How has life in the Bay Area changed over the last 20 years? These stories straight from our Bay City News archives capture news of the day from 5, 10, and 20 years ago – as originally published at the time. Explore these history snapshots and ponder how today’s news compares to that of years past.
JUNE 15, 2021
Public health campaigns still depend on trust, convenience and incentives when officials need to reach residents who have not yet acted. Santa Clara County’s vaccine raffles show how local governments tried to close gaps as pandemic restrictions eased.
Bay City News Reported:
“High Court Lets Oakland And San Francisco Climate Lawsuits Against Big Oil Continue”
Bay Area cities continue to test how far local governments can push climate accountability in court. The story captures an early legal fight over whether fossil fuel companies should help pay for sea-level-rise defenses.
Two more ambitious lawsuits would be hard to image: in 2017 the cities of Oakland and San Francisco filed separate public nuisance lawsuits against five of the world’s biggest energy companies, seeking to hold them responsible for the local effects of sea level rise.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to throw the suits out of court, although the cases still face many daunting obstacles ahead.
The theory of the cases is that through “massive production” of fossil fuels, the energy companies — Chevron Corporation, BP LLC, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil Corporation and Royal Dutch Shell PLC — have contributed to “global warming-induced sea level rise,” which the cities have to spend enormous sums to abate.
According to the cities, the energy companies should fund a “climate change adaption program,” which would include building sea walls and the other infrastructure needed because of climate change.
Asserting the claims “in the name of the people of the State of California,” the suits were initially filed under state law in the Superior Courts of Alameda and San Francisco counties.
Not surprisingly, with billions of dollars at issue, the energy companies engaged some of the most prominent law firms and lawyers in the United States.
Among their first moves: get the cases out of state court.
In October 2017, the energy companies “removed” both of the cases from state court to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where they were assigned to District Judge William Alsup.
Removal is a legal procedure made available to a defendant who is sued in state court when the basis of the claim is one that would support the jurisdiction of the federal courts, most importantly when the underlying claim is based on federal law.
The cities contested the removal, arguing that the public nuisance claims they asserted were quintessential state law claims, arising from the cities’ power to protect their residents from harm caused by others. They pointed out that their complaints did not assert any federal law claims or seek relief under any federal statutes.
The energy companies invoked two exceptions to the usual rule that federal jurisdiction is determined solely by reference to the claims asserted in a plaintiff’s complaint.
One exception applies when a federal issue is necessarily raised by the plaintiff’s claim and the issue has “substantial importance” to the federal system as a whole. The other applies when federal law completely preempts state law.
In February 2018, Alsup found that the exceptions applied. In his view, sea level rise necessarily involved the national interests of the United States and directly implicated its relationships with foreign governments. Therefore, the suits should be determined under the uniform standard of federal common law.
Having found the case to be properly removed, Alsup then delivered a deadly blow to the cities. He ruled that there was no valid federal common law claim for public nuisance in a situation where nationally sensitive foreign affairs would necessarily be implicated.
Accordingly, in June 2018, Alsup dismissed the cases.
The cities appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which in August 2020 reversed the ruling. The court ruled that Alsup had been mistaken in concluding that federal law was of substantial importance to the claims.
In the appellate court’s opinion, the issue of whether the energy companies “can be held liable for public nuisance… and be required to spend billions of dollars on abatement is no doubt an important policy question, but it does not raise a substantial question of federal law.”
The court, however, did not send the case back to state court.
The energy companies had asserted several other grounds for federal jurisdiction that Alsup had not considered given his conclusion that there was a federal common law basis for jurisdiction.
The court sent the case back to Alsup to consider those other arguments.
That effort was blocked, however, when the energy companies filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the 9th Circuit decision.
While that petition was pending, Alsup required the parties to brief the additional jurisdictional points, but he did not set a hearing and he did not rule.
On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to review the case, in effect freeing Alsup to schedule a hearing to consider the alternative jurisdictional arguments.
In sum, after years of litigation, the question of which court should hear these ambitious cases still remains very much undecided.
In a joint statement reflecting some frustration with the pace of proceedings, Barbara Parker and Dennis Herrera, the city attorneys of Oakland and San Francisco, respectively, said, “It’s been nearly four years since we filed our suits, and it is now past time to move the cases forward on behalf of our residents and taxpayers to hold these fossil fuel companies accountable for their decades of deception and disinformation.”
Braden Reddall, a spokesman for Chevron, said that the suits improperly seek to hold Chevron responsible for “worldwide conduct going back to the Industrial Revolution,” and expressed optimism that the claims will be dismissed on the merits, regardless of whether they are heard in state or federal court.
JUNE 15, 2016
Local water rules continue to move between emergency conservation and long-term efficiency planning. Santa Rosa’s decision marked a moment when drought policy shifted from blanket state targets toward local supply assessments.
Bay City News reported:
“Santa Rosa Lifts Mandatory Drought Restrictions After State Rule Change”
The Santa Rosa City Council on Tuesday approved lifting its mandatory drought restrictions that were in effect since August 2014.
The action was in response to the State Water Resources Control Board’s adoption in May of a different statewide water conservation approach that replaces water use reduction targets with a local “stress test” approach.
The stress test requires urban water suppliers to ensure at least a three-year supply of water to their customers under drought conditions. It will be in effect through January 2017.
Santa Rosa and the Sonoma County Water Agency determined the region has adequate and reliable water for the next three years and no longer has a mandatory conservation target from the state, Santa Rosa Water officials said.
Since Santa Rosa’s mandatory drought restriction in 2014, the city has replaced nearly 1.2 million square feet of turf with low-water use landscapes equivalent to 25 football fields, Santa Rosa Water officials said.
Santa Rosa Water officials said 5,500 of its customers participated in a grant-funded ultra high-frequent toilet replacement program, and more than 1,500 customers received water-use efficiency audits of their homes and businesses.
“Santa Rosa Water is extremely thankful for our community’s commitment to making permanent water use efficiency improvements, successfully reducing water use by 25 percent since June 2015 and exceeding our 20 percent community-wide reduction target,” Santa Rosa Water’s deputy director of water resources and engineering Jennifer Burke said in a statement.
JUNE 15, 2006
Election administration remains a high-stakes issue whenever close races turn on counting rules. Oakland’s 2006 mayoral dispute shows how ballot procedures can shape political legitimacy as much as campaign results do.
Bay City News reported:
“Write-In Votes Spark Oakland Mayoral Controversy“
A spokesman for Oakland City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente today accused Alameda County officials of breaking with past practice by deciding not to count write-in votes in determining if Ron Dellums has gotten enough votes to avoid a November runoff.
Carlos Plazola, an aide to De La Fuente, said he believes it was “legally and morally incorrect” for Alameda County Counsel Richard Winnie to say in a legal opinion issued today that write-in votes shouldn’t be counted in determining if Dellums reaches the threshold of 50 percent plus one vote needed to avoid a runoff.
Every vote could be crucial because in the most recent update issued late today, Dellums had 49.75 percent of the vote and De La Fuente had 33.29 percent.
Dellums is 143 votes short of the 50 percent plus one vote threshold.
If the 120 write-in votes counted so far aren’t included in determining the threshold, it will be slightly easier for Dellums to get a majority of votes and avoid a runoff.
Alameda County Registrar of Voters spokesman Guy Ashley said about 2,500 provisional ballots in Oakland remain to be counted and it will take at least another day or two to complete the vote count.
In his legal opinion, Winnie said the Oakland Municipal Code only provides for “qualified” write-in candidates and no candidate utilized that process to become a qualified write-in candidate in the mayor’s race.
In a statement, Zachary Wasserman, the attorney for De La Fuente’s campaign, said, “We have researched the issue and there is full legal support for Alameda County’s long-standing practice of counting every vote.”
Wasserman said, “For years, the percentages they reported and their determination of a majority vote have included all votes cast for ‘write-ins.’ That’s the practice — that’s the law — and there is no reason to change now.”
Plazola said De La Fuente doesn’t plan to challenge Winnie’s opinion for now because he believes he will get enough votes to get into a November runoff with Dellums in any event.
However, De La Fuente would consider taking legal action if Dellums edges above 50 percent only because write-in votes weren’t counted, Plazola said.
Mike Healy, Dellums’ spokesman, said he thinks write-in votes “are not an issue at this point” because votes are still being counted.
Healy said Dellums wants to “let the registrar do their job” and isn’t contemplating any legal action of his own at this point.
Healy said Dellums didn’t ask the registrar of voters office not to count write-in votes.
He said the registrar’s office asked for a legal opinion on its own initiative.
Editor’s Note: All the reporting, writing, and editing of this content was done by human journalists at the time of initial publication. AI tools were used to surface these stories from our internal Bay City News archives and provide the introductory context.