday, June 9, 2024

Famous for its lush vineyards and cherished local wineries, Napa valley is where people go to escape their problems.“When you first get there, it’s really pretty,” said Geoff Ellsworth, former mayor of St Helena, a small Napa community nestled 50 miles north-east of San Francisco. “It mesmerizes people.”What the more than 3 million annual tourists don’t see, however, is that California’s wine country has a brewing problem – one that has spurred multiple ongoing government investigations and created deep divisions. Some residents and business owners fear it poses a risk to the region’s reputation and environment.At the heart of the fear is the decades-old Clover Flat Landfill (CFL), perched on the northern edge of the valley atop the edge of a rugged mountain range. Two streams run adjacent to the landfill as tributaries to the Napa River.A growing body of evidence, including regulatory inspection reports and emails between regulators and CFL owners, suggests the landfill and a related garbage-collection business have routinely polluted those local waterways that drain into the Napa River with an assortment of dangerous toxins.The river irrigates the valley’s beloved vineyards and is used recreationally for kayaking by more than 10,000 people annually. The prospect that the water and wine flowing from the region may be at risk of contamination with hazardous chemicals and heavy metals has driven a wedge between those speaking out about the concerns and others who want the issue kept out of the spotlight, according to Ellsworth, a former employee of CFL.“The Napa valley is amongst the most high-value agricultural land in the country,” he said. “If there’s a contamination issue, the economic ripples are significant.”Employee complaintsBoth the landfill and Upper Valley Disposal Services (UVDS) were owned for decades by the wealthy and politically well-connected Pestoni family, whose vineyards were first planted in the Napa valley area in 1892. The Pestoni Family Estate Winery still sells bottles and an assortment of wines, including an etched cabernet sauvignon magnum for $400 a bottle.The family sold the landfill and disposal-services unit last year amid a barrage of complaints, handing the business off to Waste Connections, a large, national waste-management company headquartered in Texas.Before the sale, Christina Pestoni, who has also used the last name Abreu Pestoni, who served as chief operating officer for UVDS and CFL, said in a statement that the company’s operations met “the highest environmental standards” and were in full legal and regulatory compliance. Pestoni is currently director of government affairs at Waste Connections.In her statement, she accused Ellsworth and “a few individuals” of spreading “false information” about CFL and UVDS.Upper Valley Disposal Services, in an undated photo. Photograph: Courtesy Anne WheatonThe Clover Flat Landfill after a storm, in an undated photo. Photograph: Courtesy Anne WheatonBut workers at the facilities have said the concerns are valid. In December of last year, a group of 23 former and then-current employees of CFL and UVDS filed a formal complaint to federal and state agencies, including the US Department of Justice, alleging “clearly negligent practices in management of these toxic and hazardous materials at UVDS/CFL over decades”.The employees cited “inadequate and compromised infrastructure and equipment” that they said was “affecting employees as well as the surrounding environment and community”.Among the concerns was the handling of “leachate”, a liquid formed when water filters through waste as it breaks down, leaching out chemicals and heavy metals such as nitrates, chromium, arsenic, iron and zinc.In the complaint, the employees also cited the use of so-called “ghost piping”, describing unmapped and unquantified underground pipes they said were used to divert leachate and “compromised” storm water into public waterways, instead of holding it for “proper treatment”.Several fires have broken out at the landfill over the last decade and concerns have also been raised about the facility’s handling of radioactive materials.Even the “organic compost” the UVDS facility generates and provides to area farmers and gardeners is probably tainted, according to the employee complaint, which cites “large-scale contamination” of the compost.“These industrial sites are affecting the environment and residents of Napa Valley,” former UVDS employee Jose Garibay Jr wrote in a 2023 email to Napa county officials. “Also, the biggest revenue for the wine country could be tremendously affected; the wine industry, tasting rooms, wineries, hotels, resorts, restaurants, and local businesses.”Pestoni did not respond to a request for comment. Other representatives for CFL, UVDS and Waste Management also did not respond to requests for comment.“Both UVDS and [CFL] have no business being in the grape-growing areas or at the top of the watershed of Napa county,” said Frank Leeds, a former president of Napa Valley Grapegrowers who runs an organic vineyard across from the UVDS composting operation. “There are homes and vineyards all around that are affected by them.”Leeds co-owns a vineyard near UVDS with his daughter, Lauren Pesch; Pesch said she had deep concerns about water contamination from CFL and has seen pipes from the UVDS property carrying liquid into the creek next to her vineyard.A pipeline leading from Clover Flat Landfill into a creek, in an undated photo. Photograph: California department of fish and wildlifeBut the wine industry itself more broadly has not expressed public concern, and when asked for comment about the issues, there were no replies from Napa Valley Grapegrowers, Napa Valley Vintners or California Certified Organic Farmers.Michelle Benvenuto, executive director of Winegrowers of Napa County, said she was “not knowledgable enough on the details of this issue” to comment.Anna Brittain, executive director of the non-profit Napa Green, a sustainable wine-growing program that lists UVDS as a sponsor, also said she was not aware of concerns about contamination held by any members.More than a dozen Napa valley vineyards or wineries did not respond to requests for comment or declined to comment.Toxic PFAS foundClover Flat Landfill opened in 1963, and together with UVDS provides a range of valuable services to the community, according to the facility websites, including collecting and capturing methane gas to convert to electricity. It provides enough energy to power the equivalent of 800 homes and operates with “net zero” emissions, according to the website.As previously revealed by the Guardian, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has listed CFL as one of thousands of sites around the country suspected of handling harmful per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).After a request from regulators for an analysis of leachate and groundwater samples at the landfill, Pestoni reported to the California regional water quality control board in 2020 that a third-party analysis had found PFAS in all the samples collected.PFAS are human-made chemicals that don’t break down and have been linked to cancers and a range of other illnesses and health hazards. Levels of PFOS and PFOA – types of PFAS considered particularly dangerous – were detected in the landfill’s leachate at many times higher than the drinking-water standard recently set by the EPA.In early 2023, the San Francisco Bay regional water quality control board sampled a creek downstream from CFL for eight PFAS, identifying multiple PFAS compounds in each sample, according to an email from water board inspector Alyx Karpowicz to Waste Connections.“There are detections in the creek of the same compounds detected at the Clover Flat landfill,” Karpowicz informed the company.When asked about the results, a spokesperson for the water board said the PFAS concentrations in the creek samples were low enough that “chronically exposed biota are not expected to be adversely affected and ecological impacts are unlikely”.The site has racked up a number of regulatory violations and left at least one state investigator worried about “long-term stream pollution”.In a 2019 report, a California department of fish and wildlife officer determined that the landfill had “severely polluted” both streams that flow through the landfill property with “large amounts of earth waste spoils, leachate, litter, and sediment”. There was “essentially no aquatic life present”, the investigator noted.Heavy metals also are present in “alarmingly high detection” levels at the landfill, said Chris Malan, executive director of the Institute for Conservation Advocacy, Research and Education, a watershed conservation non-profit in Napa county.Last year, CFL settled a case brought against it by the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, which said its discharges were harming aquatic life and endangering people who use the Napa River for recreation. CFL agreed to implement new erosion-control measures, and to take action if testing showed contaminants above certain levels, among other measures.Also in 2023, the state fined it roughly $620,000 for discharging “leachate-laden” and “acidic” water into one of the streams, among other violations.Last fall, a group of water board officials visited the landfill to hunt down the “ghost piping” alleged in the worker complaint. They reported in an October 2023 email that they discovered an array of pipes, and a culvert, that require further scrutiny, the email said.There remains an “ongoing investigation” into environmental concerns tied to CFL and UVDS, according to Eileen White, executive director of the San Francisco Bay regional water quality control board.Separate from the environmental investigation by state and local officials, the US justice department has issued subpoenas for information from UVDS as well as from more than 20 other companies and individuals in the region. That investigation appears to focus on local political connections and contracts, not environmental concerns.Little public pushbackEllsworth, the former mayor, is among a small group of community members who have tried taking their own actions against UVDS and CFL.In February of 2021, dozens of residents voiced complaints about odors, noise and light pollution from UVDS at a virtual meeting. Some initiated litigation, but were unable to fund an ongoing legal battle and dropped the effort.Ellsworth maintains that Napa valley’s wine industry prefers any contamination concerns be kept quiet.“We tried to talk to the Napa valley wine industry trade organizations. They completely stonewalled us,” he said. “Everybody’s afraid to speak up or is too apathetic or doesn’t want to see it.”This story is co-published with the New Lede, a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group

Reports and emails show a landfill at the top of a hill is leaching dangerous toxins into the Napa River Famous for its lush vineyards and cherished local wineries, Napa valley is where people go to escape their problems.“When you first get there, it’s really pretty,” said Geoff Ellsworth, former mayor of St Helena, a small Napa community nestled 50 miles north-east of San Francisco. “It mesmerizes people.” Continue reading...

Famous for its lush vineyards and cherished local wineries, Napa valley is where people go to escape their problems.

“When you first get there, it’s really pretty,” said Geoff Ellsworth, former mayor of St Helena, a small Napa community nestled 50 miles north-east of San Francisco. “It mesmerizes people.”

What the more than 3 million annual tourists don’t see, however, is that California’s wine country has a brewing problem – one that has spurred multiple ongoing government investigations and created deep divisions. Some residents and business owners fear it poses a risk to the region’s reputation and environment.

At the heart of the fear is the decades-old Clover Flat Landfill (CFL), perched on the northern edge of the valley atop the edge of a rugged mountain range. Two streams run adjacent to the landfill as tributaries to the Napa River.

A growing body of evidence, including regulatory inspection reports and emails between regulators and CFL owners, suggests the landfill and a related garbage-collection business have routinely polluted those local waterways that drain into the Napa River with an assortment of dangerous toxins.

The river irrigates the valley’s beloved vineyards and is used recreationally for kayaking by more than 10,000 people annually. The prospect that the water and wine flowing from the region may be at risk of contamination with hazardous chemicals and heavy metals has driven a wedge between those speaking out about the concerns and others who want the issue kept out of the spotlight, according to Ellsworth, a former employee of CFL.

“The Napa valley is amongst the most high-value agricultural land in the country,” he said. “If there’s a contamination issue, the economic ripples are significant.”

Employee complaints

Both the landfill and Upper Valley Disposal Services (UVDS) were owned for decades by the wealthy and politically well-connected Pestoni family, whose vineyards were first planted in the Napa valley area in 1892. The Pestoni Family Estate Winery still sells bottles and an assortment of wines, including an etched cabernet sauvignon magnum for $400 a bottle.

The family sold the landfill and disposal-services unit last year amid a barrage of complaints, handing the business off to Waste Connections, a large, national waste-management company headquartered in Texas.

Before the sale, Christina Pestoni, who has also used the last name Abreu Pestoni, who served as chief operating officer for UVDS and CFL, said in a statement that the company’s operations met “the highest environmental standards” and were in full legal and regulatory compliance. Pestoni is currently director of government affairs at Waste Connections.

In her statement, she accused Ellsworth and “a few individuals” of spreading “false information” about CFL and UVDS.

Upper Valley Disposal Services, in an undated photo. Photograph: Courtesy Anne Wheaton
The Clover Flat Landfill after a storm, in an undated photo. Photograph: Courtesy Anne Wheaton

But workers at the facilities have said the concerns are valid. In December of last year, a group of 23 former and then-current employees of CFL and UVDS filed a formal complaint to federal and state agencies, including the US Department of Justice, alleging “clearly negligent practices in management of these toxic and hazardous materials at UVDS/CFL over decades”.

The employees cited “inadequate and compromised infrastructure and equipment” that they said was “affecting employees as well as the surrounding environment and community”.

Among the concerns was the handling of “leachate”, a liquid formed when water filters through waste as it breaks down, leaching out chemicals and heavy metals such as nitrates, chromium, arsenic, iron and zinc.

In the complaint, the employees also cited the use of so-called “ghost piping”, describing unmapped and unquantified underground pipes they said were used to divert leachate and “compromised” storm water into public waterways, instead of holding it for “proper treatment”.

Several fires have broken out at the landfill over the last decade and concerns have also been raised about the facility’s handling of radioactive materials.

Even the “organic compost” the UVDS facility generates and provides to area farmers and gardeners is probably tainted, according to the employee complaint, which cites “large-scale contamination” of the compost.

“These industrial sites are affecting the environment and residents of Napa Valley,” former UVDS employee Jose Garibay Jr wrote in a 2023 email to Napa county officials. “Also, the biggest revenue for the wine country could be tremendously affected; the wine industry, tasting rooms, wineries, hotels, resorts, restaurants, and local businesses.”

Pestoni did not respond to a request for comment. Other representatives for CFL, UVDS and Waste Management also did not respond to requests for comment.

“Both UVDS and [CFL] have no business being in the grape-growing areas or at the top of the watershed of Napa county,” said Frank Leeds, a former president of Napa Valley Grapegrowers who runs an organic vineyard across from the UVDS composting operation. “There are homes and vineyards all around that are affected by them.”

Leeds co-owns a vineyard near UVDS with his daughter, Lauren Pesch; Pesch said she had deep concerns about water contamination from CFL and has seen pipes from the UVDS property carrying liquid into the creek next to her vineyard.

A pipeline leading from Clover Flat Landfill into a creek, in an undated photo. Photograph: California department of fish and wildlife

But the wine industry itself more broadly has not expressed public concern, and when asked for comment about the issues, there were no replies from Napa Valley Grapegrowers, Napa Valley Vintners or California Certified Organic Farmers.

Michelle Benvenuto, executive director of Winegrowers of Napa County, said she was “not knowledgable enough on the details of this issue” to comment.

Anna Brittain, executive director of the non-profit Napa Green, a sustainable wine-growing program that lists UVDS as a sponsor, also said she was not aware of concerns about contamination held by any members.

More than a dozen Napa valley vineyards or wineries did not respond to requests for comment or declined to comment.

Toxic PFAS found

Clover Flat Landfill opened in 1963, and together with UVDS provides a range of valuable services to the community, according to the facility websites, including collecting and capturing methane gas to convert to electricity. It provides enough energy to power the equivalent of 800 homes and operates with “net zero” emissions, according to the website.

As previously revealed by the Guardian, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has listed CFL as one of thousands of sites around the country suspected of handling harmful per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

After a request from regulators for an analysis of leachate and groundwater samples at the landfill, Pestoni reported to the California regional water quality control board in 2020 that a third-party analysis had found PFAS in all the samples collected.

PFAS are human-made chemicals that don’t break down and have been linked to cancers and a range of other illnesses and health hazards. Levels of PFOS and PFOA – types of PFAS considered particularly dangerous – were detected in the landfill’s leachate at many times higher than the drinking-water standard recently set by the EPA.

In early 2023, the San Francisco Bay regional water quality control board sampled a creek downstream from CFL for eight PFAS, identifying multiple PFAS compounds in each sample, according to an email from water board inspector Alyx Karpowicz to Waste Connections.

“There are detections in the creek of the same compounds detected at the Clover Flat landfill,” Karpowicz informed the company.

When asked about the results, a spokesperson for the water board said the PFAS concentrations in the creek samples were low enough that “chronically exposed biota are not expected to be adversely affected and ecological impacts are unlikely”.

The site has racked up a number of regulatory violations and left at least one state investigator worried about “long-term stream pollution”.

In a 2019 report, a California department of fish and wildlife officer determined that the landfill had “severely polluted” both streams that flow through the landfill property with “large amounts of earth waste spoils, leachate, litter, and sediment”. There was “essentially no aquatic life present”, the investigator noted.

Heavy metals also are present in “alarmingly high detection” levels at the landfill, said Chris Malan, executive director of the Institute for Conservation Advocacy, Research and Education, a watershed conservation non-profit in Napa county.

Last year, CFL settled a case brought against it by the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, which said its discharges were harming aquatic life and endangering people who use the Napa River for recreation. CFL agreed to implement new erosion-control measures, and to take action if testing showed contaminants above certain levels, among other measures.

Also in 2023, the state fined it roughly $620,000 for discharging “leachate-laden” and “acidic” water into one of the streams, among other violations.

Last fall, a group of water board officials visited the landfill to hunt down the “ghost piping” alleged in the worker complaint. They reported in an October 2023 email that they discovered an array of pipes, and a culvert, that require further scrutiny, the email said.

There remains an “ongoing investigation” into environmental concerns tied to CFL and UVDS, according to Eileen White, executive director of the San Francisco Bay regional water quality control board.

Separate from the environmental investigation by state and local officials, the US justice department has issued subpoenas for information from UVDS as well as from more than 20 other companies and individuals in the region. That investigation appears to focus on local political connections and contracts, not environmental concerns.

Little public pushback

Ellsworth, the former mayor, is among a small group of community members who have tried taking their own actions against UVDS and CFL.

In February of 2021, dozens of residents voiced complaints about odors, noise and light pollution from UVDS at a virtual meeting. Some initiated litigation, but were unable to fund an ongoing legal battle and dropped the effort.

Ellsworth maintains that Napa valley’s wine industry prefers any contamination concerns be kept quiet.

“We tried to talk to the Napa valley wine industry trade organizations. They completely stonewalled us,” he said. “Everybody’s afraid to speak up or is too apathetic or doesn’t want to see it.”

This story is co-published with the New Lede, a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Data centers are putting new strain on California’s grid. A new report estimates the impacts

A new report estimates that California’s data centers are driving increases in electricity use, water demand and pollution even as lawmakers stall on oversight.

In summary A new report estimates that California’s data centers are driving increases in electricity use, water demand and pollution even as lawmakers stall on oversight. California is a major hub for data centers — the facilities that store and transmit much of the internet. But just how much these power-hungry operations affect the state’s energy use, climate and public health remains an open question for researchers. A new report released this week by the environmental think tank Next 10 and a UC Riverside researcher attempts to quantify that impact — but its authors say the report is only an estimate without harder data from the centers themselves. “We are just making these reports pretty much in the dark — since there’s almost zero information,” said Shaolei Ren, an AI researcher at UC Riverside and co-author of the report. “We have extremely little information about data centers in California.” Ren and his coauthors conclude that between 2019 and 2023, electricity use and carbon emissions by California data centers nearly doubled, while on-site water consumption slightly more than doubled. Much of the increases were attributable to the electricity required to run artificial intelligence computations. But many of the report’s estimates, including its health impacts, are based on limited data — a key issue researchers said they encountered repeatedly when crafting the report. The report underscores a growing tension in the industry: advocates who support clean energy and experts who study energy demand agree the days of steady, flat energy use at data centers are over, but there’s far less consensus on just how sharply electricity demand will climb. “In very simple terms, a lot of the uncertainty comes from: what is our life going to look like with AI in the next five years, 10 years, 20 years — how integrated is it going to become?” said Maia Leroy, a Sacramento-based advocate who focuses on clean energy and the grid.  “Are we reaching a point where the use is going to plateau, or is it going to continue?” Experts say more transparency is essential to better understand what resources data centers demand in California. Liang Min, who manages the Bits and Watts Initiative at Stanford University, says the state should improve its forecasts for energy demand to support clean energy goals. Min, who investigates AI’s growing strain on the electric grid, told CalMatters that demand at power centers rises in rapid, unpredictable phases and can shift quickly with each new generation of hardware. The California Energy Commission, which plans for energy use and the growth in demand, “can play a pivotal role,” in understanding and adapting to the demands of AI. As demand grows, policy responses lag In Sacramento, efforts to add transparency and guardrails around data centers have struggled this year. California lawmakers shelved most consumer and environmental proposals aimed at data centers, even as they approved a plan to regionalize California’s power grid to help meet demand from the sector. They set aside two bills focused on curbing data centers’ energy use — one requiring operators to disclose their electricity use and another that offered clean power incentives. Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a separate proposal that would have required data center operators to report their water use, even after the bill was weakened. In the end, Newsom — who has often highlighted California’s dominance in the artificial intelligence sector — signed only one measure, allowing regulators to determine whether data centers are driving up costs. Mark Toney, who leads The Utility Reform Network and supported the transparency measure, has questioned whether data centers justify the costs they’re pushing onto ratepayers. He warned of the centers’ “voracious consumption of energy and water, increased carbon emissions, and jacking up ratepayer bills.” Hard facts about data centers are tough to find in California because most rent out power, cooling and floor space to other companies, said Ren, the UC Riverside researcher. Such colocation facilities don’t run their own servers or technology, so they report less information publicly than data centers built by major tech companies in other states. While estimates vary, California has the third-most data centers in the country, after Texas and Virginia. DataCenterMap, a commercial directory that tracks data centers worldwide, lists 321 sites across the state. More in California are expected in coming years. The centers operate around the clock and often rely on diesel backup generators to maintain service during power failures — a practice that adds both greenhouse gases and local air pollutants. They also consume energy and water depending on their cooling methods. Rising data-center demand, and rising questions F. Noel Perry, the businessman and philanthropist who founded Next 10, said his organization’s report shines light on what is fundamentally a black box. “To solve a problem, we have to understand what the problem is,” he said.  “We’ve seen the proliferation of data centers in California, in the U.S. and across the world — and we also are seeing major implications for the environment,” Perry told CalMatters. “The real issue has to do with transparency — and the ability of elected officials and regulators to create some rules that will govern reductions in emissions, water consumption.” The report estimated that data centers used 10.8 terawatt-hours of electricity in 2023, up from 5.5 terawatt-hours in 2019, accounting for 6% of the nation’s total data center energy use. Unless growth is curbed or better managed, the report’s authors project demand could rise to as high as 25 terawatt-hours by 2028, equal to the power use of roughly 2.4 million U.S. homes. Carbon emissions from the sector nearly doubled during the same period, climbing from 1.2 million to 2.4 million tons, researchers estimated, while on site water use grew from 1,078 acre feet in 2019 to 2,302 acre feet in 2023. That’s enough to meet the annual water needs of almost seven thousand California households. The report’s authors also estimated the public health costs from air pollution associated with data centers have potentially risen, from $45 million in 2019 to more than $155 million in 2023, with the burden expected to reach as high as $266 million by 2028. Most of those costs stem from indirect pollution produced by fossil-fueled power plants that supply the grid. But authors pointed out that regions dense with data centers — particularly Santa Clara County, home to Silicon Valley — could face higher localized risks from diesel backup generators. Dan Diorio, vice president of state policy for the Data Center Coalition, said the report exaggerates the impact of backup diesel generators, which are tightly regulated and rarely used in California, minimizing their contributions to air pollution. Data centers don’t control the water used in electricity generation, said Diorio. Since those water impacts don’t happen on site, it’s not fair to blame that on the centers themselves.  “It paints a skewed picture of this critical 21st-century industry,” Diorio said in a statement. Diorio said the report also overlooks how cooling technology varies by region and has become more efficient in recent years. But the authors say their findings underscore the need for uniform reporting standards for data centers’ energy and water use. The report said California should establish ongoing local monitoring and review of data centers — and make the findings public. Ren, the UC Riverside researcher, said that California’s cleaner grid and stricter pollution rules are helping blunt some environmental impacts of data centers already. “California — versus the national average — is doing a better job due to the cleaner grid,” he said.

Can Peru Reboot Its Amazon Oil? Pollution Fallout and Local Opposition Loom

By Alexander VillegasSANTA ROSA, Peru (Reuters) -Near a remote bend of the Patoyacu River in Peru's northern Amazon, Wilmer Macusi stood atop a...

SANTA ROSA, Peru (Reuters) -Near a remote bend of the Patoyacu River in Peru's northern Amazon, Wilmer Macusi stood atop a rusty pipeline cutting through the jungle, swirling a branch in the pool of stagnant water surrounding it.“They say this is clean,” said Macusi, a 25-year-old Indigenous Urarina leader, pointing to the spot where an oil spill occurred in early 2023. “But if you move the water, oil still comes out.”Black droplets bubbled to the surface as plastic barriers meant to contain the spill drooped into the water. The pipeline links a nearby oilfield, Block 8, to the larger government-owned North Peruvian Pipeline (ONP). Macusi's community of Santa Rosa lies a short walk away.Peru’s northern Amazon holds hundreds of millions of barrels of crude, according to government data. But Indigenous groups say oil extraction over the past half-century brought pollution, not progress, and are opposed to a fresh wave of development.The region once pumped more than half of Peru's oil, peaking at about 200,000 barrels a day in the 1980s before environmental liabilities and community opposition drove production below 40,000 bpd. Key blocks went dormant in 2020.Now, the region's modest reserves are again central to state oil firm Petroperu's plans. The company has spent $6.5 billion upgrading its Talara refinery into a 95,000-bpd complex aimed at producing high-grade fuels for export. Heavily indebted with a CCC+ junk credit rating from ratings agency Fitch, Petroperu wants to revive Amazon oil output to supply Talara.The state firm estimated last month that proven and probable reserves in the region were worth $20.9 billion, which Petroperu said could deliver $3.1 billion in tax revenues for local governments and communities. While the amount of oil at stake is relatively small, the plans have fueled tensions over past spills, stoking Indigenous opposition at a time Brazil, Ecuador and Guyana are trying to expand their Amazon oil frontiers.Frustration about climate action and forest protection boiled over at the COP30 climate summit this week, when dozens of Indigenous protesters forced their way into the venue and clashed with security guards.Petroperu is also planning to import oil to the refinery by linking the 1,100-km ONP to neighboring Ecuador, which aims to boost production in its own Amazon region as part of a $47 billion oil expansion plan. Hailed as an engineering marvel when it was built in the 1970s, the ONP has since become a lightning rod for leaks, protests and sabotage. Indigenous groups in both countries are resisting the pipeline link-up.The government is weighing options for how best to run the pipeline, including through a joint venture or outsourcing its management.  Petroperu failed to attract an international partner to run its largest oilfield, Block 192, which produced more than 100,000 bpd at its peak but has recently been the focus of Indigenous protests demanding remediation for damage to the forest, soil and waterways.Petroperu's former chairman Alejandro Narvaez, who was fired last month, estimated Block 192 could produce at least 20,000 bpd with investment and overall Amazon production could hit 100,000 bpd.The state oil firm selected domestic firm Upland Oil & Gas to operate the block, but Peru's state oil regulator disqualified Upland last month on the grounds it did not demonstrate financial capacity. Upland disputes the decision and has asked for a review.Petroperu also partnered with Upland to revive production at the smaller Block 8, which produced 5,000 bpd last month.Upland's CEO Jorge Rivera, son of one of Peru's early oil prospectors, told Reuters that Upland has offered Indigenous communities training, jobs and funding."We've dedicated ourselves to understanding the complexities behind operating these fields,” he said.Rivera visited Santa Rosa in March, gifting a Starlink terminal and requesting a report on the community's needs.The community's main demand was the cleanup of the nearby spill, but questions remain over who bears responsibility.Though the operator is responsible for the 108-km stretch of pipeline that runs through Block 8 connecting it to the ONP, Upland's contract exempts it from liability for past pollution.The previous operator, an Argentine subsidiary named Pluspetrol Norte, was fined a record number of times by Peru's environmental regulator OEFA before it filed for liquidation and left the area in late 2020. Eight Indigenous federations and non-governmental organizations filed a complaint to the OECD's Dutch National Contact Point, a mechanism to implement OECD guidelines for businesses, which concluded in September that Pluspetrol had violated Indigenous communities' rights in Peru's Amazon and urged the company to address the environmental damage.In a response to Reuters, Pluspetrol said it already had complied with environmental and human rights regulations and that the NCP statement was "without merit" for not reflecting the "breadth and complexity of the evidence presented and the extent of actions taken by the company."  Decades of scientific research have found high levels of lead, mercury, cadmium and arsenic in wildlife and Indigenous people living near Peru's oilfields. Estimated cleanup costs for Block 192 alone stand at $1.5 billion.OEFA registered over 560 environmental infractions including oil spills and others from the ONP or other oil infrastructure in Blocks 192 and 8 from 2011 through September 2025.Petroperu has said any damage is "temporary and reversible" and blamed unspecified "economic and rural-domestic activities" by local communities as the main driver of water pollution.In late 2023, Peru's prosecutor's office said it had broken up a network of businessmen, local Indigenous leaders and a Petroperu employee that it said was orchestrating oil spills to secure lucrative cleanup contracts.  In an interview with Reuters before his dismissal, Narvaez said Petroperu had prioritized cleaning up spills under the regulator's supervision.The government of Peru's interim President Jose Jeri, who took power last month, replaced Narvaez with Petroperu board vice president Fidel Moreno and said it will soon replace Petroperu's entire board of directors.Moreno did not reply to an interview request.Macusi said communities had yet to access a fund from Upland promising 2.5% of oil sales. Meanwhile, meetings with the oil regulator, Perupetro, to discuss funding for community projects have been delayed.After an oil spill from the Block 8 connector pipeline in 2022, Urarina communities held a strike, taking over oil facilities, fields and blockading a river to demand a better state response. Macusi, who as a teen worked hauling buckets of spilled oil, says communities are ready to take action again."If the promised benefits don't come soon, we'll take measures," he said.(Reporting by Alexander Villegas; Additional reporting by Marco Aquino; Editing by Nia Williams and Katy Daigle)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

L.A. air officials approve port pollution pact as skeptics warn of 'no clear accountability'

Southern California air officials voted overwhelmingly Friday to give themselves the power to levy fines on the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach if they don't fulfill their promises to transition to cleaner equipment.

Southern California air officials voted overwhelmingly Friday to give themselves the power to levy fines on the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach if they don’t fulfill their promises to transition to cleaner equipment. The ports remain the largest source of smog-forming pollution in Southern California — releasing more emissions than the region’s 6 million cars each day. The South Coast Air Quality Management District’s governing board voted 9-1 in favor of an agreement that commits the ports to installing zero-emission equipment, such as electric truck chargers or hydrogen fuel pumps, to curb air pollution from the heaviest polluters. The plans will be submitted in three phases: heavy-duty trucks and most cargo-moving equipment by 2028; smaller locomotives and harbor crafts by 2029; and cargo ships and other large vessels by 2030. If the ports don’t meet their deadlines, they would be fined $50,000 to $200,000, which would go into a clean-air fund to aid communities affected by port pollution. The AQMD, for its part, forgoes imposing new rules on the ports for five years. Many environmental advocates voiced disappointment, saying the agreement doesn’t contain specific pollution reduction requirements. “I urge you not to sign away the opportunity to do more to help address the region’s air pollution crisis in exchange for a pinky promise,” said Kathy Ramirez, one of dozens of speakers at Friday’s board meeting. “This is about our lives. I would encourage you to think about why you joined the AQMD board. If not for clean air, then for what?” Port officials and shipping industry officials lauded the decision as a pragmatic way to transition to a zero-emissions economy.“The give and take of ideas and compromises in this process — it mirrors exactly what a real-world transition to zero emissions looks like,” said William Bartelson, an executive at the Pacific Maritime Assn. “It’s practical, it’s inclusive and it’s grounded in shared goals.”The vote answers a long-standing question over how the AQMD intends to reduce pollution from the sprawling trade complex, a focus of environmental justice efforts for decades. The twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, known as the San Pedro Port Complex, is the largest container port in the Western Hemisphere, handling 40% of all container cargo entering the United States. Despite years of efforts at reducing pollution, the vast majority of heavy machinery, big rigs, trains and ships that serve the region’s bustling goods movement still are powered by diesel engines that emit toxic particles and nitrogen oxides, a precursor to smog. For nearly a decade the AQMD has vacillated between strict regulation and a pact with the ports with more flexibility. Several negotiations over a memorandum of understanding failed between 2017 and 2022. The board was prepared to require the ports to offset smog-forming pollution from trucks, trains and ships through clean air projects, like solar panels or electric vehicle chargers. Instead, the ports presented the AQMD with a proposed cooperative agreement, prompting the agency to pause its rulemaking. The AQMD doubled the penalties in that proposal and agreed not to make new rules for five years, not the 10 the industry wanted. Perhaps the most important details of the agreement — the types of energy or fuel used; the appropriate number of chargers or fueling stations — won’t be published for years. The lack of specifics prompted skepticism from many environmental advocates.“It’s just a stall tactic to make a plan for a plan in the hope that emission reductions will come sometime in the future,” said Fernando Gaytan, a senior attorney with environmental nonprofit Earthjustice.The contract also includes a clause that the AQMD or ports could terminate the agreement “for any reason” with a 45-day written notice. Wayne Nastri, the AQMD’s executive officer, said this gives the agency the option to switch back to requiring zero-emission infrastructure at the ports. “If we report back to you and you’re not seeing the progress being made, you can be confident knowing that you can pivot and release that [rulemaking] package,” Nastri said to the board. At the end of public comment, opponents of the agreement broke into loud chants. The AQMD cleared the gallery as the board discussed the proposal. Board member Veronica Padilla-Campos, the lone “no” vote, said the agreement lacked the necessary emission reductions and offered “no clear accountability” to local communities.Fellow board member Nithya Raman acknowledged many criticisms of the agreement but ultimately voted for it. “I really have come to believe that the choice before us is this cooperative agreement or no action at all on this issue — continuing a decade of inaction,” Raman said. “I will be voting to support it today, because I do think that it is our only pathway to take any steps forward toward cleaner air at the single largest source of air pollution in the region.”The plan still must be approved by commissioners at the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach Harbor Commission at meetings this year.

Pollution-plagued port communities near LA and Long Beach say regulator excludes them

Communities near the ports say regulators didn't consider their input when weighing a cooperative agreement about pollution from the ports.

Guest Commentary written by Theral Golden Theral Golden is a Long Beach resident Paola Vargas Paola Vargas is a community organizer at East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice The South Coast Air Quality Management District Board of Governors should vote against the so-called cooperative agreement to curb emissions in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, because impacted community members were not meaningfully included, it weakens the district’s ability to reduce emissions and it creates a dangerous precedent.   The toxic pollution experienced daily by nearby community members isn’t new. The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are the busiest in the country. We have known for decades that port emissions shorten life expectancy and quality of life in the South Coast Air Basin, which encompasses parts of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties and all of Orange County. These pollution-burdened areas are called “diesel death zones” due to the adverse health impacts. In places like West Long Beach, life expectancy is up to eight years shorter than the county average. Throughout the basin, there are an estimated 2,400 pollution related deaths a year. Both ports have made air quality improvements, but the complex is still the single largest fixed source of emissions in southern California.  And the toxins are only going to increase. Cargo activity at the ports is expected to rise 57% from 2021 to 2032. We can expect the human death toll to rise alongside it. There is a process underway with the South Coast Air Quality Management District — the governing body charged with regulating port pollution — that has the potential to address these grave health outcomes. Communities harmed by the pollution have consistently asked the district to incorporate their feedback when identifying solutions, but the district has not meaningfully engaged them. Instead, it has sided with industry time and again, allowing it to dictate the flow and outcomes of the process.  Gov. Gavin Newsom recently declined to sign Senate Bill 34, citing concerns that it would limit the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s authority to regulate port emissions and would interfere with cooperative actions taking place with the ports. We agree with Newsom’s assessment that regulatory authority and cooperation can avoid the worst health impacts — except the cooperation he refers to as “locally driven and collaborative” has been anything but.   The cooperative agreement includes a five-year ban on rulemaking. That handcuffs South Coast Air Quality Management District, effectively blocking the agency’s authority to address port pollution when the South Coast Air Basin can least afford a delay.  Youths play baseball at Bloch Field near the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro on April 8, 2025. Photo by Joel Angel Juarez for CalMatters This ban on rulemaking not only impacts the ports of LA and Long Beach but every port in the district. It also sets a dangerous precedent that could spur other air districts to eliminate public participation in rulemaking processes and prioritize industry priorities over public health.  Instead of advancing the cooperative agreement, the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s board should provide more time to meaningfully and collaboratively engage local communities and consider public health implications.   This doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game. We can chart a path that addresses port pollution, improves quality of life and recognizes the role ports play in our global supply chains.  But that won’t happen without communities taking a meaningful place at the table. 

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.