The County of San Bernardino should be the first line of defense for desert residents if the Music Valley Mine project proceeds.  However, the County has proposed to repeal and reenact Chapter 88.03 of the County Development Code, their ordinance regulating mining, and this could leave residents out of the process.  Therefore, we are opposed to the proposal as currently written. 

Let’s get into why.  And if it seems confusing, you’re not alone! We’re still learning about it ourselves. As our understanding improves we’ll update, but this is how we understand it at the moment. 

Specifically, we oppose the addition of a new section, 88.03.040 (b).  (You can read the full section at the bottom of this post.)

Two parts of this new section are concerning. To quote: 

• ….. the County may accept documents and environmental studies prepared by federal agencies as functionally equivalent to meet the County’s requirements…
• A Permit shall not be required for those portions of surface mining operations that require and obtain a federally approved plan of operation, or other federal authorization…  [emphases added]

So what’s the problem here? By referring to “permits” broadly, the proposed ordinance risks allowing new mining projects to bypass California’s strong protections under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This means the public could be completely left out of the process as there would be no opportunity for public comment as required by CEQA. A mining company could simply obtain federal permits and complete a much weaker National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review and start mining, without ever talking to the County or starting the SMARA / CEQA process because the ordinance says no county permit is required on federal lands. (If you want to get deeper into the weeds, see this joint comment letter to the County from National Parks Conservation Association, Earthworks, Mojave Desert Land Trust, and Center for Biological Diversity.)

In essence, if this added section 88.03.040 (b) is passed, the County could give up the local stewardship of these public lands and allow Washington, DC to make decisions that affect the residents of San Bernardino County.  These “federal” decisions could especially impact the quality of life for the county’s rural residents.  For example, with Dateline’s proposed Music Valley mine, the residents of Wonder Valley could have to live with the toxic dust, noise, and possible water pollution in an area where residents depend on domestic wells.

The County Board of Supervisors heard this proposal on August 18 and, after listening to desert residents including folks from Protect Music Valley, decided to continue the hearing until Oct 20.  The language and reasoning of the proposal is confusing, and the Board was not satisfied that the Land Use Services Department (LUS) had communicated the ordinance changes adequately.  Specifically, the Board directed LUS to “conduct additional community outreach, respond to questions from the community and evaluate potential clarifying amendments before the item returns for further consideration.” 

Protect Music Valley is now reaching out to Land Use Services to see that our community is included in the process going forward.  The residents of San Bernardino County need to know definitively the answers to these questions:

• If this ordinance passes, will any mining operation or portion of an operation that currently goes through County permitting, CEQA review, public notice, public hearings, or County-imposed conditions no longer go through those processes because of the new federal-land provision – yes or no?
• Specifically, is there any County or public oversight that exists under the current ordinance that would no longer exist or would be diminished under the proposed ordinance – yes or no?
• If the answer to question #2 is no, please explain to Wonder Valley residents why the new “Permit shall not be required” language is being added. The current ordinance does not specifically state that a County permit “shall not be required” for federally authorized mining. If the County truly has never had permitting authority in these circumstances, why is this new exemption necessary?

Our Board of Supervisors have been entrusted to protect our community assets, to protect our lands, and to protect the way of life of the residents who choose to live in these beautiful and peaceful rural areas.  As the voice of the residents, we need our County Board of Supervisors to represent our interests. The Board must remain part of the discussion and permitting process for all industrial mines.

What happens next?  The Board will need to hear from county residents on this issue at the County hearing on October 20^th. Please mark your calendars and plan to attend, either in person or via remote online connection, and we will have more opportunities for action coming up.  If you’re not already on our mailing list, please sign up in the sidebar to remain informed.

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

For reference: the actual language of ordinance 88.03.040 (b) addition is as follows:

(b) Federal Lands. Where surface mining operations occur, or are proposed, partially or entirely on federally managed public lands, the County may accept documents and environmental studies prepared by federal agencies as functionally equivalent to meet the County’s requirements under this Chapter, consistent with the 1992 Memorandum of Understanding between the State of California and such federal agencies, and any subsequent amendments or successor agreements entered into by the parties. A Permit shall not be required for those portions of surface mining operations that require and obtain a federally approved plan of operation, or other federal authorization, to conduct surface mining operation.