(December 28)   The county this month approved making pass-through funding available for the preparation of an environmental impact report and monitoring program for the expansion of a limestone quarry in Lucerne Valley.
Currently three operators, Omya, which was formerly known as Pluess Stauffer; Specialty Minerals, formerly Pfizer; and Mitsubishi Cement are mining the western portion of the Lucerne Valley Limestone Province. Right Star Minerals recently received approval to proceed with underground mining of the principal high-grade, white calcite limestone ore body similar to that being mined by Omya, Specialty Minerals, and Mitsubishi Cement in the western portion of the province.
The Lucerne Valley Limestone Province consists of substantial reserves of cement-grade and high-brightness, high-grade calcite limestone. The province extends for about 24 miles along the north slope of the San Bernardino Mountains overlooking the Mojave Desert. About five percent of the San Bernardino Mountains are underlain by Paleozoic carbonate rocks. This carbonate stratigraphic section averages about 1,500 meters thick with white high-grade calcite limestone units ranging from 15 to 30 meters thick.
The county board of supervisors, on the recommendation of county land use services director Christine Kelly, this month approved a contract with Pacific Municipal Consultants (PMC) effective December 19, 2012, in an amount not to exceed $281,892 to complete the preparation of an environmental impact report and mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the White Knob/White Ridge Project.
The project applicant, Omya, deposited  $281,892 into the project trust account in December 2008 to cover the costs of the environmental impact report and the monitoring program.
In 2008 OMYA California, Incorporated submitted a revision to a mining reclamation plan for the White Knob/White Ridge Limestone Quarry Project to increase the disturbance limits of the project by 147 acres for a total of 297.6 acres for mining, mine waste management, and sedimentation control. Since 2008, OMYA has been negotiating with the Bureau of Land Management and the California Department of Fish and Game to resolve natural resource damages and trespass onto federal land resulting from OMYA’s activities at the White Knob/White Ridge Limestone Quarry site.
In April 2011, settlement agreements were entered into by and between the Bureau of Land Management, the Department of Fish and Game and OMYA to resolve and otherwise settle disputes regarding the resource damages and trespass claims. Those items have been resolved and the project is ready to continue.
Along the north-facing slope of the San Bernardino Mountains much of the original high-grade ore has been lost through erosion into a series of northward dipping alluvial fans. Most of the eastern portion of the province for several kilometers has not eroded away along a highland area known as “Lone Valley” or the Smart Ranch Limestone Deposit.
Bids to complete the environmental impact report and monitoring plan were solicited from eight firms known to meet the necessary qualifications to perform the analysis required by the environmental impact report. In addition, the bid request was posted on the county’s web site and advertised in a local newspaper.
On December 16, 2008, the board of supervisors approved a contract with PMC in the amount of $370,000 to prepare the environmental impact report and monitoring project for the project, of which, $88,108 of initial work was completed under the original contract.

(December 28)   Based upon the recommendations of Gerry Newcombe, the county’s director of public works, the county board of supervisors this month took several actions aimed at improving public safety on various roads throughout the county.
The board approved an agreement with the city of Barstow for the cost sharing of maintenance and service costs associated with traffic signals and lighting at the intersection of Main Street and Lenwood Road through June 30, 2031.
The board approved an agreement with the city of Adelanto to equally share the maintenance and service costs for the proposed traffic signals and lighting at the intersection of Mojave Drive at Bellflower Street in the Adelanto area through June 30, 2022. The board adopted a resolution to establish a “no stopping, standing or parking” zone on both sides of Broadview Avenue, for a distance of 150 feet to the south from Rosedale Curve, in the San Antonio Heights area, and direct the county road commissioner to perform such acts as are necessary to effectuate the change. A traffic engineering investigation on Broadview Avenue in the San Antonio Heights area revealed that vehicles parked on Broadview Avenue, at the intersection with Rosedale Curve, cause northbound vehicles traveling on Broadview Avenue to maneuver over the center of the roadway in order to pass the parked vehicles and cause southbound vehicles entering Broadview Avenue from Rosedale Curve to also cross the center line. As part of the investigation, the department also determined that a stop sign should be installed for Broadview Avenue at Rosedale Curve.
The board also rescinded Resolution No. 2012-164, which was adopted by the board of supervisors on August 21, 2012, and directs the county road commissioner to remove the speed and weight restriction signs for Harper Lake Road in the Hinkley area that were erected as a result of Resolution No. 2012-164.
The board further adopted a resolution to allow angled parking along Pine Street and Apple Avenue adjacent to the Wrightwood Skate Park, in the Wrightwood area.

(December 28)  HESPERIA—The city of Hesperia will rejuvenate its county-run fire department with the assistance of a just-received $2 million federal grant.
According to city officials, the money will  be immediately put to use to rehire nine firefighting personnel who were laid off 18 months ago. In July 2011, Hesperia, which contracts with the San Bernardino County Fire Department for fire protection service, cut $1.4 million from the fire district’s budget. City officials sought to make up that difference by asking the city’s voters to pass Measure F in November 2011. Measure F would have imposed an $85 per parcel tax to augment fire services within the 73-square mile city. Voters turned thumbs down on the tax proposal and the city then shed nine firefighting positions as of January 2012, and shut down one of its fire stations.
According to city officials, those layoffs netted $752,000 in economies to the district’s $9.2 million budget in 2012-13.
The city applied for a Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response grant through the Federal Emergency Management Agency and U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The processing of the grant request determined that Hesperia would use the money to restore local fire department staffing and enhance the city’s ability to respond to emergencies.
The grant will be used to cover 100 percent of the salaries and benefits for nine fire safety positions for two years, according to the city.
Saying that “Firefighters provide a tremendous benefit to our community,” Hesperia Mayor Bill Holland said, “We are excited to be awarded this grant.”

(December 28)   VICTORVILLE–The Victor Valley College Board of Trustees has declined to renew Christopher O’Hearn’s contract as college president.
O’Hearn’s contract will expire on June 30. The proposal before the board earlier this month called for a two-year extension. The full board voted 4-1 not to make that extension at the present time, with Dennis Henderson dissenting. The board has the option of taking up the issue of O’Hearn’s continued tenure again before his contract expires.
Board member Joe Brady said the board’s vote should not be interpreted as an indication of a lack of confidence in O’Hearn or disapproval of his leadership thus far. He said the board majority simply did not want to be stampeded into action at this time.
“We had to give notice by the end of December on whether we were going to extend his contact,” Brady said. “We voted against doing that at this time. That is not to say we could not sit down and have a different outcome in February, March or April. This had nothing to do with any dissatisfaction with his performance. He has a contract that expires in June and we were being asked to extend it another two years. That would have been a two-and-a-half-year commitment to keep him and at this point we are not ready to do just that.”
A major challenge to the college and O’Hearn has been the college’s placement on accreditation probation as of June 2011.
The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges is to give a report on its review of the college in February, providing an indication of whether the college will be returned to full accreditation. That report is very likely to have a bearing on whether the college will choose to keep O’Hearn as president.
Brady said he believed O’Hearn had done a “credible job” in seeking to return the college to full academic status, but he said “We’re all sensitive to the college’s image and the need to carry out the academic mission, which is to provide students with credits toward a four-year degree at another institution or to train our residents with skills needed in the workforce. I think the voters sent a message when they did not return Joe Range to the board that they want a change in the college and its focus. Giving the president a two-year extension at this point, if you look at everything that is going on is not consistent with that new vision.”

(December 28)   The city of Redlands public works division has met a city council- imposed goal of having a significant number of downtown street lights transition from the high pressure sodium light bulbs the city has traditionally used to the brighter, more energy efficient light emitting diode (LED) bulbs.
According to Redlands Mayor Pete Aguilar the lights shone brightly during the Redlands Christmas parade.
Instead of making a complete change of the light fixtures on Orange Street from Pearl to Citrus avenues as originally intended, city workers found a vendor, Flatiron Electric Group, capable of adapting the lights to LED bulbs. In this way the scale of phase one of the light improvement project was increased to include a portion of Redlands Boulevard and parts of Sixth and Eureka streets. Phase one of the project, which began in March, has yet to be entirely completed.
Phase two of the conversions are currently intended to extend to portions of Colton Avenue, further westward on Redlands Boulevard, Brookside Avenue, Cajon and Orange streets.
LED lighting uses roughly 50 percent less energy than conventional illumination. LED bulbs should last 50,000 illuminated hours or longer, which is 30,000 hours longer than the effective life of high pressure sodium bulbs.
The first  phase of the project will cost $210,000 and will be paid for with $100,000 from the city’s public works budget, a $50,000 credit from Southern California Edison for  photovoltaic cells installed at the wastewater treatment plant, $35,000 in savings to the city represented by diminishing its manpower need directly related to lower lighting system maintenance, current and anticipated electricity usage reductions in the amount of $19,000 for the fiscal year ending next June 30 and $6,000 in rebates for using LED lights. Within six to seven years the city will see energy savings that will defray in its entirety the outlays for the LED purchases, according to city engineer Fred Mousavipour.

(December 21)   The board of supervisors on Tuesday appointed assistant sheriff John McMahon to succeed sheriff Rod Hoops upon Hoops’  upcoming retirement on December 31, midway through his current term.
Reports have been circulating since September 2011 that Hoops was looking to leave office and install McMahon as his successor. Hoops was himself appointed sheriff when his predecessor, Gary Penrod, chose to resign as sheriff midterm in January 2009. Hoops, running as an incumbent, was elected sheriff in 2010.
According to several department and county sources, Hoops was dissuaded from leaving last year because of concern that such an exodus would have come too soon after the 2010 election. Hoops made a public announcement on November 7, the day after this year’s election, of his intention to leave at the end of the year to take a position as a fellow with the Washington D.C.-based National Police Foundation. In so doing, he recommended that the board of supervisors appoint McMahon to replace him.
As one of the department’s two assistant sheriffs, McMahon is the third ranking member of the department, behind Hoops and undersheriff Robert Fonzi. Prior to taking his current position, McMahon held the rank of deputy chief, in which assignment he oversaw the department’s desert division along with its detention facilities. Previously, he was captain of the sheriff’s station in Apple Valley, serving as police chief in that desert town where he had grown up. His previous billets included serving as a lieutenant, sergeant, detective and deputy. He joined the department at the age of 21 in 1985. He obtained an A.S. degree in police science from Victor Valley College and holds a B.A. in criminal justice management from Union University. A graduate of Apple Valley High School, he currently resides in Phelan.
In making the appointment, chairwoman of the board of supervisors Josie Gonzales said McMahon had been characterized to her as having a “great reputation” and “diverse experience” along with being “highly ethical” and “hard working.” She said he was further described as being “calm, engaged, transparent, fair, and a good communicator.”
Several of the county’s senior law enforcement officials, including several police chiefs, were at the meeting, ostensibly in support of McMahon. For the last several months, McMahon has essentially been serving in the capacity of sheriff, as Hoops has become less active and visible in his elected role in leading the department and Fonzi has been undergoing and recovering from two shoulder surgeries.
There has been some perception that Fonzi was stepped over in the elevation of McMahon. Fonzi’s medical leave earlier this year came at a crucial time when the de facto passing of the baton from Hoops to McMahon was occurring. McMahon garnered the inside track in the race to succeed Hoops in some measure based upon being favored by Hoops himself but also on the positive relationship McMahon developed with county administrative officer Greg Devereaux. McMahon was present during Devereaux’s discussions with the deputies’ union representatives relating to contract concessions on the officers’ salary and benefit packages, which Devereaux considers key to balancing the county’s budget over the next several years.
McMahon’s selection was in some degree marred by repeated charges from several quarters that the board of supervisors and Devereaux were party to a contrived arrangement by Hoops to name his successor. Shortly after Hoops’ retirement announcement and his call for McMahon to take his place, Gonzales publicly stated she wanted to make the transition a quick and seamless one. This prompted Keith Bushey, who boasted an impressive list of law enforcement credentials including having been San Bernardino County’s former marshal, a former deputy chief in the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, a commander with the Los Angeles Police Department, an instructor in law enforcement techniques with the FBI and a colonel in the Marine Corps, to write a letter to Gonzales in which he stated that the county was engaged in “an insular, non-competitive and seemingly secretive selection process. The perception within the sheriff’s department, which is just about universal, is that sheriff Hoops has already brokered an agreement with the board to ensure the appointment of John McMahon as his replacement.”
This triggered a virulent denial on Gonzales’ part and she vowed an open, aboveboard and transparent process in choosing Hoops’ replacement. On December 4, the board gave indication it would consider other interested candidates, indicating along the way that those under consideration would be vetted, interviewed and their qualifications carefully weighed by a subcommittee of the board, to consist of Gonzales and supervisor Gary Ovitt, before a recommendation to the full board would be made.
Ovitt, however, was vacationing throughout most of the first half of December and was unable to meet with any of the candidates other than McMahon.
Both Bushey and Paul Schrader, a Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy and Rancho Cucamonga resident who had run for sheriff in 2010 and placed second behind Hoops, had indicated interest in being considered for the sheriff’s position. Bushey and Schrader on December 18 said that they had not been granted interviews by the Gonzales/Ovitt subcommittee as had been intimated by Gonzales on December 4.
County spokesman David Wert told the Sentinel, “I know there was some discussion about conducting interviews. County counsel rendered an opinion that conducting interviews would be an intervention of the Brown Act.”
Wert’s reference was to the Ralph M. Brown Act, California’s open meeting law, which requires that governing board members meet in public.
“The county wasn’t obligated to conduct interviews,” Wert added. “The board invited Mr. Bushey and Mr. Schrader to send in a resume. Mr. Bushey sent in a resume. Mr. Schrader declined to do so.”
The failure to conduct the interviews resurrected charges of a backroom deal. It was pointed out that county counsel Jean Rene-Basle had not indicated that interviews could not be conducted but rather that it was inadvisable to interview candidates for an elected office in a closed session. The interviews could have been structured as an open forum, those in attendance at Tuesday’s hearing pointed out. Gonzales said she had deferred to Basle. County officials said it was Gonzales who made the final decision not to hear directly from alternate candidates.
Supervisor Janice Rutherford, who nonetheless voted to name McMahon sheriff, expressed surprise that the interviews had not taken place and said she had not been informed that the closed door interviews of the candidates would have constituted a Brown Act violation until December 16.
“You should have at least talked to us,” Schrader said to the board on December 18. “You based a decision on people from the inside.” He said that he was not informed until December 17 that the subcommittee would consider his resume, in explaining why he had not submitted one.
Schrader’s wife pointedly accused Gonzales of lying.
Flustered, Gonzales defended her position, going so far as to criticize Hoops for abruptly resigning and then saddling the board with the perception of engaging in favoritism by his public endorsement of McMahon.
She said that she and Ovitt had met with the sheriff’s executive staff, the district attorney, public defender, chief probation officer and leaders of the union representing sheriff’s deputies.
“We have taken into account everything that was submitted to us,” she said, seeking to assure the public Hoops’ endorsement of McMahon had not tilted the outcome of her and Ovitt’s decision. “Mr. McMahon deserves this, and not because the sheriff said so. Mr. McMahon needed to stand on his own, and he has done that.”
Gonzales said McMahon’s management of the county jail system, his familiarity with the state’s prison realignment program and his interfacing with both the district attorney’s and public defender’s offices rendered him a superior choice to Bushey and Schrader.
“Based on all of our meetings,” said Ovitt, “John McMahon has the respect of the department and the law enforcement agencies he works with, the public defender, the district attorney, and probation. The right man for the job at this time is John McMahon.”
On December 31, McMahon is due to be sworn in as the 35th sheriff in San Bernardino County since its founding in 1853. He will follow Robert Clift, Joseph Bridger, Valentine J. Herring, Charles W. Piercy, William Tarleton, Anson Van Leuven, E.M. Smith, J.A. Moore, Henry Wilkes, Benjamin F. Matthews, G.F. Fulgham, Newton Noble, A.J. Curry, William Davies, John C. King, J.B. Burkhart, Nelson Green Gill, John Albert Cole, Edwin Chidsey Seymour, James P. Booth, Francis L. Holcomb, Charles A. Rouse, John C. Ralphs, J.L. McMinn, Walter A. Shay, Ernest T. Shay, Emmett L. Shay, James W. Stocker, Eugene W. Mueller, Frank Bland, Floyd Tidwell, Richard G. Williams, Gary Penrod, and Rod Hoops.
McMahon indicated he will seek election in 2014 to retain the position, which provides an annual salary of $225,574 plus $217,115 per year in benefits for a total compensation package of $442,689.

(December 21)   The county of San Bernardino has sustained over $675,000 in outside legal costs and is on the brink of running up another quarter of a million dollars in lawyers’ fees as a consequence of its acquiescence in the Santa Margarita Water District’s approval of the so-called Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project.
All of that money will be recovered from those involved in the project, county officials said.
The Cadiz Valley water project upon completion will extract an average of 50,000 acre-feet of water from the East Mojave Desert and convey it via pipeline to Orange and Los Angeles counties for use there. The Santa Margarita Water District, which lies some 217 miles from the Cadiz Valley, assumed lead agency status on the project, which is an undertaking of Los Angeles-based Cadiz, Inc. The Santa Margarita Water District gave approval of the project, including signing off on an environmental impact statement, in July.
San Bernardino County contemplated but in March ultimately elected against challenging Orange County-based Santa Margarita’s assumption of that lead agency status on the project and instead on May 1 entered into a memorandum of understanding with that district and Cadiz, Inc. and its corporate entities, including the Fenner Valley Mutual Water Company, allowing Santa Margarita to oversee the environmental impact report for the project and conduct the public hearings related to project approval. On October 1, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors gave approval to a groundwater monitoring plan to facilitate completion of the project.
As a consequence of the project, San Bernardino County, Santa Margarita and Cadiz, Inc. have been named as defendants in nine separate lawsuits challenging the project’s approval. The county, on March 27, hired the San Francisco-based law firm of Downey Brand to assist county counsel in responding to any lawsuits it contemplated might be triggered by the project at what was then said to be a not-to-exceed cost of $449,322. Within four months, however, those funds had been exhausted and on July 24, the board authorized a $250,000 amendment to the Downey Brand contract, increasing the amount to $699,332.  Legal billings to the county by Downey Brand have now eaten up that funding, and this week, county land use services director Christine Kelly asked the board to give approval for the expenditure of another $250,000 to cover continuing legal costs, pushing the Downey Brand contract to $949,332.
Delaware Tetra Technologies, Inc., which operates a salt mining operation in the Cadiz and Fenner Valleys, has filed four suits, each based on separate causes of action and differing applications of the law against the county, Santa Margarita and Cadiz, Inc., on May 25 in San Bernardino County Superior Court, on June 13 in Orange County Superior Court, on August 28 in Orange County Superior Court and on October 30 in San Bernardino County Superior Court.
On August 28, the Colorado River Branch of the Archaeological Heritage Association filed suit in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles against the county of San Bernardino, Cadiz, Inc., Santa Margarita Water District, the U.S. Department of the Interior, its secretary Ken Salazar, and the Bureau of Land Management over Santa Margarita’s approval of the project.
On August 31, the Center for Biological Diversity filed suit against the county, Cadiz, Inc. and Santa Margarita in San Bernardino County Superior Court.
On August 31,  a group, Citizens and Ratepayers Opposing Water Nonsense, filed suit against the Santa Margarita Water District, the county of San Bernardino and Cadiz, Inc. in Orange County Superior Court.
Another lawsuit naming the county, Briones vs. Santa Margarita Water District, was filed in San Bernardino County Superior Court on August 31.
And the Center for Biological Diversity filed a second lawsuit against the county and the other defendants in San Bernardino County Superior Court on November 1.
In several of the lawsuits, the adequacy of the environmental certification of the project is under attack. San Bernardino County’s abdication of its land use and environmental oversight authority is also a recurrent issue in the lawsuits.
According to the memorandum of understanding the county entered into, Cadiz, Inc. and the Santa Margarita Water District are to reimburse the county for any of its legal costs relating to the project.
According to county spokesman David Wert, “The county has received $650,000 in reimbursements, $135,000 from the Santa Margarita Water District and $515,000 from Cadiz, Inc.”
Wert said, “The county has incurred legal costs [related to the Cadiz water project] of $675,994.02 to date.”
An issue in the lawsuit brought by Citizens and Ratepayers Opposing Water Nonsense pertains to the Santa Margarita Water District’s assumption of the financial liability of other parties involved with the project approval. Opponents of the project have questioned whether Cadiz, Inc., an agricultural and landholding company which has not shown a profit for more than 13 years, will be able to sustain itself in the face of mounting legal challenges to the project. Those inveighing against the project not on environmental grounds but financial ones have questioned who will assume the company’s liabilities if it folds or declares bankruptcy.
Land use services director Christine Kelly stated, “The county of San Bernardino is to be reimbursed by Santa Margarita Water District, Cadiz, Inc., and Fenner Valley Mutual Water Company for all claims, liabilities, damages, or costs arising from or relating to any administrative or judicial action brought by any third party against the county, its agents, officers, or employees, that may arise from or be related to the county’s approval of the memorandum of understanding and the groundwater management, monitoring and mitigation plan.”

(December 21)   NEEDLES—Pacific Gas & Electiric’s  disposal of material, some allegedly laden with highly toxic hexavalent chromium in washes and on relic river terraces adjacent to the Colorado River near Park Moabi more than two decades ago has resulted in complications now threatening public health as well as water and soil quality requiring a cleanup effort that will likely take decades to complete.
While a water remediation protocol has been established, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has now initiated a massive toxic soil investigation which some Needles residents say is not properly focused upon the full extent of the Chromium 6 aspect of the contamination problem. Residents and at least one former municipal official have told the Sentinel a more comprehensive soils survey is needed on the ground beneath and around a local landfill where Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is known to have disposed of toxic soils and materials.
As described in the notice for a draft environmental impact report, the project under consideration is not in itself an actual cleanup or soil remediation project, but merely involves the adoption and implementation of a “soil work plan” to further study the lateral and vertical extent of toxic contamination where data gaps now exist.   Included among the named toxics are hexavalent chromium, asbestos, various metals, polychlorinated biphenyl, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins/furans, and an unidentified white powder.    The full title of the soil work plan is “Soil RCRA Facility Investigation/Remedial Investigation Work Plan, PG&E Topock Compressor Station, Needles, California, prepared in September 2012 on behalf of Pacific Gas and Electric Company” by CH2MHill, a firm located in Oakland, California.
Should the soil work plan be adopted and implemented by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the “further investigation” or project under environmental review would entail the characterization of the nature and extent of contamination identified during previous soil investigations and would not involve actual remediation.  Despite the fact that no remediation or removal program has yet been proposed, the DTSC has determined that there may be a significant impact on the environment and has determined that an environmental impact report (EIR) will be necessary to fully evaluate the potential environmental effects of the various activities involved in investigating and characterizing suspect soils.
The project as currently described does not identify cleanup alternatives. The project is intended to provide additional data, which will be used in the preparation of a separate study that is not a part of the current proposed project.  The second and separate study has been described as a future “Soil Corrective Measures Study/Feasibility Study (CMS/FS)” which would identify remediation alternatives if necessary.   A third planned report, also not a part of the current project nor a remediation project, will “present a combined data set of all soils investigations.”  The currently proposed project involves the collection of surface and subsurface soil and sediment samples, and the chemical analysis of those samples for “chemicals of potential concern” (COPCs) based on the historical use of the area and previous soil investigations.  In addition, some areas would be investigated using geophysical methods to identify subsurface objects.  The proposed soil work plan activities for the project include acquiring permission or permits to access certain restricted areas, creating physical access to certain locations (e.g., grading, boulder or vegetation removal), drilling trenching or excavating to access soil samples, collecting and preserving soil samples, performing certain field analyses and collecting and preserving samples, properly abandoning boreholes and backfilling of trenches and excavations, transporting the samples to the analytical laboratory, analyzing the samples for selected COPCs, evaluating and presenting the data in a written report, managing investigation-derived waste, conducting preconstruction biological and archaeological surveys, and identifying potential conflicts with subsurface utilities.
Twenty-eight areas of concern are being evaluated and may have been contaminated due to past practices and/or proximity to the Pacific Gas & Electric Topock Compressor Station one-half mile west of the Colorado River, just south of Interstate 40 near the bridge. In addition, there are six areas that may be contaminated because proper protective practices were not in place when solid wastes were managed there.  An area called the “potential pipeline disposal area” is proposed to be included in a geophysical survey to identify the presence of historically buried asbestos-containing pipes.  Three oil/water units, the perimeter fencing area of the station and the onsite storm drain system which includes both active and inactive lines and outfalls are also proposed for investigation.
Hexavalent Chromium, also known as Chromium 6, is a highly toxic chemical that was used to combat corrosion in the cooling towers of compressor stations used to pressurize a natural gas line owned by PG&E that ran from the fields where the gas was extracted in west Texas and New Mexico across Arizona and the Colorado River and through California up to San Francisco in the 1950s and 1960s. Pacific Gas & Electric ceased using Chromium 6 as an anti-corrosive agent in 1966 and disposed of much of it in unlined trenches near Hinkley, resulting in extensive contamination of the water table in that area and leading to a lawsuit that resulted in a $333 million civil settlement in 1994, what was then the largest such settlement in American history.
The area in which proposed project activities could occur due to suspected unauthorized dumping of solid wastes potentially laced with Chromium 6 covers additional surrounding land owned and managed by a number of private entities and government agencies, including the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, lands managed by the Department of Interior, U. S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), rights of way for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad and California Department of Transportation, and access over a portion of land owned by the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe.
The station, which occupies 66.8 acres of land owned by PG&E is 12 miles southeast of the city of Needles and one mile southwest of the Moabi Regional Park in California.  The station is one-half mile west of the community of Topock, Arizona, which is situated directly across the Colorado River from the Station and four miles south of Golden Shores, Arizona.
Three public scoping meetings were held last week, two of which were held in  Yuma and Golden Shores, both in Arizona.  The California scoping hearing was held in Needles.   Some members of the public attending the public scoping meeting held at Needles High School Auditorium on December 12 expressed both concern and indignation.  Concerns included the potential health effect of airborne toxic dust, contamination of local drinking water supplies while waiting for the studies to be completed, and the impact to the local economy by being stigmatized as a community inhibited by toxic pollution. Others expressed concern that the landfill where hexavalent chromium was disposed of in the early 1990s was not being included in the survey.
Former Needles councilwoman Ruth Musser-Lopez, who still lives in the area, told the Sentinel that two decades ago Pacific Gas & Electric’s disposal of hexavalent chromium at the city landfill located on federal land managed by the BLM, but at that time leased to the county and subleased to the city was an issue that was glossed over by municipal and other officials. Ultimately, Musser-Lopez said, the issue was side-tracked when officials focused on determining the identities of low-level Bureau of Land Management employees who had anonymously revealed what they claimed was illegal and unlicensed disposal of sewer sludge and hexavalent chromium in the landfill.
Musser-Lopez said she was heartened by the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s focus on PG&E’s disposal practices at the Topcock facility and the other areas of concern but that she was simultaneously disappointed that the focus did not extend to the contamination in and around the landfill, which is more proximate to the city and population of Needles.
“We’re talking about a toxic lethal chemical, chromium 6, and asbestos problems right next to the same river that Orange, San Diego, Los Angeles, Phoenix and Mexico drink from,” she said. “When I asked at the Needles scoping session on December 12 why the landfill was not being included in the survey, an explanation was provided that the landfill area is regulated by separate laws and thus was not a part of the current study. It’s been two decades since contaminated soil has been identified and the mess is still not cleaned up. I hold PG&E managers, those managers running the landfill—the city of Needles, the county of San Bernardino and the Bureau of Land Management responsible for what happened at the landfill.  They were more interested in silencing me and the speech of whistleblowers who talked to me.  If that effort and money would have been spent on the cleanup rather than hushing public outcry, speech and disclosure, we would be much further ahead. Our children and their children would be much safer and we would have a properly managed recycling and disposal facility.”
She called upon DTSC to widen its survey to include the landfill and the soil surrounding it.
Comments are presently being accepted during a 45-day scoping period that ends at 5 p.m. on January 14, 2013.   The public is encouraged to submit comments regarding the scope and content of the project and the environmental information to be contained in the draft EIR. Questions, information, concerns and comments of the public are to be considered by Department of Toxic Substances Control and for review in the draft EIR.  For more information, the public is directed to the Project Manager, Aaron Yue at Aaron.Yue@dtsc.ca.gov (714)484-5439 or the public participation specialist, Jacqueline Martinez at Jacqueline.Martinez@dtsc.ca.gov (714) 484-5338.  Information is also available at www.dtsc-topock.com.

(December 21)   The Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners on December 17 approved a protocol for returning ownership and operational control of Ontario International Airport back to the city of Ontario and the joint powers authority Ontario recently created with the county of San Bernardino to manage the airport.
In 1967, the city of Ontario and the city of Los Angeles entered into an agreement to have the Los Angeles Department of Airports run the airport, which at that time had only two airlines flying two out-of-state flights per day and yearly passenger traffic of around 200,000. Los Angeles used its control over gate access at Los Angeles International to induce airlines to fly into and out of Ontario and the use of Ontario Airport increased dramatically. In 1985, after Los Angeles and its Department of Airports had met all of the conditions laid out in the original agreement between the two cities, Ontario deeded the airport to Los Angeles for no consideration. Los Angeles created an entity, Los Angeles World Airports, to manage and operate the several airports Los Angeles owned, including Los Angeles International, Ontario International, Long Beach Airport, Burbank Airport and Palmdale Airport.  Over the years, under Los Angeles’ and Los Angeles World Airports’ management, over $500 million worth of improvements were made to Ontario International, including the construction of two modern terminals, a new runway, improvements to the existing runway, improvements to the concourse and parking lot and ground access upgrades. In 2007, use of Ontario Airport peaked, with 7.2 million passengers passing through its gates. Since that time, however, travel through the airport has sharply declined, accompanied by a souring of relations between Ontario city officials and those with Los Angeles World Airports.
The airport still provides commercial service to 14 major U.S. cities and through service to many international destinations, with approximately 114 daily flights. At present the airport has only 7 carriers, fewer than half the number of airlines that operated out of the facility during its heyday.
Ontario officials have suggested that the downturn in the use of Ontario International has come about in large part because Los Angeles and Los Angeles World Airports are purposefully mismanaging Ontario Airport to increase passenger traffic at Los Angeles International. Ontario has initiated a campaign which has lambasted Los Angeles World Airports and its management practices at Ontario International in an effort to pressure Los Angeles to redeed the airport back to Ontario.
On October 10, 2012, the Los Angeles City Council instructed its city administrative officer, Miguel Santana, to facilitate negotiations between Los Angeles World Airports, the city of Ontario, the county of San Bernardino, the Ontario International Airport Authority (OIAA), and other primary stakeholders to determine the most effective and appropriate ownership and management alternative for Ontario International Airport and the sale value of the airport. The Los Angeles City Council also instructed LAWA to develop a set of guiding principles to assist with analyzing and pursuing alternative management and governance structures.
The Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners has not, to date, endorsed any sale of Ontario International Airport but favors actions consistent with the recommendations of the Los Angeles city administrator’s office and the Los Angeles City Council.
“The guiding concepts and principles are an initial roadmap for the terms of divesting Ontario International,” said Gina Marie Lindsey, Los Angeles World Airport’s executive director.  “It’s a solid place to start.”
The resolution outlines requirements for the future stewardship of the airport, protection of Los Angeles World Airports’ financial interests and city of Los Angeles employees at the airport, and incremental steps to the sale process. The city of Los Angeles is asking for all of these issues to be addressed in a letter of intent between the agency and the Ontario International Airport Authority to be delivered by April 1, 2013. It is anticipated the letter will establish the terms that would result in Los Angeles World Airports selling the airport to the Ontario International Airport Authority, which counts as its joint powers members the city of Ontario and the county of San Bernardino.
In the guiding concepts and principles document released by Los Angeles World Airports, protection of Los Angeles World Airports’ financial interests is defined as Ontario and the Ontario International Airport Authority offering to purchase the airport at a price equal to what another entity is willing to pay for the facility.
“Divesture of Ontario International Airport should not result in forgone value to Los Angeles World Airports when compared with divesting to another party or divesting at another time in the future,” the document states.
Moreover, the document makes clear that the new owner “must provide reasonable assurance that Ontario International Airport will continue to operate as a commercial service airport free of operating restrictions in the future” and that current Los Angeles city employees working at the airport retain their positions. “The parties shall make all reasonable efforts to ensure that any adverse effects of divestiture on current city employees are minimized,” the document states. Since 2008, Los Angeles World Airports has reduced the number of employees at Ontario Airport from 430 to 245.

(December 21)   Outgoing Congressman Joe Baca has received a bevy of accolades in the waning days of his tenure in office.  Baca has been a member of the California delegation in the House of Representatives since he was elected in a special election to succeed former Congressman George Brown in the 42nd District after Brown’s death in office in 1999. He was reelected in 2000, and in 2002 was reelected to Congress in the redrawn 43rd Congressional District. A Democrat, he was reelected four more times, most recently in 2010. This year, running for reelection in the newly drawn 35th Congressional District against Gloria Negrete-McLeod, another Democrat, Baca lost.
Over the years he has had a number of committee assignments, including the Agriculture Committee and its subcommittees on Department Operations, Oversight and Credit; Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry; and Nutrition and Horticulture, of which he was once chairman and is now ranking member, as well as the Committee on Financial Services, including the subcommittees on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit and on Oversight and Investigations. As chair of the Nutrition and Horticulture Subcommittee four years ago, Baca led successful efforts in drafting and passing the 2008 Farm Bill that secured record levels of funding for federal nutrition programs, created $40 million in new agriculture grant funding for Hispanic Serving Institutes, and established new outreach programs designed to expand USDA assistance to minority and other traditionally underserved farmers.  Rep. Baca continues to serve as a lead advocate in efforts to reach a just settlement to longstanding discrimination cases between Hispanic and female farmers and the USDA.
Baca is also a member and former chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus; the Corporate America, Technology, Communications and the Arts Task Force, of which he was chairman, and a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, a caucus of  Congressional Democrats who identify themselves as moderates and conservatives.
On December 17, Baca was recognized by the San Bernardino City Council in a resolution that commended him for securing over $85 million in appropriations for projects in the city of San Bernardino, including the sbX transportation project, the Intermodal Transit Center, the construction of the Verdemont Community Center building, groundwater cleanup and water recycling, the Metrolink expansion, San Bernardino Police Department equipment upgrades, English Learner programs, San Bernardino Boys and Girls Club after-school programs, the Cal State San Bernardino astronomy observatory, and San Bernardino National Forest Association training of youth in conservation work.
“I’m extremely proud of these accomplishments, which have improved the quality of life and will continue to benefit the city of San Bernardino,” Baca said.  “It has been a privilege representing the city and the entire 43rd Congressional District since I was elected to Congress in 1999.  I have always strived to serve the interests of the city and the district to the best of my ability.”
Last month, Baca was the recipient of a leadership award from the Rural Coalition for his work in Congress on behalf of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.  The recognition was given as part of the Rural Coalition’s winter forum, and honored Baca for his efforts to advance greater opportunity and equality for minority farmers.
“I am honored to receive this recognition from the Rural Coalition, an organization that has done so much to empower minority, beginning, and other socially disadvantaged farmers,” said Baca.  “In Congress, one of my great passions has been to expand the civil rights of all Americans.  Listening to over 13 hours of testimony from disadvantaged Hispanic, African American, Native American, and female farmers has driven my efforts to implement sound agriculture policy that brings equity and justice to all corners of rural America.  I thank the Rural Coalition for their tireless dedication to advancing opportunities for all, and look forward to continuing to work with them in the future.”