Some people buy a property because it matches what they are looking for, whether it’s a home, a business or an income property. They may intend to use it as it exists today, or they may have a clear vision of a different future for the property that will require a lot of work to get it there. But before committing to the purchase it is imperative to become intimately familiar with its past.
The first level of disclosure in the sale of a property is to get a Geologic Hazards Disclosure Report, which costs about $100 and takes a few days to provide a list of the various mapped geologic hazards exist at the property, and for another $25 or so you can get an EnviroCheck report that details any mapped incidents of soil contamination, but they generally focus on history of commercial uses as opposed to large-scale environmental events.
It has long been the standard of care in transactions for commercial properties that the lender will require a Phase 1 Environmental Impact Report, which is a detailed study of the history of uses and events at and around a site which is then used as a basis for further testing if certain activities and chemicals are found to have been in use at the property or in the immediate proximity. But as our communities start to be more affected by large-scale environmental fallout, I find myself wondering if it would make sense to use this level of research in residential transactions as well.
The increasing frequency of incidents like the Battery Fire in Moss Landing are a reminder of the growing environmental impacts of our reliance on energy, and the ecological impact from the fire is still being quantified with a recent study by SJSU’s Moss Landing Marine Lab finding high levels of nickel, manganese and cobalt in soil at the Elkhorn Slough Reserve
Efforts are underway to try and counteract its effects using a number of measures including treating the water with special species of microalgae that consume heavy metals and clean up water waste, and a growing number of citizens and local officials are working to hold Vistra and other operators of these types facilities accountable for the incident, which was reportedly not the first, but in fact the fourth fire that had occurred at this facility.
The Monterey County Board of Supervisors submitted a request that both Vistra and the adjacent PG&E battery plant not go back online until the cause of the fire has been determined and the underlying safety concerns are addressed. However, the requests carry no legal weight, since facilities of this type are regulated and approved by the state so there is nothing that can be done locally to prevent them resuming operations.
Locally, our board of supervisors has been inundated by concerned citizens asking to block installation of any more facilities like this without improving the standards of safety, showing that our community has developed increased awareness, and this at least gives a proactive takeaway from the trauma suffered by our treasured Marine Estuary and the members of our community who live in the affected areas around it.
Comments