Environmental News, Articles & Information | Global Warming News | EcoWorld

Bickford Ranch The Sunny Future of Home Developments? By Ed “Redwood” Ring July 24, 2001

Bickford Ranch location in Northern California

With California’s population increasing by 500,000 per year, land development is inevitable. It isn’t a question of whether or not to build new homes, new streets, new industrial parks, new water & power infrastructure. It is only a question of where and how. A case in point is the “Bickford Ranch” a luxurious new community planned in California’s Sierra foothill country, one that will sprawl across nearly four square miles of grazing land. But along with mega-sprawl comes mega-watts; Bickford’s homes will generate more power than they consume during critical periods of peak demand, because nearly every home in the development will have photovoltaic panels integrated into their rooftops.

Depending on who you ask, the Bickford Ranch (www.BickfordRanch.com) is either the one of the best examples of land use to come along in a long time, or one of the worst. The Sierra Club gave Bickford Ranch the ingnominious distinction of being one of what they’ve named “the two most badly planned projects in California.”

Bickford Ranch Site

To make this claim, Sierra Club points to other developments more to their liking, such as Ohlone-Chynoweth Commons in San Jose, and Village Green in Los Angeles, which are pedestrian-friendly, transit-friendly, and, most important, accomodate a high-density of residents in a development that is within an existing urban area. If you accept the premise that all new developments need to be high-density and surrounded by existing city, then Bickford Ranch is indeed the Great Satan of developments. If you don’t, then taking a closer look at how Bickford Ranch is slowly becoming a reality can exemplify how to make new developments as ecologically sound as possible.

As Bickford Ranch spokesperson Kevin Slagle says “we looked for logical places to develop where we wouldn’t stretch the infrastructure.” The area was designated by Placer County officials in 1994 as one of only two places in the county where development was to be approved. It runs along major transportation corridors and is adjacent to another development many times larger.

Unlike new developments in the past decades, the Bickford Ranch property will remain 58% undeveloped. Since currently the entire property is cattle rangeland, the areas that are slated to remain open will actually be improved, since grazing has destroyed many of the native oaks which can now regenerate. This is being done by Bitterroot Restoration (www.BitterrootRestoration.com), a restoration firm based in Covallis, Montana with offices in Northern and Southern California. Spokesperson Laurie Riley said, “we were contracted to collect acorns on the Bickford Ranch and grow oaks; we’re currently growing 23,000 oaks to replant on the property.

Most remarkable about the Bickford Ranch however is that the rooftops of the development will produce two megawatts of electricity whenever the sun shines. Over 900 of the homes to be built will have solar-electric panels on their roofs. These “building integrated photovoltaics” are being installed by Atlantis Energy (www.AtlantisEnergy.com) and the homes of Bickford Ranch will become, by far, the biggest “grid-connnected” development of their kind to date.

According to Bickford spokesperson Kevin Slagle “the cost of the home is $8,000 to $12,000 higher than average, but includes $15,000 to $25,000 in hardware.” US Homes works collectively with the homeowners to collect the rebates available, something that is a first of its kind. Moreover, US Homes intends to put in place a program for neighboring homeowners, outside of the Bickford Ranch, to also be able to purchase photovoltaic systems at the same volume rates, and streamlined rebate claims procedures. “US Homes wouldn’t have done this,” said Slagle, “if it didn’t make economic sense.”

Is Bickford Ranch an upward trend? Using electricity generating roofing materials certainly qualifies. Setting nearly 60% of the land aside to become restored oak woodland is also laudable. Like many environmental and land-use questions, there is no certain answer. But unless one believes our increasing population simply has to fit into existing urban areas, the Bickford Ranch is the next best thing.

John Gavitt: WildAid’s Newest Warrior Interviewed by Ed “Redwood” Ring July 19th, 2001

When one considers the size and scope of the environmental movement, the organizations, the institutions, involving hundreds of thousands of people and hundreds of millions of dollars, it can come as a shock to realize only a handful of groups actually operate on the front lines.

John Gavitt of WildAid (photo: Scott Mason)

One of these groups, WildAid (www.WildAid.org), headquartered in San Francisco, has distinguished itself for years as a group not afraid to get into the thick of the fight to save endangered species. (see EcoWorld’s “WildAid…”) They are responsible for funding and training anti-poaching patrols in the Russian Far East, Southeast Asia, the Galapagos Islands, and elsewhere. WildAid has also made a specialty of tracking down and arresting traders of endangered species, such as a recent sting in Cambodia where two Asian sun bears and seven rare Indochinese tigers were rescued from wildlife traffickers.

About six months ago, WildAid added a potent weapon to their arsenal with the hiring of John Gavitt, a 52-year-old Virginian who has devoted his entire career to wildlife law enforcement. Just returned from a five week trip to Cambodia and Thailand to train wildlife rangers, EcoWorld caught up with Gavitt for a brief interview.

EcoWorld: Are there any other organizations like WildAid?

(photo: WildAid)

Gavitt: I’m not familiar with all of them, but I know of no others that focus on wildlife law enforcement and on-the-ground on-site assistance. We’re small, mobile, and attack problems. We don’t spend lots of resources on research studies instead of doing something. If it’s obvious something’s going on we try to go out and tackle it head on.

EcoWorld: What would you consider to be your most significant accomplishment so far with WildAid?

Learning to read maps (photo: John Gavitt)

Gavitt: It’s a little too soon to tell. So far I’ve been helping set up law enforcement training programs, drawing on 26 years of involvement with wildlife law enforcement programs in the U.S. and abroad. The approach is to put the recruits through practical training exercises that are as realistic as possible. In the latest training 20 people from the community role-played, from trader to bodyguard to concerned citizen to police officer. This made it more realistic.

EcoWorld: What do you think of using hunting fees to fund community development and the expenses of maintaining a game reserve, as was done with some success in Zimbabwe?

Gavitt: Not speaking for WildAid, personally I support fee-hunting provided it’s under a properly controlled wildlife management program. In the U.S. hunting license fees bring in millions per year. Anything that will preserve wildlife and habitat in the long term I’m for, because it really comes down to economics in those countries, and hunting is a good way to justify preserving wildlife from an economic basis.

EcoWorld: How do you think consciousness can be changed among consumers, particularly in Asia, to end using animal parts for medicinal purposes?

On Patrol in Bokor Nat’l Park, Cambodia (photo: John Gavitt)

Gavitt: Often groups that are consuming these products don’t link the animal with the product. Through information and education they become aware that they are contributing to the endangerment of a species. It can make a difference simply when people realize the consequences of their actions. The vast majority of people have a good conscience and will change their behavior.

EcoWorld: Who is behind the logging operations in Cambodia and Thailand?

Gavitt: We know that the military is involved in the large-scale illegal logging concessions that are resulting in major destruction of wildlife habitat. Because of that we’re trying to get the military involved in the training itself. One of the things about corruption is that it’s often caused by a lack of understanding. When they see the problems this (logging) is creating it can change attitudes even among the powerful decision makers. The consequences from political pressure from other countries also helps. Hopefully it won’t be too late.

EcoWorld: So you think there’s a good chance for reform from within?

Gavitt: In the vast majority of situations the local government makes the right decisions but they make them too late. Trying to get governments to move in a timely manner for wildlife conservation is a big challenge.

EcoWorld: What else would you like to say, based on your recent experiences with WildAid in Southeast Asia?

Gavitt: All I can say after being over there is that time is running out to really make a difference in wildlife conservation. We must put our resources together to change the existing situation while there is still time to save wildlife and habitat in a significant way.

Saving the Family Farm: Steve Schwartz & California Farmlink by Ed “Redwood” Ring July 16, 2001

FarmLink Founder Steve Schwartz

How do you save the family farm?

The question is not new, for over a century the American family farm has been a dying breed.

And it is more than a sentimental question. It is also a question of preserving cultural identity, preserving open space, and preserving biodiversity.

In the latter case, the many small family farms guarantee an output of pioneering high-quality foods, the special strains and breeds of organic produce, for example, that out-nutrient and out-variety the best that consolidated corporate agribusiness has to offer. It is healthy to maintain such diversity in agricultural output, and the family farm plays a vital role.

The National Farm Transition Network is trying to save the family farm. This relatively new organization is a loose collection of non-profit entities in 18 states matching aging farmers without successors to motivated individuals or families that want to buy a farm. To find out more about this noble undertaking, we looked no further than Sacramento, California, where in a nondescript downtown victorian several nonprofits share space, including California FarmLink (www.CaliforniaFarmLink.org), which matches old farm sellers to young farm buyers. California FarmLink was founded by and is directed by Steve Schwarz, a pleasant 35 year old EcoWorld Hero who brings a lifetime of agricultural and political experience to his work.

Juan and Rosie Chavira sign papers to become farm owners.

EcoWorld visited California FarmLink one morning on a brisk weekday in mid-June, on one of Sacramento’s last spring days. It was sunny and fresh and the leaves of the giant sycamore trees lining the street were still getting their second wind. Schwartz told us that farming runs in his family, his own father had a small farm in the former Czechoslovakia before emigrating to the U.S. in 1954. Schwartz himself worked in agriculture in Thailand with the U.S. Peace Corps from 1987 till 1989. He then got an M.A. in Public Affairs from the University of Southern California. After receiving his M.A., he dealt with many agricultural issues as a legislative assistant to the California Assembly and has over 14 years experience working on rural policy issues.

By 1995, after furthering legislation such as the Biologically Integrated Orchard Systems Bill, or BIOS, which created incentives for farmers to reduce pesticide use, Steve was ready to leave government, and so when he heard about a FarmLink program operating in Nebraska, he decided this was something that California needed and made the plunge.

“During the last ten years in California, from 1987 to 1997, there has been a 51% decrease in the number of farmers under 35 years old,” said Schwarz. “Right now 30% of all California’s farmers are over 65 years old, and that percentage is increasing.”

California wheat field

FarmLink in California spends much of its time locating small farm owners who have no identified successors and helping them find a new owners who will operate the farm instead of consolidating it into an agribusiness concern or giving the land over to development. “When farms change ownership there are a limited number of outcomes,” said Schwarz, “they can go to the farmer’s children, they can go to another family that purchases the land, they can sell the land to a neighbor or to an agricultural corporation, or they can sell out to a developer.”

Often the farm is not large enough to support both the incoming and outgoing families during the transition in ownership. This is where California FarmLink comes in as well, helping the families by coming up with creative financial techniques that allow the sellers and buyers to survive during this crucial period. For example, conservation easements on the farm property, guaranteeing that portions of the property will remain agricultural or become a nature preserve in perpetuity, can often bring significant money into a farm owner’s estate.

FarmLink also coordinates workshops throughout California to get the word out on ways to ensure that a “farm transition” results in preserving the family farm whenever possible. Since establishing FarmLink in early 1999, Schwartz’s organization has become directly involved in about a dozen farm transitions, and has done dozens of workshops.

Schwartz hopes FarmLink can increase its visibility in the agricultural community so more farmers can use the techniques they have developed to keep the farms family-owned. There are 22,000 farm owners in California who are over 65 years old, and many of them will soon be needing the information FarmLink can provide.

FarmLink is funded by private foundations, as well as state and federal grants.

An amazing aspect of recent political history is how Newt Gingrich and his ilk, up to the present day, convinced themselves and the American public that Government can do nothing successfully. This ‘Newtering’ of American political thought has huge implications for the nation’s energy policy and overlooks that, repeatedly, the Federal Government has taken a leadership role in energy development. It needs to do so again, to create the Hydrogen Backbone of the New National Energy Plan that will benefit all citizens and enterprises for the next 50-100 years (and also provide huge and legitimate benefit to the energy industry). Some aspects of the national interest, such as utility services, transcend private profit motives.

Are there two sides to this story? Can the ‘bumbling’ Federal government take a leadership stance? Should we always rely on ‘swift, efficient, private industry’ to work not only for reasonable profit but also for the national interest? Consider history, and the creation of America’s natural gas industry.

Take a trip back in time . . .

It is 11 December 1941, four days after Pearl Harbor. Hitler has directed Admiral Doenitz and his U-boats to attack the tankers carrying virtually all the oil from loading docks in the Gulf of Mexico to consumers in the Northeast. Attacks on tankers carrying oil across the North Atlantic for the Royal Navy and aviation gasoline for the beleaguered Royal Air Force have reduced fuel reserves in England to a few days. The outcome of the war itself is in the balance. Backlit by Miami’s lights, where hotel owners have refused to douse the lights during tourist season, the easily recognizable tanker profiles stand out like arcade targets for the waiting U-boats. On the Atlantic City beaches, people watch for the explosions and massive glare of blazing tankers. The U-boats are sinking tankers at four times the rate at which they can be replaced. Brave men are dying. Disastrous shortages on all war fronts seem inevitable.

President Roosevelt calls on Interior Secretary Harold Ickes, a man hated by the oil industry for his anti-monopoly stance, to solve the problem. Blackouts are imposed and coastal convoys formed. But the brilliant stroke is the wholesale change of the industry’s means of transportation. Authorizing use of crucial steel supplies for a project the petroleum industry says is doomed to fail, the government builds two pipelines—”Big Inch” and “Little Inch”—to carry oil from Texas to the East Coast, in one of the great, unsung engineering feats of WWII. In less than one and a half years, “Big Inch” is carrying more than half the East Coast’s oil 1,250 miles from the Texas oil fields; soon “Little Inch” is carrying gasoline and refined products to New England. Ickes is promoted to Petroleum Administrator for War, the “Oil Czar”. By the war’s end, over 42% of American oil moves through government-owned and -financed pipelines.

Inching Forward. More Government energy action-and success

The government is not finished with “Big Inch” and “Little Inch” to rationalize the energy industry. As the war ends, the House Armed Services Committee decides that the risk of depending on foreign oil is unacceptably high, presaging OPEC-created crises, Saddam Hussein and Desert Storm by half a century. They see the solution in the thousands of plumes burning across Texas night skies, as annoying and ‘worthless’ natural gas, a ‘waste’ by-product of oil production, is flared off. They tell the industry to collect and sell the natural gas to reduce dependence on foreign energy. Led by Defense Secretary James Forrestal, the government sells “Big Inch” and “Little Inch” to the Texas Eastern Transmission Company on the condition that they carry natural gas to East Coast markets. They also allocate scarce steel to build “Biggest Inch,” the El Paso Natural Gas Pipeline from Texas and New Mexico to Los Angeles (the very same pipeline so controversial in the energy crisis of 2001).

The birth of the natural gas industry

Did it matter? Was an industry created? Commercial natural gas, long considered an orphan waste product, went from virtually zero until by 1950—just three years after the program started—the market for natural gas was 2.5 trillion cubic feet per year, saving nearly a million barrels of imported crude oil per day. And enriching private industry in the process.

History shows that Government led the energy industry effectively. Winston Churchill, in his “History of the English Speaking Peoples,” credits much of America’s success on the Federal Governments willingness to invest in infrastructure to create new industries and markets. That is what the Government must do now. Just as it created the pipeline industry and the natural gas industry, it must lead the way to a sustainable energy infrastructure for the Millennium.

By taking the lead in promoting the Hydrogen Backbone, (www.ptreyeslight.com articles of February 8, 15 and 22, 2001, and EcoWorld: National Energy Plan) the Government will create a whole new aspect of the energy industry, as they did with the “Inch” pipelines and natural gas. Much of the technology exists, delivering surprising economic advantages which we will discuss in the next installment. Implementation is merely a matter of leadership and management.

‘Dirty Harry’ wins a small battle but loses (along with us) the war

Meanwhile, on the energy insider front, Clint Eastwood went to Sacramento recently to get the government to “make his day” on a fair shake for photovoltaics, such as those he installed at his Monterey Peninsula golf course. They did so, but vigilant utility lobbyists got the legislators to make sure the fair treatment lasts only until 2002. If the State had let the rules stand, so that PV could be financed over a 10-year period, we might have ended the energy crisis without the IOU’s (Investor Owned Utilities) or the State spending a cent. But then the utilities wouldn’t get to profit. Clint, go on back and explain to them in words they can understand.

Does PV really haul the freight? For a fascinating article on how PV power is competitive under the existing rate structure with a combination of net metering and time-of-day purchase, see the current (June/July) issue of Homepower entitled “Practical Solar” by Phillipe Habib. It is a well documented, fascinating story that gives details of rates, metering and structuring a system to make PV pay, along with a between-the-lines look at the perfidy of certain utilities . . .

‘Deep Volt’ strikes again, to the heart of the matter

Back to Deep Volt and the computer-controlled grid. The New York Power Authority is installing a FACTS-type technology to enable the State Independent System Operator to balance two major power lines feeding from Quebec Hydro to New York-one through Albany and one through the Catskills-moving hundreds more megawatts through a system at near capacity with the obsolete control technology. Even San Diego Gas and Electric is purchasing four units (from Mitsubishi, in Japan) to bring hundreds of extra megawatts into Southern California. Both these systems are still a far cry from the promise of FACTS/computer-controlled national grid , but they’re a step in the right direction. But the technology players are all foreign-Siemens, ABB and Mitsubishi-despite the technology signposts erected by EPRI in Palo Alto, California and by thyristor technology owned by General Electric. Do we really want to let others lead the way on this technology?

For more history of the oil and gas industry, read Daniel Yurgin’s excellent, Pulitzer Prize- winning book, The Prize, the Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power. For more information on the computer control of the grid, including information on the New York project, see MIT’s Technology Review magazine July/Aug issue, “A Smarter Power Grid,” which shows how deregulation will bring ever larger numbers of independent power generators, who will not collaborate effectively, to create even more instability on an already overloaded grid.