Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone Solar Regional Mitigation Planning, Workshop #2

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is hosting a second public workshop for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) Solar Regional Mitigation Plan (SRMP) on October 24 and 25, from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., at the Hampton Inn Tropicana, 4975 S. Dean Martin Dr., Las Vegas 89118.

Vegas baby!

The topic of the workshop will be baseline conditions and unavoidable impacts and will include a field tour to the SEZ on Oct. 24.  

Like I said, Vegas, baby!   Oh wait, does that say S-E-….Z?  My bad.

In August, BLM described their solar energy program and discussed the development of regional mitigation plans as outlined in the July 24 Final Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). At the first workshop, more than 70 participants, including representatives from federal, state and local government, Tribes, the solar industry, utilities, environmental and other non-governmental organizations were asked to provide thoughts and ideas about mitigation for the Dry Lake SEZ, as well as ideas on future environmental monitoring and adaptive management for the SEZ.

An agenda for the October workshop, summary of the August workshop, frequently-asked questions and a preliminary list of data sources BLM is reviewing in support of the identification of unavoidable adverse impacts can be found on the Dry Lake SEZ Mitigation Project website.   The impacts associated with the Dry Lake SEZ are listed in this memo.

Those interested in attending the Oct 24/25 workshop or who would like to provide comments on the materials posted on the website should RSVP and send comments to: drylakemitigation@blm.gov.

NOTE:  RSVP by October 17 to reserve a bus seat for the field trip. 

Visit the Solar Energy Development PEIS website for more information:  http://solareis.anl.gov

A: Beyond Rational Comprehension. Flawed in the Letter of the Law. Just Plain Wrong.

Q:  Who is Cadiz?

When the County of San Bernardino backed down from their claim to lead agency status for the Cadiz Project, I was disappointed.  I lost all remaining respect for the County when all but one County Supervisor chose to enter into a memorandum of understanding with Cadiz Inc., exempting the Cadiz Groundwater Project from the County’s desert groundwater management ordinance.  Later, when SMWD’s Board of Directors willfully ignored the concerns of hundreds of agency representatives, scientists, local residents, and citizens and chose to certify the Environmental Impact Report and approve the Cadiz Groundwater Project, I was, frankly, devastated.

Then, last Friday, when I received confirmation that the National Parks Conservation Association,  Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club (San Gorgonio Chapter) and San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society had filed suit against Santa Margarita Water District (SMWD) and the County of San Bernardino,  I was ecstatic.  These conservation groups join Tetra Technologies, Inc. (Tetra Tech), who was the first to file not one but two lawsuits against the project, as Bettina Boxall of the LA Times reported in June. (The first lawsuit challenges the legality of the MOU that the County, SMWD, Cadiz, Inc., and the Fenner Valley Mutual Water Company  executed last summer, claiming that it violates the County’s Groundwater Management Ordinance and CEQA.  Tetra Tech is seeking a court order prohibiting the four parties from acting on the MOU until these issues are resolved. The lawsuit filed against SMWD and Cadiz, Inc. challenges the decision making and leadership under the auspices of CEQA on the grounds that SMWD should not have taken on the lead agency role for the project, which is wholly outside their jurisdiction.)   The growing list of litigants includes Citizens and Ratepayers Opposing Water Nonsense, who filed suit last week in Orange County Superior Court, challenging SMWD’s decision to certify the EIR and approve the Cadiz Project.  Are you sensing the trend here?

And they’re right – all of them.  The Cadiz EIR should be voided – it was corrupted from the beginning by the sticky fingers of Cadiz’s minions; the County should be named lead agency, should identify an impartial 3rd party to analyze potential project impacts under CEQA; a good faith effort should be made to determine whether the project should also be evaluated under NEPA, for its potential indirect aboveground effects on the Mojave National Preserve and adjacent BLM lands; Cadiz should be asked to stand back behind the line with the rest of the project applicants and treated like the project proponent they are – not allowed to write their own ticket through the CEQA process; and the project should be evaluated under and made compliant with the Desert Groundwater Management Ordinance, because if the project defies this ordinance it defies California’s water code, policy, and law and, by association, it defies our Constitution.  But don’t just take my word for it!

Who Is John Goss?

My biggest, sloppiest kisses and kudos to the Surf City Voice for mining a gem from the wreckage of the S.S. Cadiz Boondoggle.  The “gem” is a letter from John Goss, the former Assistant County Administrator who led the team of attorneys, planners, specialists, and staff in formulating the  Desert Groundwater Management Ordinance, which was approved in 2002.  In a rather remarkable twist of fate, Goss also represented the County in testifying before the Metropolitan Water Board regarding the application for a right-of-way permit to connect the Cadiz wells to MET’s Colorado River Aqueduct, which was denied. 

Needless to say, there are few more qualified to comment on the Cadiz Groundwater Project.

A copy of the letter John Goss submitted to SMWD is below.  The emphasis added in bold is my own.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Mr. Ferons and Ms. Kelly,

I am writing to express my concerns with the Cadiz water project and its exemption from the San Bernardino County Desert Groundwater Management Ordinance. I recently learned that the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors adopted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in connection with the Cadiz water project, with the intent to exempt the project from the San Bernardino County Ordinance, Code Sec. 33.06551. Normally, it is not my practice to comment publicly on issues related to my previous public employment, but after having spent 1½ years of my professional life working on and developing the Desert Groundwater Management Ordinance, and seeing the manner in which the ordinance is now being interpreted, public comment on this subject seems in order. For both procedural and substantive reasons stated in this letter, the Santa Margarita Water District (SMWD) should not approve the Cadiz water project, including the groundwater plan and the accompanying environmental impact report (EIR). As the letter makes clear, the purpose of the desert groundwater ordinance is to conduct a rigorous review of a project such as the one being considered through a groundwater management, monitoring and mitigation plan (GMMMP), which is adopted by the County in its proper role as the lead agency under CEQA.

By way of introduction, I was an Assistant County Administrator at the time the ordinance was adopted in 2002, and led a staff team from the County Counsel’s Office and the Land Use Services Department in its formulation. During the 1 ½ years required to develop the ordinance, it was vetted with various local water agencies, private firms and the public. It was a long, and sometimes contentious process, but the result was an excellent ordinance designed to protect the unadjudicated water basins in San Bernardino County. This experience may be helpful in providing some insight into the content and purpose of the ordinance and how it should be applied.

Also at that time, I became familiar with the previous version of the Cadiz Water Project, and reviewed the “science” from Cadiz, USGS, and County sources regarding the potential of impacts of the Cadiz proposal on the surrounding area. I also represented the County in testifying before the Metropolitan Water Board when the right-of-way permit to connect the Cadiz wells to the MET aqueduct from the Colorado River was denied. (Curiously, the current iteration of the project does not mention this denial, nor apparently, does it rely on Colorado River water to replace pumped groundwater during “wet” years in the Colorado River Basin to maintain the health of the aquifer).

Based on that knowledge and background, the following comments and observations are offered.

Ordinance Background. The purpose of the Groundwater Management Ordinance is clear: to ensure “…that extraction of groundwater does not exceed the safe yield of affected groundwater aquifers…” The ordinance was designed to protect “…groundwater resources within the unincorporated and unadjudicated desert region of San Bernardino County…” The main motivation for creating the ordinance was concern over the size and potential impacts of the Cadiz Project, and the “science” used to support the original project.

For example, the Cadiz scientists estimates of recharge back into the water basin was more than three times the estimates offered by USGS scientists and the County’s consultants, Durbin and Foster.  (“Comments on Draft EIR/EIS, Cadiz Groundwater Storage Project, Cadiz and Fenner Valleys, San Bernardino County, California,” Feb. 21, 2000). Given such huge discrepancies between the government and Cadiz reports, the intent of the ordinance was to create a measured, thoughtful, scientific review process which would protect the County’s desert groundwater resources.

The ordinance provides for a permitting process which is designed to meet the purpose of the Ordinance. This process, however, can be avoided, but only if both of the following steps have been taken:

1. An adopted Groundwater Management Plan, which adheres to “groundwater safe yield” and “aquifer health” as defined in the ordinance; and
2. An executed Memorandum of Understanding which requires the parties to share monitoring data and coordinates efforts at monitoring groundwater resources, and ensures that measures identified in the AB 3030 plan, or the County-approved groundwater management, monitoring, and mitigation plan (GMMMP) are fully implemented and enforced.

Order of Adoption. The sequence of these two paragraphs is critical. It was intended in the ordinance as written that the groundwater management plan would be first adopted, presumably by the County (which is the permitting authority), and then the MOU would be executed as a means to implement the groundwater plan. Simply, that is why adoption of the plan was stated as paragraph 1 and execution of the MOU as paragraph 2. (See Sec. 33.06552 (b)(1) & (2)).

It was contemplated that the Plan would be prepared first, properly vetted, with any appropriate environmental documents, in order to protect “groundwater safe yield” and “aquifer health” of the desert area being studied. After the Plan was adopted by the County, then the MOU to implement this Plan would be considered and adopted.

In contrast, in the current scenario, the County binds itself to the terms of the MOU without approving the very management plan it is then bound to adopt and implement. The GMMMP is supposed to contain enforcement parameters set by the County , including the County established level of safe yield, yet the MOU was approved before these levels were set. It is unclear whether these levels are contained in the GMMMP at all.

Process Issues. It does not appear that the intended process described in the Desert Groundwater Management Ordinance is properly being followed. As just mentioned, the ordinance contemplates the “adoption” by the County (the permitting authority) of an AB 3030 plan, or a GMMMP, which has not occurred in this case. The development and review of an unadopted groundwater plan attached to the EIR being considered by the SMWD Board, is not the same as development and review of an “adopted” plan by the County. Rather, the County appears to be “approving” the GMMMP as a “responsible agency” under CEQA, which deprives the county the scope and authority necessary to review and approve a project subject to the Desert Groundwater Management Ordinance.

In fact, this problem is spelled out on page 5, May 1, 2012, of the staff report to the Board of Supervisors, when it states under “Next Steps, #4,” “If, upon certification, the County believes that the Final EIR does not satisfy CEQA, the County may file a legal challenge to the EIR in court.” This means that the County as the permitting authority is giving up its absolute right to approve or disapprove the FEIR, and replacing that with only a right to sue if the County does not feel the FEIR satisfies CEQA. Why the County would give up this right to an agency in a different County, 200 miles from the project, and which agency represents only certain Orange County water consumers, not those impacted by the water withdrawals, is beyond rational comprehension.

The County staff report prepared for this issue and submitted to the San Bernardino Board of Supervisors on May 1, 2012, is important since it, along with public input, is supposed to provide the Board of Supervisors accurate information and professional advice upon which to make an informed decision. The comments which follow express concern about the adequacy of some portions of the staff report to the Board. In that respect, the Board received inaccurate, incomplete or inappropriate staff advice when they acted on May 1st.

An example of inappropriate advice, please see the previous paragraph concerning “Next Steps, #4.”

An example of incomplete advice, the May 1, 2012, staff report (p. 3) advises the Board, “The operator must execute a “Memorandum of Understanding” or other binding agreement with the County that remains enforceable by the County.” While this is true as far as it goes, the staff report does not further inform the Board that the purpose of the MOU is to “share groundwater monitoring information” and that “…the measures identified in the AB 3030 Plan or County-approved groundwater management…plan are fully implemented and enforced.”

Basically, the staff report does not reveal to the Board that the MOU is only the tool by which the adopted water management plan is implemented and enforced.

As an example of inaccurate advice, the staff report states (again on p. 3), “The MOU is intended to establish a process for completing a GMMMP…” This is just plain wrong. The MOU provision in the ordinance says nothing about the process for completing a GMMMP. Instead, the MOU is intended to provide the data and a monitoring scheme to implement an adopted GMMMP, and to ensure that the adopted GMMMP is properly implemented and enforced.

This is another example where the staff report provided inaccurate advice to the Board of Supervisors.

Another inaccurate statement in the staff report designed to advise the Board is found on pp. 3 and 4. The report states: “Key elements of the MOU include;  The GMMMP is anticipated to include a 50-year term… (and);

The GMMMP will include groundwater management thresholds, including a “floor” for  maximum groundwater drawdown levels…”

These two provisions should be key elements of the GMMMP, not the MOU. The MOU is designed to be the implementing document of the GMMMP, not contain elements of the GMMMP. Conversely, it appears that the groundwater management threshold (to be set by the County) is absent from the project’s (unapproved) GMMMP. Again, this is another example where the County staff report provided incorrect information to the Board of Supervisors on this project.

Why is this process issue important? Because the issues raised by this project proposal, including the prospect of mining of ancient water, which likely has taken thousands of years to accumulate, should not be addressed until a final GMMMP is presented to the Board of Supervisors for approval. In the meantime, the project now “has legs,” and an air of legitimacy, with the adoption of the MOU by the Board, and possible action by the SMWD to certify an EIR and approve the Cadiz Project. How that even happen is beyond comprehension when there is no “plan” (GMMMP) being considered by the permitting authority, the County, upon which a proper EIR (with the County as lead agency) can be based. Instead, the County appears to be improperly approving the GMMMP as a “responsible agency” which deprives the County of its proper role and authority. It is incredible that San Bernardino County would give up its authority in this matter and not follow the law of the County as it is reflected in the Desert Groundwater Management Ordinance adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2002.

Another issue is that certain baseline commitments are apparently already included in the MOU according to the staff report, such as assuming that 20% of the water produced from this project will be used within San Bernardino County. Maybe that commitment should be 25%, 30%, or more. Why make that commitment in an implementing document (MOU) before the GMMMP is adopted by the County? It is the adopted GMMMP which should contain these provisions, not the MOU.

Substance Issues. One of the concerns in reviewing the very impressive scientific data provided by Cadiz 12 years ago was that the amount of water proposed to be extracted (32,000 – 34,000 AFY) far exceeded the projected annual recharge projected by County advisors and USGS scientists. This estimate of average annual recharge was over three times the amount estimated by USGS and the County’s consultant. (See above reference, Durban and Foster). It appeared to staff that this was a blatant effort to “mine” ancient water that likely had taken thousands of years to accumulate. Normal recharge would likely take centuries to correct the water deficit created. The current proposal to now extract 50,000 AFY would deplete the aquifer at an even greater rate based on that earlier analysis.

While more “real” data is available for Cadiz II, compared to Cadiz I 12 years ago, the current projections of recharge and evaporation are essentially based on computer modeling. While this is useful to a limited extent, the science associated with this project can have wildly difference results in terms of recharge and water availability. By contrast, however, the amount of water extraction is a firm 50,000 AFY. Compared to developing a city budget, for example, this is like budgeting a firm number for your expenditures, but not really having any idea what your revenues will be. Of course, with a city budget you can make annual adjustments if your revenue estimate is wrong. With Cadiz II, however, you are “stuck” with your “expenditure” amount, likely for 50 years.

In summary, some basic questions remain to be answered as part of the analysis and environmental review prior to the adoption of a GMMMP by the proper permitting authority, the County, which has not yet occurred. These questions concern the true impact of the water mining effort, the depletion of water for future generations, the potential impairment of a nearby mining business, the loss of streams and springs in the Mojave, and the increase in future air pollution. Without the County conducting a proper initial review as the permitting authority, these questions remain unanswered, and the environmental review incomplete.

Here are some observations and questions regarding the current project.

1. The last Cadiz project iteration claimed that water from the Colorado during “wet” years would replace the pumped groundwater. Now that the Colorado River water is considered speculative at best, the project claims it will be naturally replenished/recharged at the very same (or even higher) rate. Even if the 32,000 AFY extraction were covered by an equal amount of evaporation from the salt extraction areas, which is doubted by commentators to the EIR, the remaining additional amount of extraction (18,000 – 43,000 AFY) still vastly exceeds the amount of recharge projected 12 years ago by the County and USGS. (Note: The 18,000 AFY is based on an extraction level of 50,000 AFY, and the 43,000 AFY is based on 75,000 AFY extracted in some years).

2. If an article in my local newspaper (the San Diego Union-Tribune, July 14, 2012) is accurate, Cadiz has offered to pay to drill deeper brine wells for Tetra’s salt extraction operations. If this is the case, clearly Cadiz expects a significant draw down on the underlying aquifer. This appears to be an admission that there will be a significant overdraft, which in turn will adversely affecting the health of this aquifer.

3. If Cadiz will spend money to drill deeper brine wells for Tetra, what will they do to protect the seeps, streams, and springs the health of which is essential to the desert environment and ecology that otherwise will be compromised? Will they offer to drill deeper streams and springs?

4. If overdraft of the aquifer occurs, and the brine wells must be dug deeper, what will be the impact on air quality? It stands to reason that the dry lakes in the area will be more susceptible to the creation of more dust and causing more air pollution with the lowering of the water table. Examples of dust causing air pollution across large expanses include the San Joaquin Valley and areas around Mono Lake and the Salton Sea.

5. While the project commits that 20% of the extracted water will be used within San Bernardino County, why isn’t this percentage higher? And, even if 100% of the water is used in the County, is that worth possibly destroying the health of this aquifer for future generations of the County?

6. Procedurally, why is a public entity outside of San Bernardino County conducting a public hearing on “The Project” and the Final EIR when the approval authority for the GMMMP is, or should be, San Bernardino County? This does not conform to the County’s Desert Groundwater Management Ordinance, and makes it very difficult for members of the affected public to attend this public hearing and state their views and concerns.

It is hoped that these comments will contribute to the ongoing discussion and deliberation concerning the proposed Cadiz project. The Santa Margarita Water District and San Bernardino County should not approve the EIR for the Cadiz project without first having approved a groundwater management plan in accordance with the County’s Desert Groundwater Management Ordinance, with the County acting as lead agency under CEQA. As currently proposed, the Cadiz project’s approach to groundwater management is flawed in the letter of the law, and speaking from experience, in the spirit of the law as well.

Sincerely,

John Goss

Welcome to the Jungle

An interesting letter is being circulated amongst Joshua Tree townfolk....

Joshua Tree, California, is a remote unincorporated community in the Mojave Desert of San Bernardino County with a 2010 census population of approximately 7.414. Like the Town of Yucca Valley to the west and the City of Twentynine Palms to the east, Joshua Tree is bisected by State Route 62 (SR-62), the San Bernardino County portion of which is eligible (but not designated) for the State Scenic Highway System (only the 9-mile-portion of SR-62 in Riverside County is officially designated as scenic).

Joshua Tree is the gateway to the National Park that bears its name, making tourism a major – in fact, the major – industry, and the locals who inhabit this sleepy town don’t cotton well to strangers, especially those barging into town expecting to “save” it from it’s sleepy self by paving half of it. The desert is a harsh mistress, and the sturdy “Hi-Dez” residents are quite self-sufficient, thank you very much. They don’t need saving. (Certain Visitors, on the other hand, have been known to underestimate the desert environs and get their rented SUVs stuck fast in ankle-deep sand not five miles outside of town, so it might behoove them to keep their opinions about “ignorant,” “small-minded,” “NIMBYist,” “enviro-wackos” to themselves, at least until they’re safely back in Texas, or wherever the hell it is they came from.)

But I digress.

Regionally, development is concentrated along the SR-62 commercial corridor in Yucca Valley and Twenty-nine Palms, the main population centers in Morongo Basin. In the less populated unincorporated areas, where, historically, development has been limited, recent proposals have been shelved temporarily or abandoned altogether for a variety of reasons, financial insolvency chief among them. The exceptions to this latter trend will be the focus of this blog for the foreseeable future.

Potable water for the community of Joshua Tree is supplied entirely by groundwater from the local aquifer, which has been overdrafted by 47,000 acre-feet (AF) since 1950. “Natural” recharge is not believed to be occurring; rather, replenishment of the groundwater system is taking place through discharge from septic systems, which will, over time, increase nitrate and other mineral concentrations beyond maximum allowable levels, requiring more intensive water treatment. Future water demand is projected to increase over the next 25 years, which will cause further overdraft. In addition to impaired water quality, a decrease in water levels over time means that wells will need to be drilled deeper and increased emissions and higher energy costs will result from pumping and treating less-accessible, contaminated water.

Joshua Basin Water District (JBWD) has an agreement with the Mojave Water Agency (MWA) that entitles it to 1,959 acre-feet annually (AFA) of State Water Project water until the year 2022, delivered via the Morongo Pipeline. As part of their long-term planning, JBWD is constructing a groundwater recharge project in Joshua Tree that will receive up to 1,959 AFA of State Water Project water through a new 24,000-linear-foot-extension of the Morongo Pipeline. The Morongo Pipeline terminates at Yucca Mesa Road; JBWD will extend it southward to SR-62, east along the north side of SR-62 to Sunset Road, north along Sunset Road to Commercial Avenue, then east to a new 32.5-acre recharge basin. The JBWD Recharge Project will help alleviate the overdraft condition by replenishing the groundwater basin, increase regional water supply reliability, and enable JBWD to receive the imported water to which it is entitled.

In total, the environmental review process for this project lasted approximately 4 years. JBWD completed the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process for the Recharge Project in 2010 and, because the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided funding, completed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process in February 2011 (an Environmental Assessment to support a Finding of No Significant Impact [FONSI] ). The project was determined to have a less than significant impact with incorporation of mitigation for aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards/hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use/agriculture/recreation, and traffic/circulation. Biological resources impacts necessitated Endangered Species Act compliance at the state and federal levels and JBWD received permits and approvals from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 2011.

And……well…..so what?

I realize that, to many of you, this discussion presents a lot of jolly-confusing jillywhompus jibberish jargon and the real question on your minds is, naturally: so what?

Following are several key take-home messages:

1. If “CEQA” is new to you, sit down. We’ve got some work to do.

Becoming familiar with the environmental review and approval processes, most notably CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act), is critical for anyone who wants to influence development trends and land use decision making and/or defeat one or more of the upcoming development projects. Take a class or two from one of your local experts and start reading policy primers (I will include a sidebar here shortly with recommended reading) and before you know it you’ll be finding grounds for any number of lawsuits based on weak CEQA documentation or failure to adhere to the CEQA process.

2. Learn to write a letter with teeth, THEN bite.

Letter-writing campaigns are often the first line of defense for opposition groups because they’re easy, fast, and cheap, but keep in mind that a poorly-written, overly emotional, vaguely threatening, and/or mis-informed letter can sometimes do more harm than good. The last thing you want to do is annoy or alienate the very person you’re trying to reach. Let’s not make this rookie error.

Pop Quiz: Which of these letters would you be more likely to finish reading:

A] Dear sir or madam; Your project is evil and I hate it.
B] Dear sir or madam; The project consists of 10 buildings scattered across 100 acres; the County should consider an alternative that minimizes the collective footprint and decreases the number of buildings by half.

Okay, I’ll admit it: letter “A” sounds juicier, in an asylum kind of way, but letter “B” would turn more professional heads. A well-written letter gets read when it has something to say and sticks to the facts. A well-written letter gets results when it points out the weaknesses and flaws in a process or proposal; suggests new or alternative measures that minimize environmental impacts; and suggests alternative project designs, project sites, project locations, and/or alternative project types for the lead agency to consider. This blog will share “real life” comment letters that will demonstrate how to address the big picture issues using real world examples….as well as how not to.

3. Be specific, be persistent, and be persistent (and redundant).

CEQA is a public disclosure process, but of the hundred or so public agencies I’ve evaluated, only a handful are proactive and inclusive in their approach to public outreach. The vast majority of agencies do only what is required by law, the absolute bare minimum, unless and until someone takes notice and/or says something. So, say something. Speak up. Let the decision makers know you know. That’s step one.

San Bernardino County, Yucca Valley, and Twentynine Palms each had a proposed Dollar General store application pass through their Planning Departments simultaneously. Each entity provided the exact same level of notice to the adjacent property owners per their noticing requirements, and each entity allowed the same amount of time to pass between noticing the property owners and making a final decision on the project. The ONLY difference between the three instances was this: when they heard of the proposal, the Joshua Tree community members spoke up, while the property owners in Yucca Valley and Twentynine Palms did not. Based on my conversations with County staff, the fact that dozens of people sent letters and/or emails to the County regarding the Dollar General application is what prompted the County to hold an impromptu public meeting on the application, and the public response that followed in the wake of that meeting is what elevated it from a Minor Use Permit to a Conditional Use Permit necessitating Planning Commission approval.

I’ve said it before (and will say again and again), but it bears repeating: CEQA sets a “low threshold” for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (No 0il Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974)13 Cal.3d 68, 84.), and in marginal cases, an EIR must be prepared if there is a “serious public controversy” or a “disagreement between experts” concerning the environmental effects of a project (CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(1),(2). Between you and me, this is the short-term goal for the Dollar General project in Joshua Tree, to become educated enough about the project that an EIR can be technically justified. I’ll discuss why next week.

Step two: get informed/stay informed. The rules of thumb to asking for information are be specific, be persistent, and be persistent (aka redundant). It’s best and safest to ask for what you want repeatedly than to assume you’ll get it eventually just because you asked for it once. Recall that the developer fees pay the County staff salaries: the lead agency doesn’t have to make it easy for you to get information; and the developer doesn’t want to make it easy for you to get information. The lead agency will often require you to come in person to pick up and pay cash for the copies you request. Don’t let that put you off! Be committed to the process, or find someone who is willing to do the legwork for you and disseminate copies to the interested community members back home.

The County anticipates that the Dollar General project will go before the Planning Commission in February 2012. (I think it will be more like March, or even later, given where the County is in the overall process – again, I’ll go over this next week.) If you want to be personally notified of the date of that meeting before it occurs, and you haven’t done so already, send Heidi Duron an email or letter that includes something like this:

Dear Heidi, I would like to stay informed of your progress on the proposed Dollar General project in Joshua Tree, California, and receive all project-related notices and announcements, including advance notice of the upcoming Planning Commission hearing that will be held in the spring. Please add my name, email, and mailing address to the project distribution and announcement list. Sincerely [insert your full name, mailing address, and email address here]”

Thank you for visiting the JT Barnstormer. I hope you come back for next week’s discussion of the Dollar General and Casino proposals. Between now and then, if you have any questions, suggestions, or comments, leave them in the box and I’ll respond as I’m able.

Cheers.