L.A. took their water and land a century ago. Now the Owens Valley is fighting back

The Los Angeles Aqueduct, which transports water from the Owens Valley to Los Angeles, was built in the early 1900s. (Los Angeles Times)

By Louis Sahagun
Los Angeles Times

BISHOP, CALIF. -- A century ago, agents from Los Angeles converged on the Owens Valley on a secret mission.

They figured out who owned water rights in the lush valley and began quietly purchasing land, posing as ranchers and farmers.

Soon, residents of the Eastern Sierra realized much of the water rights were now owned by Los Angeles interests. L.A. proceeded to drain the valley, taking the water via a great aqueduct to fuel the metropolis’ explosive growth.

This scheme became an essential piece of California history and the subject of the classic 1974 film “Chinatown.” In the Owens Valley, it is still known as the original sin that sparked decades of hatred for Los Angeles as the valley dried up and ranchers and farmers struggled to make a living.

But now, the Owens Valley is trying to rectify this dark moment in its history.

Officials have launched eminent domain proceedings in an effort to take property acquired by Los Angeles in the early 1900s.

Owens Valley wants to reclaim its history

It is the first time Inyo County has used eminent domain rules against the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, which owns 25% of the Owens Valley floor, officials said Wednesday.

Unlike previous battles with the DWP that focused on the environmental and economic damage caused by L.A.'s pumping of local water supplies, the county seeks to pay fair market value for property and water rights needed for landfills, parks, commerce and ranchlands along a 112-mile stretch of Highway 395 east of the Sierra Nevada.

“We’re using a hammer the DWP has never seen before in Owens Valley,” Inyo County Supervisor Rick Pucci said. “Our goal is the future health and safety of our communities.”

The move comes after years of efforts by Los Angeles to make amends for taking the region’s land and water. In 2013, for instance, the city agreed to fast-track measures to control toxic dust storms that have blown across the eastern Sierra Nevada since L.A. opened the aqueduct a century ago that drained Owens Lake.

As a gesture of conciliation, the city a year ago erected a $4.6-million monument of granite and sculpted earth that now rises from a dry bed of Owens Lake. It features a public plaza with curved granite walls inspired by the wing shapes of shorebirds. Sculptures of earth and rock have been made to resemble whitecaps like those that graced the lake’s surface before it was transformed into a noxious dust bowl.

L.A. concerns about giving back land

But in Owens Valley, Angelenos bearing gifts have always elicited skepticism, and occasionally sparked eruptions of violence. The aqueduct was dynamited repeatedly after increased pumping exacerbated a drought during the 1920s that laid waste to local farms and businesses.

Inyo County officials see their effort to take back DWP land as an important step in taking back local control.

That worries DWP officials, who acknowledged they were caught off guard by the action.

“This is brand new. It could be a slippery slope and where it would lead us I don’t know,” Marty Adams, chief operating officer at the agency, said. “The county also wants the water rights on certain properties, which could have a cascading effect. We’re very concerned about that.”

The Inyo County Board of Supervisors directed its staff to study the use of eminent domain after the DWP a year ago proposed a fourfold rent increase of more than $20,000 annually at a landfill in Bishop operated by the county on land it has leased from the DWP for decades, Rick Benson, assistant county administrator, said.

The proposed lease included a clause allowing the DWP to terminate the agreement for any reason with a 180-day notice, he said.

After months of heated negotiations, the county approved the new three-year lease agreement in January because, Benson said: “We had no choice.”

“We’re mandated by the state to provide environmentally sound means of disposal,” he said. “But the cost of abandoning that landfill and building and certifying a new one elsewhere would be astronomical.”

Beyond that, he said, the California Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery refused to renew an operating permit for the landfill until a new lease was in place on the property.

Valley towns struggling to survive

In March, Inyo County Administrator Kevin Carunchio notified the DWP of the county’s decision to condemn that landfill site and two others in the towns of Independence and Lone Pine. That would set in motion legal proceedings that could lead to its taking ownership from the DWP.

A county appraisal concluded a fair market value for the total 200 acres of $522,000, county officials said. On Monday, the DWP declined that offer, saying it had yet to complete its own appraisals.

Some officials are already raising the possibility of mounting crowd-sourcing campaigns to fund additional acquisitions of DWP land for public benefit.

“The county would obviously like more economic opportunities,” the DWP’s Adams said, “and we support that.”

In the meantime, Owens Valley towns — including Big Pine, Independence, Lone Pine and Olancha — struggle to survive, with most of their developable land and water rights controlled by the DWP.

In 1997, the DWP agreed to relinquish 75 acres in the Owens Valley for residential and commercial uses, and the county amended its General Plan to ensure that land exchanges did not result in a net loss of tax base or revenues. Since then, county officials say, lots on only a fraction of that acreage have changed hands because the DWP has tended to set minimum bids far above market value.

In 2009, a group of Owens Valley residents sent a petition to then-Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the Los Angeles City Council urging them to force the DWP to compensate for the loss of private land it planned to buy in the region by releasing an equal amount of its own holdings elsewhere. The city never responded, according to activists who helped write the petition.

The DWP has spent more than $1 billion to comply with a 1997 agreement with the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District to combat the powder-fine dust from the dry 110-square-mile Owens Lake bed.

Separately, after decades of political bickering and a bruising court fight, the DWP directed water back into a 62-mile-long stretch of the Lower Owens River that had been left essentially dry after its flows of Sierra snowmelt were diverted to the Los Angeles Aqueduct. But it later balked at removing thick stands of reeds that swiftly choked the renewed river.

The DWP caused an uproar during the drought in 2015 when it gave ranchers 48 hours’ notice of its intention to reduce their irrigation water from the usual 49,000 acre-feet a year to 20,500 acre-feet a year. The agency abandoned the deadline after Inyo County threatened to seek an injunction to stop what it claimed was a violation of long-term water agreements that would devastate the local economy.

Some itching for a fight with L.A.

Farming and ranching generate $20 million a year in rural Inyo County, second only to tourism, officials said.

Jenifer Castaneda, a Lone Pine real estate broker and community activist, had one word to say about the county’s use of eminent domain: “Awesome.”

Castaneda said she only hopes local leaders are ready for a long fight and that they don’t “cave when Los Angeles dangles some kind of big fat carrot in front of their noses."

Family fights government in land dispute near Area 51

Dispute over historic Groom Mine in Nevada pits Air Force against local family near Area 51

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5244593192001/

By Andrew Craft
FoxNews.com

Joe Sheahan is in the fight of his life to save his family’s Nevada mine from being swallowed up by the federal government's mysterious Area 51.

Technically, Sheahan’s family no longer even holds title to Groom Mine, which it owned for 130 years. The federal government took the deed through eminent domain after first offering the Sheahans $333,300, a price family lawyer James Leavitt called “embarrassingly low.” The family is fighting back in federal court, but if the Sheahans and Uncle Sam can’t agree on a value, it could wind up before a jury.

Possibly more interesting is what the federal government wants with a parched stretch of rural Nevada desert and an old mine that hasn’t been active in decades. The area is known for two of the feds’ most closely guarded secrets: nuclear testing and UFOs.

So far, the family has not been paid for the land. Initially, the family was sued by the federal government in September of 2015 in a complaint case of eminent domain. A few days later the government then filed a motion to take the over the property. Now, Appraisal reports are being exchanged in the discovery phase of the litigation. If the parties cannot reach a sufficient value for the land, the Sheahans are prepared to fight it in a jury trial.

The mine hasn’t been in full operation since 1954, but until fall of 2015 family members went out from time to time to blast for minerals. The 400 acres of land sits almost 6,000 feet above sea level with panoramic views of the surrounding Groom Mountain Range and borders the Nevada Test and Training Range, which includes Area 51. According to Sheahan, his family’s land had always been highly sought after by the U.S. Air Force base looking to expand its flight-testing range, “They told me the land was like a suit hemmed in too tight that needed to breathe, that’s why they want our land“ Sheahan said.

Sheahan told Fox News that Air Force officials started showing up unannounced on the property in the 40’s and 50’s, intimidating his grandparents. He said his family complained to the Air Force, but nothing happened. Then nuclear tests came without warning. According to the Las Vegas Review Journal archives, on Jan. 27, 1951, the Air Force detonated the first above-ground test on land next to the Groom Mine. Sheahan says his family wasn’t told about the test. “This bomb goes off, who do you call, who do you Google, there’s no one … those blasts did significant damage to the property, not only in radiation,” he said. Sheahan claims family members and mine workers suffered long-term radiation effects and says some livestock died from beta burns.

In the winter of 2014, government officials from the Department of Defense and the U.S. Air Force approached the Sheahan family about purchasing the property. At that time, Sheahan and other family members had never had the property appraised but he says the family thought offers of $2.4 million, $5.2 million, and $1.5 million from the Air Force were too low and so they rejected them. “We’re not going to sit down with those numbers at the table.” said Sheahan.

The Air Force confiscated the property on Sept. 16, 2015 through a federal court ruling in US District Court in Nevada. The family had three outside experts appraise the property after the seizure. Due to its proximity to Area 51 and the mineral rights to the land, each appraiser recognized the “unique value” of the property and came to the conclusion that the real value of the land was worth upwards of $44 million to $116 million dollars, Leavitt told Fox News.

In a statement on Nov. 9, 2016 obtained by Fox News, a prior commander at Nellis Air Force Base, Col. Thomas E. Dempsey explained the reason for seizing the land; “Over the years, technology has increased demand for the test and training range assets and the Air Force has developed infrastructure that directly supports range activities that cannot be replicated elsewhere.”

Leavitt is fighting to get the family just compensation, which real estate expert and Fox News Legal Analyst Bob Massi explains as “an objective understanding of the value of that property.”

Fox News reached out for a comment from Justice Department, which is representing the Air Force but was told by deputy press secretary Wyn Hornbuckle the department will not comment on pending litigation.

Freelance local investigative reporter Glen Meek has been researching the Sheahan case since the government seized the land and is making a documentary about the land dispute. He noted government’s unwillingness to provide answers and boiled it down to two major fundamental issues - individual rights and national security, saying “the government’s position is pretty much, the testing that’s going on there now is incompatible with civilians having private land in that area.”

The case is currently in discovery. Sheahan says he is a God-loving American and does not want to be portrayed as unpatriotic but wants his family to receive just compensation. Sheahan and Leavitt expect a late spring or early summer court date where a jury will decide on the matter of just compensation.

Government takes family's land near Area 51

Historic Groom Mine overlooking Area 51

By Glen Meek and Kyle Zuelke
Las Vegas Now

LAS VEGAS -- Private land overlooking the secret base at Area 51 has officially been taken from the owners and transferred to the United States Air Force.

Last month, the U.S. Air Force condemned the Groom Mine property when the family who owns it rejected a government buyout they felt was unjust.

The I-Team broke the story of the family's fight with the government.

The Sheahan family, which until now owned the mine, knew they faced an uphill fight. They also expected the government would probably take the land through eminent domain even though the Sheahan's owned it since Abe Lincoln was in the White House.

Now -- literally with the stroke of a pen -- a federal judge has turned the land over to the U.S. Air Force. The only part of the fight left for the Sheahan family now is compensation and what will happen to the equipment, buildings, even human remains, still at the site.

In the remote central Nevada desert, the Groom mine has been an island of private property surrounded by a vast government buffer zone. The buffer zone is patrolled by security troops to prevent people from getting a look at the secret test base at Groom Lake -- better known as Area 51.

The family who owns the mine overlooking Area 51 has been at odds with the air force, which condemned the property last month, after the family declined a $5.2 million buyout.

"I have a geologist friend who I took out there, who's just a buff, and he said it is literally almost priceless," said Barbara Sheahan, Groom Mine heir. "There is so much there, not only the ore which is in the ground that can be mined, but in all the intrinsic value of what's on the land."

What's on the land includes buildings, mining equipment and the remains of kin who worked the mine since the family acquired it in the 1870s.

There's also the question of indignities suffered by the family from nearby government testing including buildings strafed by military planes and radiation drifting downwind from above ground nuclear shots in 50s and 60s.

"This has been like I said a 60-plus year nothing short of criminal activity on the part of the federal government, the AEC, Black Ops, CIA and you can go on and on," said Joe Sheahan, Groom Mine heir.

On Sept. 16, federal Judge Miranda Du signed the order in the condemnation case giving possession of the Groom Mine property to the United States government. The Sheahan's have asked for a jury trial, but the issues will be limited to how much the air force must pay for the land and the disposition of the equipment and personal property left on the site.

"There's nothing fair, there's nothing anything remotely close to that involved in this process," said Joe Sheahan.

"But there never has been either, so it's nothing new. But we would like to change it at least to get our stuff out and be paid the value," Barbara Sheahan said.

The air force made its final, $5 million offer to the Sheahan family after concluding that the security and safety of defense testing in that area made private land ownership impossible.

It the condemnation case, the air force values the land at only $1.5 million.

The Sheahan's say it's worth much more than that considering the value of the minerals in the mine, the abuses the family has suffered over decades and the land' s historical significance.

Governor approves use of eminent domain to take federal land

Brock Vergakis
The Associated Press
Salt Lake Tribune

Fed up with federal ownership of more than half the land in Utah, Republican Gov. Gary Herbert on Saturday authorized the use of eminent domain to take some of the U.S. government's most valuable parcels.

Herbert signed a pair of bills into law that supporters hope will trigger a flood of similar legislation throughout the West, where lawmakers contend that federal ownership restricts economic development in an energy-rich part of the country.

Governments use eminent domain to take private property for public use.

The goal is to spark a U.S. Supreme Court battle that legislators' own attorneys acknowledge has little chance of success.

But Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and other Republicans say the case is still worth fighting, since the state could reap millions of dollars for state schools each year if it wins.

More than 60 percent of Utah is owned by the U.S. government, and policy makers here have long complained that federal ownership hinders their ability to generate tax revenue and adequately fund public schools.

Utah spends less per student than any other state and has the nation's largest class sizes. Under the measure Herbert has approved, the state will set aside $3 million to defend the law.

Lawmakers recently slashed education funding by $10 million and raised taxes on cigarettes by $1 a pack. Democrats have decried the eminent domain measure as a waste of money, and Democratic gubernatorial hopeful

Peter Corroon is making it an issue in this year's special election.

But if the law is as bad as Democrats say it is, a court will quickly overturn it and the state won't have to spend much money defending it, Herbert said.

Initially, the state would target three areas for the use of eminent domain, including the Kaiparowits plateau in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, which is home to large coal reserves.

Many people in Utah are still angry that then-President Bill Clinton's designated the area as a national monument in 1996, a move that stopped development on the land and greatly pleased environmentalists as he ran for re-election.

Utah lawmakers contend the federal government should have long ago sold the land it owns in the state. Because it hasn't, the federal government has violated a contract made with Utah when statehood was granted, they say.

Eminent domain would also be used on parcels of land where Interior Secretary Ken Salazar last year scrapped 77 oil and gas leases around national parks and wild areas.

In Utah, a move to seize federal land

The state House passes a bill allowing the use of eminent domain to take protected land from the federal government. Utah wants to develop a stretch outside Arches National Park and other areas.

By Nicholas Riccardi
Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Salt Lake City - Long frustrated by Washington's control over much of their state, Utah legislators are proposing a novel way to deal with federal land -- seize it and develop it.

The Utah House of Representatives last week passed a bill allowing the state to use eminent domain to take land the federal government owns and has long protected from development.

The state wants to develop three hotly contested areas -- national forest land in the Wasatch Mountains north of Salt Lake City, land in a proposed wilderness area in the red rock southwestern corner of the state, and a stretch of desert outside of Arches National Park that the Obama administration has declared off-limits to oil and gas development.

Supporters argue that provisions in the legislation that granted Utah statehood allow it to make such a land grab. They also hope to spark a showdown in the Supreme Court that would rearrange the balance of power between states and the federal government.

Some legal experts say the effort is unlikely to succeed, but Republican state Rep. Chris Herrod, one of the authors of the bill, said the state had little choice.

"I love America, and I'm a peaceful guy," Herrod said, "but the only real option we have is rebellion, which I don't believe in, and the courts."

The eminent domain proposal is among the most audacious yet in a state accustomed to heated battles over the two-thirds of its land owned by the federal government.

This is the state, after all, where local officials bulldozed their own roads through Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, tore down signs barring off-roading in Canyonlands National Park and, with funding from the statehouse, spent years unsuccessfully defending those actions in federal court.

The eminent domain proposal quickly drew scorn from environmental groups.

"This is an ideological fantasy," said Scott Groene, executive director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance in Moab. "Everybody knows this isn't going to happen. The federal public lands are the thing that makes the American West so great."

The proposal is one of a host in statehouses nationwide that show a deep discontent with federal authority. Eight legislatures have passed resolutions asserting, to various degrees, the sovereignty of their states.

In Utah, a dozen measures have been introduced since January that defy the federal government. It has reached such a pitch that the House's Democratic leader last week complained that Republicans were spending too much time on such proposals.

The most aggressive efforts are generally by conservative groups, but Michael Boldin of the 10th Amendment Center in Los Angeles -- named for the constitutional clause that some contend limits federal power over states -- said that states' rights were also being cited by liberals in support of state proposals to legalize marijuana and gay marriage.

In the Intermountain West, particularly in rural areas, residents have long complained that federal preservation of land has prevented development that could provide reliable jobs and bolster the tax base.

Last week, a Utah congressman warned that the Obama administration was plotting to create two national monuments in the state, and Republican Gov. Gary Herbert announced that he would meet with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to urge him to reconsider.

The administration said the hullabaloo was sparked by a memo identifying areas that could be protected at some point in the future, not imminently.

A spokeswoman said Herbert supported the concept of the eminent domain proposal but was unsure whether it would survive a legal challenge. The bill's authors contend they can rely on the legislation that brought Utah into the union in 1896, which they read as requiring the federal government to sell its land in the state and give Utah a 5% cut.

The legislators want to seize and open two roads through national forest land that the federal government closed. This would allow access to state land that they hope to sell to developers to build high-end cabins.

A third area would be more provocative: a swath of federal land outside Arches National Park where the George W. Bush administration, on the eve of the 2008 election, authorized oil and gas exploration. The Obama administration reversed the decision.

Legal experts contend that the federal government is under no obligation to sell its land in Utah and that no state could successfully seize federal property.

"It flies in the face of history and is also inconsistent as a point of law," said Bob Keiter, a law professor at the University of Utah.

Keiter and others argue that the move illustrates a pattern in recent Western history -- a conservative backlash to the election of a Democratic president. After Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976, the movement known as the Sagebrush Rebellion helped lock up the West for the GOP and put Ronald Reagan in the White House.

President Clinton faced a similar backlash, aggravated by his creation before the 1996 presidential election of Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument.

"Utah has this history of grand conservation gains," Groene said. "Every time it happens it triggers this anger. And 20 years later we always look back and agree that conservation was a wise idea."

County plans to pipe water into Pioneertown

Yucca Valley district may supply neighbors

By Jimmy Biggerstaff
Hi-Desert Star




Project areas of two proposed pipelines to bring water to Pioneertown.




PIONEERTOWN — The environmental impacts of a proposal to supply water to this community’s 114 water customers was discussed at a Pioneertown Property Owners Association meeting at the church on Mane Street April 7.

Guest speaker Jim Oravets, San Bernardino County engineering manager, began his presentation by outlining the well-known challenges this community has with its water supply.

There are two, Oravets explained: quality and quantity.

Of eight existing wells, two are unusable, one has very high arsenic and fluoride levels and the remainder exceed the maximum contaminate level for arsenic or uranium.

Additionally, there is an insufficient supply to serve the town. Regulations require that the county provide the maximum day demand with the largest production well out of service.

The maximum capacity of wells here is 28,000 gallons per day, with a required maximum day demand of 35,000 gallons per day. However, well pumps turn off after two to three hours.

No new water meters have been sold here for a decade. New homes either drill their own wells, which further depletes the scant, poor municipal supply, or purchase hauled water.

The county is required by law to provide water for its residents. Herein lies the challenge — where to lay the pipeline and from where to import the water?

Three options have been explored:

• Run a pipeline up Pioneertown Road and pump in Hi-Desert Water District water;


• Run a pipeline across Skyline Ranch Road and use water from the Reche Basin in Landers; or


• Sink a well in the Pipes Canyon Wildlands Conservancy property.

A fourth option generally considered infeasible is to treat the existing supply with in-home, under-the-counter filtration systems.

Regarding drilling in the Pipes Canyon Preserve, Oravits said, “There were some differences that could not be resolved and the offer was taken off the table.”

Skyline is favored

The county advocates the Skyline Ranch pipeline and pump station, which staff says entails putting down about three miles of line and would produce a projected 100 gallons per minute of water imported from Landers.

According to Oravets, most comments sent to the county supported this option.

Officials are seeking grant money for the project, which will comply with California Environmental Quality Act requirements. Herein lay a rub with residents vis-à-vis the county.

Oravets figuratively tip-toed through several common questions posed about environmental concerns:

• Will Skyline Ranch Road remain open during pipeline installation?


• Are easements required? [Yes, or condemnation by eminent domain.]


• Will this open up Skyline Ranch area to development? [No.]


• Does the project give Hi-Desert Water District 200 gallons per minute to get Pioneertown residents 100 gallons per minute? [The additional capacity is for emergencies.]


• Will the water be drinkable? [Yes.]


• Will Hi-Desert Water District control Pioneertown’s water supply? [Pioneertown would contract with HDWD to provide water.]

The water will be drinkable, Oravits said, eliciting murmurs of approval from the audience.

The county also supports a proposal for recharging State Water Project water into Pipes Wash, a project deemed by some officials as necessary to export water from the Reche Subbasin to supply drinking water to Pioneertown.

“Our basic issue is exportation of water out of Reche Subbasin violates state law,” Marina West, general manager of Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency, said after the meeting.

Wilderness protection bill gets Congress' OK

The legislation gives maximum federal protection to more than 2 million acres in nine states, including more than 700,000 acres in California.

By Richard Simon and Bettina Boxall
Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Los Angeles and Washington Bettina Boxall -- Congress on Wednesday approved the largest expansion of the wilderness system in 15 years, bestowing the highest level of federal protection on 2 million acres in nine states and launching one of the most ambitious river restoration efforts in the West.

The bill, the first major conservation measure set to be signed by President Obama, would designate as wilderness almost as much land as was set aside during George W. Bush's entire presidency. It passed the House on Wednesday, 285 to 140, after clearing the Senate last week.

In California--which now has 14 million acres of wilderness (second only to Alaska, which has more than 57 million acres) -- the bill would protect about 700,000 additional acres from new roads and most commercial uses such as new mining, logging and energy development.

Included in the legislation is $88 million to help fund a project to return year-round flows and a prized salmon run to the San Joaquin River for the first time since the 1940s. The bill also would provide $61 million toward cleanup of polluted groundwater in the San Gabriel Valley.

The legislation passed Wednesday is an amalgam of about 160 bills, including measures to strengthen the protection of Oregon's Mt. Hood; designate President Clinton's boyhood home in Hope, Ark., a national historic site; create a commission to plan for the 450th anniversary of the founding of St. Augustine, Fla.; and designating the River Raisin battlefield in Monroe, Mich. -- site of a bloody battle in the War of 1812 -- as a unit of the national park system.

Rep. Nick J. Rahall II (D-W.Va.), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said at a news conference after the vote that the bill is the "most important piece of conservation legislation Congress has considered in many years."

California land to be designated as wilderness includes about 40,000 acres in the San Gabriel Mountains in Los Angeles County. The bill would create the Magic Mountain Wilderness -- named for a mountain northeast of Santa Clarita, not the Six Flags amusement park -- and the Pleasant View Ridge Wilderness, west of Angeles Crest Highway.

About 428,000 acres in the Eastern Sierra would be protected, as would about 147,000 acres in Riverside County (including parts of Joshua Tree National Park) and about 85,000 acres in Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks -- including the Mineral King Valley area that was the site of an environmental battle in the 1960s when the Disney company tried to build a ski resort there.

The legislation also would strengthen protections of scenic rivers, including eight in California that stretch from the upper Owens River in the eastern Sierra to Piru Creek in Los Angeles County.

In addition, the bill would add about 8,400 acres to the 272,000-acre Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument near Palm Springs, and order a study on whether the World War II Japanese American internment camp at Tule Lake should be part of the national park system.

"We're ecstatic," said Sam Goldman, California wilderness coordinator at the Wilderness Society.

The bill brought together members of opposing parties who were eager to trumpet their conservation efforts and water projects.

Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon of Santa Clarita, a conservative Republican who worked with liberal Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to push for the wilderness designation in the Eastern Sierra and San Gabriel Mountains, alluded to his unusual situation.

"We have some people who used to be my friends who are not happy with me, and we have some people who used to hate me who now think I'm great," he said. Showing pictures of mountains and rivers in his district, he added: "Places like this are treasures that we should try to preserve."

But the measure drew opposition from a number of congressional Republicans and business and property-rights groups, who attacked it as a land grab that would close off public land to energy production.

"If Congress and the administration are serious about jump-starting our economy, they cannot limit responsible American energy production of any kind, including oil and natural gas," said Barry Russell, president and chief executive of the Independent Petroleum Assn. of America.

The $88 million for the San Joaquin River is aimed at ending one of California's legendary water fights.

So much of the river is diverted to irrigate farmland on the east side of the agriculture-rich San Joaquin Valley that about 60 miles of it has turned into a bed of dust. Its lower reach is so polluted with runoff and agricultural drainage that it is known as "the lower colon of California."

A chinook salmon run that once was one of the West Coast's most bountiful was wiped out after Friant Dam was built in the 1940s and most of the river's Sierra-fed flow was sent into two giant irrigation canals.

Environmentalists went to court two decades ago to get back some of the San Joaquin's water and won a court settlement in 2006. The legislation authorizes the federal government to carry out the settlement and spend $88 million on restoration efforts.

"It's going to initiate one of the largest river restoration projects in the nation. It's a great day," said Monty Schmitt of the Natural Resources Defense Council, which has been involved in the river fight since its inception.

Under the settlement, farmers will give up some of their irrigation supplies. Altogether, more than $400 million in state and federal funds and environmental fees will be spent on restoration and water management projects to help farmers offset their irrigation losses.

Schmitt said the goal was to have spring chinook salmon swimming up the San Joaquin within three years.

During Wednesday's debate, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Tulare) contended that the settlement would hurt farmers. "If this Congress isn't capable of delivering water to people, perhaps we can ask the United Nations for help," he said. "Maybe they would be willing to deliver water, distribute humanitarian aid and rebuild the San Joaquin Valley."

But Rep. George Radanovich, a fellow Central Valley Republican, said that the settlement would resolve a years-long legal battle that threatened farmers' water supply, and that it "gives the agricultural community some control over their water future."

The new wilderness designations will be the latest additions to the 107-million acre National Wilderness Preservation System, created when President Johnson signed the Wilderness Act in 1964.

The measure's passage has emboldened environmentalists to push for even more wilderness designation.

Boxer is working to protect an additional 1.4 million acres of wilderness in California, including areas in the Angeles, Klamath, Lassen and Los Padres national forests.

All of California's Democratic representatives supported the bill. (As House speaker, Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco usually doesn't vote, but she said she backed the bill.)

All of the state's Republicans voted against it except for Rep. Mary Bono Mack of Palm Springs and McKeon, who also sponsored bills to create wilderness areas in their districts. Rep. Gary G. Miller of Diamond Bar did not vote.

Senate poised to move quickly on Omnibus

Procedural maneuver designed to nullify House vote

By Noelle Straub and Eric Bontrager
Environment & Energy Daily

The Senate today will vote on six amendments to the public lands, water and natural resources omnibus bill and may vote on the final version as soon as tonight.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) yesterday reached an agreement to allow Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) votes on the amendments in return for dropping his objections to the bill. The deal allows for 60 minutes of debate on each of Coburn's amendments and requires 60 votes for final passage. The Senate first passed the omnibus bill in January, 74-21, and a cloture vote Monday was approved, 73-21.

During floor debate yesterday, Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) described Coburn's amendments as largely minor, noncontroversial measures intended as assurances against unintended consequences of the omnibus. He encouraged Republicans to vote for them, saying they "simply improve the bill."

"Why would we want to preserve the right to use eminent domain if we don't have any intention to use it?" - Jon Kyl (R-AZ)

He noted one of the Coburn amendments would prohibit the use of eminent domain to acquire any of the millions of acres that would be protected under the omnibus. Supporters of the package have repeatedly refuted Coburn's claims that eminent domain would be used for any of the lands in the omnibus. "If it is true ... that none of this land needs to be acquired by eminent domain, there is no harm in including the language" of the amendment, Kyl said. "Why would we want to preserve the right to use eminent domain if we don't have any intention to use it?"

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), who has a measure in the omnibus that would designate more than 517,000 acres as wilderness in the Owyhee-Bruneau Canyonlands of southwestern Idaho, said he understood the concerns of Coburn and some other members have but does not share their fears that the package represent "a haphazard attempt to extend the reach of the federal government."

"This is a well thought through management approach," Crapo said. "I don't believe there is a single piece of legislation in this bill that does not have the support of the senator of the state those lands are in."

Crapo said he hopes the Senate will move "expeditiously" on the amendments so that it can pass the omnibus and send it over the House.

Two of Coburn's amendments would strike all provisions that could restrict renewable energy development on public lands and sections that Coburn deems frivolous, such as the $3.5 million to celebrate the 450th Anniversary of St. Augustine, Fla., in 2015. Noting the National Park Service's $9 billion maintenance backlog, one amendment would bar new construction until all current park sites are certified as fully operational, ensuring full access by the public, and posing no health or safety threat.

Other amendments would require an annual report detailing the total size and cost of federal property, prohibit the use of eminent domain for any provision authorized in the bill, and clarify the bill to protect park visitors and scientists from criminal penalties for taking stones that may contain fossils.

Last week, the House fell two votes shy of passing the bill under suspension of the rules, a maneuver that shields legislation from amendment or a motion to recommit but requires a two-thirds majority for passage. Senate leaders then devised a strategy to use a bill that had already passed the House -- H.R. 146, a proposal to protect Revolutionary War battlefields -- and strip its contents, replacing it with the omnibus lands bill. Because H.R. 146 has already passed the House, the House Rules Committee can approve a closed rule that would block a motion to recommit, eliminating the GOP's best procedural chance to stymie the bill.

House Natural Resources Chairman Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) yesterday said he had not seen Coburn's amendments but doubted that any would jeopardize the omnibus's final passage in the House. He noted that because the House already passed H.R. 146, all it would need is a simple majority vote to concur with the Senate amendment.

Even if the Senate passes the omnibus this week, Rahall said the House would likely not take it up until next week.

Because the omnibus may only require a simple majority, Natural Resources Committee ranking member Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) admitted that the bill is all but assured to pass. While pleased that the Reid-Coburn agreement will allow some amendments on the Senate side, he reiterated that House Republicans have never had the same opportunity.

The omnibus would designate more than 2 million acres of wilderness in nine states and would establish three new national park units, a new national monument, three new national conservation areas, more than 1,000 miles of national wild and scenic rivers and four new national trails. It would enlarge the boundaries of more than a dozen existing national park units and establish 10 new national heritage areas.

It would also authorize numerous land exchanges and conveyances to help local Western communities address water resource and supply issues and includes provisions to improve land management.

The revised omnibus bill will also include language from Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) meant to ensure that the omnibus would not close off lands that are already open to hunting and fishing.

Exhibit showcases first black settlers' influence on Indio

Indio resident Leah Jordan points to a picture of her sons riding horses while discussing her family's history in Indio. Jordan's family moved to Indio in 1928. Her uncle, John Nobles, was the founder of Nobles Ranch in Indio. (Crystal Chatham The Desert Sun)

Aldrich M. Tan
The Desert Sun

As a young black girl in Indio in the early 1940s, R. Gene Wilson spent summers waking up at 5 a.m. to pick onions, grapes and chop cotton under the blazing sun.

It was her family's way of surviving life in the desert at a time when the only jobs available to blacks were farmers and housekeepers.

Wilson, now 75, reflects on those times decades later as she puts together her family's history poster for the upcoming “Black Pioneer Showcase” at the Coachella Valley Museum and Cultural Center.

The monthlong exhibit opens Saturday and highlights the historical contributions of the local black community. It features about 75 items of significance to Indio's black history, including family photos and heirlooms dating back to the early settlement of Indio.

“We wanted to show that the black people of the Coachella Valley didn't just sit down,” said exhibit committee president George Thomas of Indio. “We helped develop this town.”

An opening-day celebration with speakers and performers is scheduled from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., Saturday at the center, 82-616 Miles Ave., Indio.

With wrinkled dark hands from years of agricultural labor and service to the school district, Wilson glued the last picture to the poster at her Indio home recently.

“It means the world to me,” Wilson said of the showcase.

“We can get out and show our kids and grandchildren what our forefathers have done here in the valley, and how we have poured out their lives here.”

A committee began work on the exhibit seven months ago to debut for Black History Month, which has been held in February since it was established in 1976. The historic inauguration of a black president has given the committee more drive to show their history.

Jesse Siess, executive director of the Coachella Valley Museum and Cultural Center, said it's difficult to tell exactly how many black people were in Indio when the city was incorporated in 1930 because, at the time, racial minorities were often not accounted for by the census.

The first stop for many black residents starting their lives in Indio was Nobles Ranch, Siess said. John Nobles came to Indio from Oklahoma as the first black farmer to own land here in 1922.

Facing housing discrimination, many black settlers turned to Nobles, who divided his land and sold it to the earliest pioneers so that they could support themselves, Siess said.

Leah Woods Jordan, Nobles' niece, remembered her uncle as a kind and helpful man. Her family came to Indio in the 1930s.

Many newcomers to Nobles Ranch, Jordan said, lived in tents until they could raise money to build their own homes.

With time and hard work, black people settled down in Indio. They bought property from Nobles and built churches, such as the African Methodist Episcopal church in April 1930, and homes where they could raise their families.

By the 1990s, there were 87 homes, a public housing project and three churches in the Nobles Ranch area, said Victoria Bailey, author of “Indio Reflections and Visions.”

City takes control

While their grandparents and parents toiled on the fields, the young black children in the 1940s went to integrated schools.

Cora Mayfield, now 58, became Indio High School's first black cheerleader at a time when segregation was seen elsewhere. She said her cousins in Texas were surprised she could attend an integrated school.

“My cousins were shocked that I had gone to school with white people,” she said.

Black residents faced ongoing occupational and housing discrimination, Siess said. Blacks who sought work in the 1960s were referred to blue-collar jobs like janitors and gas station attendants.

Indio's black community faced a setback in 1986 when the city took over the communities established on Nobles Ranch under eminent domain for a proposed expansion of the Indio Fashion Mall next to their neighborhood.

Black people from all over the Coachella Valley protested the city's action for at least three weeks in front of the mall.

“We were infuriated because they were traumatically moving residents who were largely black,” Beaver said. “It was an atrocity.”

Despite the setbacks, the black residents of Indio who remained in the area continued to strive for success.

Mayfield said she feels like her experience in Indio gave her “a good start in life.”

“I was exposed to a lot of opportunities that I probably would not have had living in a segregated state,” she said.

Black residents of Indio started making presentations for Black History Month in the mid-1990s, Siess said.

“A museum should focus on where a community comes from, and we want to show the history of the valley through the people who have helped form the valley,” she said.

The presentations usually consist of speakers and performances, Siess said. What makes this year's showcase unique is the establishment of an exhibit at the museum led by city residents.

Thomas said he feels the right group of people came together at the right time to make this type of project work.

On display through February, the exhibit traces the journey of the settlement of the first black residents of Indio as farmers of the desert and the lives of their descendents.

Johnson brought rusting silvery cups called “water cups” to use in the exhibit. Farmworkers used the cups to drink water when they were working in the fields, she said.

“These are artifacts that show where we come from,” she said, “so we can appreciate what we have now.”

If the project is successful, the group plans to expand the exhibit to include black pioneers and families who live in other parts of the Coachella Valley, Thomas said.

Omnibus Lands Bill Restricts Energy Exploration

by Nicolas Loris
Heritage Foundation

In one of the first moves in the lame duck session, Senator Harry Reid (D–NV) is calling for a vote on an omnibus lands package that would create 10 new "heritage" areas and restrict millions of acres as federal wilderness land. As a result, the bill would eliminate major recreation and restrict new oil and gas leasing, logging, mining, and all other business activity in these areas. In total, 3 million acres would be withdrawn from energy leasing. The Congressional Budget Office places an $8 billion price tag on the omnibus lands bill: $7.1 billion in discretionary spending and over $915 million in mandatory spending.[1]

The lands bill removes public land that would be available for recreational, commercial, and private ownership use by designating such land as wilderness areas, heritage areas, conservation areas and wild and scenic rivers. Furthermore, the bill places restrictions on existing federal property.

The bill also grants the government the authority to take over more privately owned land. Despite numerous pledges that it will not take away private land, the Congressional Research Service asserts that the National Park Service (NPS) "could exert federal control over nonfederal lands by influencing zoning and land-use planning. Heritage area management plans are overly prescriptive in regulating private property use, private property protections in legislation might not be adhered to, and NHA lands may be targeted for federal purchase and management."[2]

Forming National Heritage Areas

The process for forming a National Heritage Area (NHA) begins when an individual or group identifies a perceived historically significant property. "Historically significant property" is defined by the NPS as "a place designated by the U.S. Congress where natural, cultural, historic and recreational resources combine to form a cohesive, nationally-distinctive landscape … [to] tell nationally important stories about our nation," so just about any parcel of land or long-standing structure could be touted as an intricate part of someone's history and become eligible for federal subsidies, as the proposed NHAs for Mississippi alone reveal. Senator Thad Cochran (R–MS) introduced legislation that designates 30 counties in northeast Mississippi as NHAs, claiming, "The hills of Mississippi are rich in unique historical, natural, and cultural characteristics."[3]

There are three key reasons why existing NHAs should become financially independent of the federal government, as their enabling legislation requires, and no additional NHAs should be established.[4]

First, NHAs divert limited NPS resources away from core responsibilities. NPS advocates and staff have long complained about the lack of resources that Congress provides in comparison to its extensive responsibilities. Both the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service estimate that the cost of NPS's maintenance backlog exceeds several billion dollars and is rising despite increased annual appropriations. Park attendance has been in decline in recent years, and camping in the parks has decreased, perhaps in part because of the functional obsolescence of campground facilities.[5] Some of this decrease in recreational usage can be attributed to silly provisions such as bans on snowmobiles, which significantly reduce tourism and hurt local economies.[6]

Second, federal budget costs for NHAs are expanding at a rapid pace. If enacted, the legislation would cost taxpayers an additional $110 million to create 10 new NHAs and study the feasibility of adding two more.[7] But not a single NHA has become financially independent within the timeframe allotted, and all have had their federal funding extended.

Third, private property rights are put at risk. On the surface, most of the legislation designating an NHA, and the subsequent management plans that guide them, explicitly prohibit the NPS or the management entity from using eminent domain to acquire property. They also prohibit the use of federal funds to acquire private property by way of a voluntary transaction with a willing seller. But NHAs pose a threat to private property rights through the exercise of restrictive zoning that may severely limit the extent to which property owners can develop or use their property. Termed "regulatory takings," such zoning abuses are the most common form of property rights abuse today. They are also the most pernicious because they do not require any compensation to owners whose property values are reduced by the new zoning.[8]

Federal Land Ownership and Restrictions

The omnibus lands package would allow the federal government to take ownership of specific areas by designating them as wilderness areas, heritage areas, conservation areas, or wild and scenic rivers. Furthermore, millions of acres of existing federal property would restrict the development of natural resources, particularly mineral resources. The federal government already owns and controls 650 million acres of land in the United States, including a large portion of land in the western U.S. For instance, the federal government owns approximately 85 percent of the land in Nevada, 69 percent of Alaska, 57 percent of Utah, and 53 percent of Oregon.[9]

Under the lands package, for example, the federal government would add 794,000 acres to the 45.4 million acres they already have in California, along with 83 miles of river. And it does not stop there. In total, the federal government would increase its stake in 15 states, reducing private property rights and placing valuable resources off limits.

Energy Off Limits

Moving additional land to government control frequently places energy supplies off limits and the omnibus lands package is no exception:. Over 3 million in total acreage would be withdrawn from energy leasing, including areas with enormous potential to extract new oil and natural gas. For example, 331 million barrels of recoverable oil and 8.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas would be taken out of exploration in Wyoming. The total amount of energy that would be restricted is equivalent to the amount of natural gas the entire U.S. produces in 15 years.[10]

The bill could not only restrict conventional energy resources, but it could also restrict access to oil shale in parts of Colorado and Wyoming. An estimated 1.2–1.8 trillion barrels of oil is available in the Green River Formation.[11] A moderate estimate of 800 billion barrels of oil that would be recoverable from oil shale in the Green River Formation is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.[12]

Although not all this potential energy would be off limits under Reid's proposal, recoverable oil refined from oil shale would provide another resource for domestic fuel production, and restricting parts of this land will only make extraction more difficult. Though the price of oil has been in steady decline as the current recession unfolds, the U.S. would still benefit from an increase in supply, and when the economy recovers, prices may likely rise again.[13] The omnibus lands package would take these valuable and strategic energy resources permanently off the table.

Furthermore, the omnibus package would restrict a number of other activities. Commercial timber harvesting, mining claims, and mineral leases are generally prohibited in wilderness areas designated by Congress.[14] Concerns also exist that animal grazing and motorized recreational activities would also be off limits.[15] Restricting these uses would undoubtedly hurt local economies by hampering commercial activities and reducing tourism and could lead to even more government rules and regulations.

Not the Time to Restrict Land

The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2008 would result in a huge expansion in government ownership of land in the United States. This increase would restrict access to energy and limit economic opportunity at a time when the nation should be increasing domestic supply. Moreover, this bill would restrict other commercial activities such as mining, timber harvesting, and recreational activities, and it would continue the federal assault on private property rights.

Nicolas D. Loris is a Research Assistant in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Congressional Budget Office, "Cost Estimate: S.1193," November 12, 2008, at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/do
c9915/s1193OmniLand.pdf (November 14, 2008).

[2] Congressional Research Service, "The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2008: Senate Amendment 5662 as Submitted on September 26, 2008," CRS Report for Congress, October 31, 2008.

[3] Press release, "Cochran Moves to Establish Mississippi Hills National Heritage Area," November 1, 2007, at http://www.mshills.org/documents/Cochranpressrelease.pdf (November 14, 2008).

[4] See Ronald D. Utt, "Another Federal Assault on Property Rights: The Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area Act," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2025, April 18, 2007, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/SmartGrowth/bg2025.cfm.

[5] Press release, "Cochran Moves to Establish Mississippi Hills National Heritage Area."

[6] Erin Hymel, "Banning the Better Alternative," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 547, August 2, 2004, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/wm547.cfm.

[7] Press release, "Dr. Coburn Says Upcoming Special Session of Congress Should Focus on Economic Crisis, Not Trivial Lands Bill," October 20, 2008 at http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?
FuseAction=LatestNews.PressReleases&C
ontentRecord_id=1c14dd8f-802a-23ad-4dac-c03600ce287e (November 13, 2008).

[8] The U.S. General Accounting Office (now Government Accountability Office) reported in 2003 that of the 44 regulatory takings lawsuits against the agencies of the federal government (including Interior) that were settled between 2000 and 2002, 14 resulted in cash awards totaling $36.5 million to property owners. See U.S. General Accounting Office, Regulatory Takings: Agency Compliance with Executive Order on Government Actions Affecting Private Property Use (Abstract), GAO-04-120T, October 16, 2003.

[9] GSA Office of Governmentwide Policy, "Overview of the United States Government's Owned and Leased Real Property," September 30, 2004, at http://www.gsa.gov/gsa/cm_attachment
s/GSA_DOCUMENT/Annual%20Report%2
0%20FY2004%20Final_R2M-n11_0Z5RDZ-i34K-pR.pdf (October 30, 2008).

[10] Press release, "Dr. Coburn Says Upcoming Special Session of Congress Should Focus on Economic Crisis."

[11] Nicolas Loris, "Omnibus Prohibits Oil Shale Development," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 1754, December 18, 2007, at www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1754.cfm.

[12] Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic EIS Information Center, "About Oil Shale," at http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/index.cfm (November 13, 2008).

[13] Although the Energy Information Administration has dramatically reduced its 2009 gasoline forecasts, the 2009 projections remain higher than the national average for the date November 10, 2008. For more information, see EIA, "Short-Term Energy Outlook," November 12, 2008, at http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo (November 13, 2008).

[14] Congressional Research Service, "The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2008: Senate Amendment 5662 as Submitted on September 26, 2008" CRS Report for Congress, October 31, 2008.

[15] Ibid.

Eminent Domain: Nevada serves up lesson to other states

Editorial



By TIMOTHY SANDEFUR
Elko Daily Free Press







Eminent domain abuse has been a national controversy since the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. New London in 2005 that gave state and local government the authority to seize homes or businesses and give the property to private developers to use in ways bureaucrats consider more beneficial.

The Constitution says states may only take land “for public use,” but the justices redefined this phrase to mean simply “public benefit.” So now whenever a city council thinks it's a good idea, it can condemn your land and give it to someone else.

The problem is that bureaucrats always say their plans are a good idea - no matter how foolhardy, futile or corrupt they are. So it was not surprising that this case was met with a nationwide outcry, and by attempts to amend state constitutions to ban the abuse of this power locally.

These efforts reveal an interesting pattern: when eminent domain reform has been left to state legislatures, the results have been disappointing. But when citizens demand protection through initiatives, they usually get much more effective results.

And that was definitely true Nov. 4 in Nevada.

Voters overwhelmingly approved a new constitutional amendment that forbids the state from using eminent domain to take property from home and business owners and give the land to private developers.

Nevadans now enjoy what might be the strongest protections for property rights in the nation. And this victory for the owners of homes and businesses suggests some interesting lessons for the rest of the country.

That's because in states like Delaware, Ohio, New Hampshire, and elsewhere, elected officials have passed laws that sound good but provide virtually no protection for owners of private property. Many of these states, for example, enacted laws declaring that the government may not take land and give it to private developers - unless the land is “blighted.” But because the law defines “blight” so broadly that virtually anything can qualify, this still allows them to declare land blighted whenever it doesn't produce enough tax revenue, or doesn't look as nice as a city council member would like. Then the government can give the property to developers who lobby for the opportunity to enrich themselves using other people's property.

But in Florida, South Carolina, Arizona, and now Nevada, ballot initiatives have created serious new protections for the owners of private property. The new Nevada law declares that “public use” does not mean the use of the property by private companies, and that government may not redistribute property simply to improve the tax base or make a neighborhood conform to a bureaucrat's vision of what a neighborhood should look like.

What these initiatives reveal is that property owners, when given a clear choice between property rights and bureaucratic planning, choose property rights. They understand - as too many elected officials do not - that government exists to protect our rights to life, liberty and property, not to rearrange those rights to serve bureaucratic visions of community “improvement.”

The exception to the rule is California. This past spring, a coalition of city governments put forward Proposition 99, which actually expands the state's eminent domain powers. On the surface, the initiative seems to protect homeowners against the taking of their property, but the fine print added a new section to the state constitution that allows government to use eminent domain for a wide variety of new projects, and eliminates even the small protections for homeowners in most eminent domain cases.

Unsurprisingly, officials in Los Angeles County are already planning several eminent domain projects that have closed down some businesses, and will soon throw hundreds of property owners out of their homes.

Government officials and private developers know that property owners are angry about the abuse of eminent domain, and they will make every effort to shut down the effort to protect property rights.

In fact, they successfully sued the backers of the Nevada initiative and managed to eliminate some important protections for property rights before it was placed on the ballot. This coalition of government and businesses are intent on keeping open their opportunities to enrich themselves by taking away other peoples' property.

That's why it's therefore up to Americans - both in the ballot box and in the courtroom - to defend what is rightfully theirs: their fundamental right to private property.

Timothy Sandefur is an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation.

Con: Department of Power should use existing lines and find alternative energy solutions

Editorial






by April Sall
Special to The Desert Sun






Green Path North is a proposed power corridor of 500-kilovolt transmission lines that the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power wants to carve through pristine desert and desert communities.

LADWP claims that these transmission lines are necessary to bring renewable energy into the urban city to “diversify their energy portfolio.” Development of renewable energy resources including geothermal, solar and wind, should be our highest priority to replace fossil fuels. However, for LADWP to destroy pristine desert and conservation lands in the process, including condemnation of private property, is not a “green” way to go about it. I further disagree that LADWP needs to own its own transmission lines, when there are existing corridors that were established through years of focus and study and could be the shared with other utilities.

Save the canyons

As a third-generation resident of a canyon, I have been fortunate to have an intimate connection to a wild place that is integral to our family heritage. The place is in our bones and is where they will someday rest.

Pipes Canyon was established as the first preserve for The Wildlands Conservancy and protected 8,000 acres of pristine desert-mountain habitat and wetlands. After returning from college in Northern California and working as a biologist for the National Park Service, I accepted a position for conservancy as preserve manager of the Pipes Canyon Preserve.

LADWP threatens this land dear to our community with a new transmission corridor that will unnecessarily devastate us. There are other alternatives we have offered to LADWP, but so far their ears have been deaf to us.

The proposal for this new corridor lacks any detail as to how much renewable energy will come over the line, as well as how and by whom the mixture of renewable and dirty power will be monitored.

Threat of eminent domain

The route through desert communities, branded with LADWP survey markers until recently, traverses 30 miles of private property. Thus, unwilling sellers like homesteaders and conservation nonprofits like the conservancy could see their hard-earned properties condemned under eminent domain.

The project threatens conservation lands creating a potential breach with the public trust. Lands set aside for protection with private or public monies would be unnecessarily impacted for this project. Current and future generations would lose the benefits of these pristine lands established for managed recreation.

More innovative strategies

LADWP does not need to look hard nor far to see more innovative strategies to tap into renewable energy. Forward-thinking cities, including Palm Desert, have backed programs for home owners to go solar with low-cost loans paid back through property taxes. Los Angeles can meet its renewable energy needs without over stepping its bounds and devastating conservation lands under the misleading project name of Green Path North.

April Sall is preserve manager of the Pipes Canyon and Mission Creek Preserve for The Wildlands Conservancy and chairwoman of the California Desert Coalition, a nonpartisan citizen advocacy group created to stop the current Green Path North. www.cadesertco.org

Locals boo Green Path, Los Angeles power manager

By Rebecca Unger
Hi-Desert Star







Some at Saturday's public meeting at Yucca Valley High School appeared to support utility General Manager David Nahai's idea of burying underground power lines, others booed and heckled him. Jennifer Bowles / The Press-Enterprise

YUCCA VALLEY — It was a tough room for Los Angeles Department of Water and Power General Manager David Nahai and his coalition of Green Path North boosters Saturday. The multipurpose room at Yucca Valley High School was overflowing with a wide cross-section of Hi-Desert citizens who had come to let Los Angeles know what they thought about an energy corridor proposed to cut through 85 miles of Morongo Basin homes and habitats.

The path through the Hi-Desert is one of six Nahai said is being explored by his department to get geothermal energy from the Salton Sea into Los Angeles.

“We need to access geothermal energy because global warming is a reality,” Nahai told the audience. “We’re putting too much carbon dioxide into the air.” Nahai said the Department of Water and Power must reduce its reliance on coal and other non-renewable energy sources, as mandated by California legislation in the Senate and Assembly.

By 2020, the state will require all utilities to be getting 33 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. Los Angeles has set even more ambitions goals.

In solidarity with his cause were the executive director of the Southern California Public Power Authority, who brought along representatives from member cities Burbank, Glendale, Riverside and Banning and the Imperial Irrigation District.

“We are at the forefront of a national debate that pits environmental values against each other,” opined Nahai, who seemed to draw a distinction between the global environmental good served by renewable energies and the local environmental good.

Nahai said his purpose in coming to Yucca Valley was to address the Basin’s speculations and suspicions about the project, as well as the “myth that L.A’s not doing its part.”

But when California Desert Coalition chairwoman April Sall was given her chance to talk, she told Nahai, “There is a way to do this better.”

She told Nahai her organization appreciated the opportunity to talk over Green Path alternatives, “But David, you and the department need to understand the department has a reputation for steamrolling smaller communities, and we have a lot to protect and a lot to fight for here.”

Nahai came under attack almost immediately once public comments got under way. Some of the participants took the opportunity to vent at the general manager, but others asked serious questions, searching for details about the project.

When Eldon Hughes, of Joshua Tree, asked if the LADWP’s new application to the Bureau of Land Management rescinded earlier requests for a right-of-way through Morongo Valley, Nahai would only say his agency’s application “superseded” a previous one.

A Pioneertown resident asked about the percentage of energy Los Angeles receives from a nuclear power plant in Arizona. Nahai was quick to answer that while Los Angeles gets 8 percent of its total energy load from the nuclear plant, none of that would be coming through Green Path.

Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency Director Duane Lisiewski took the LADWP to task for a project where “only L.A. benefits, we get nothing, and it will destroy the value of my home.” Nahai defended the project, saying, “It’s just wrong that only L.A. will benefit” by a project that will cut greenhouse emissions.

Bill Boyce from Yucca Valley observed, “There appears to be very little respect for us. You’re asking us to pay the differential in our quality of life.”

A retired electrical engineer used a large sketch pad to illustrate some problems he saw with using the Salton Sea as Green Path’s geothermal source. “Steam comes from water pumped in,” he explained. “Money should come back to rebuild the Salton Sea, and it can be refilled by the Sea of Cortez. You would use less Colorado River water. Desalination plants would create jobs, and it could be an oasis.”

Nahai called the Salton Sea’s potential geothermal resource “God’s gift.”

“Electricity seeks the path of least resistance,” said crowd-pleasing speaker Scott McKone. “These routes are the path of most resistance — the people’s resistance!”

One of the concerns was about the cumulative affects of Green Path and several other energy projects with applications into the BLM. “Your project is one of many that will impact our desert, ”said a man identified as Roger of Lucerne.

Nahai contended if Green Path’s lines went through heavily urban areas instead, the LADWP would have to use eminent domain to seize thousands of homes and businesses.

Nicole Panter of Twentynine Palms urged those present to “remember Owens Valley.” She soon created the crowd’s rallying cry: “What’s in it for us?”

As more speakers described the LADWP and by extension Nahai as untrustworthy and disingenuous, Nahai appeared to be losing his earlier cool. “I didn’t have to come here today,” he said, prompting a chorus of sarcastic groans. “I came for constructive comments.”

The final jab came from William Hampton at the back of the room: “How dare you come here and upset all of these people? We don’t want it!”

Inland acres in LA power path

ENERGY DELIVERY: Six possible utility routes include razing up to 3,500 houses or infringing on wildland.

By JENNIFER BOWLES and IMRAN GHORI
The Press-Enterprise

A transmission route being considered by Los Angeles to carry renewable energy from the Salton Sea could lead to the condemnation of 3,500 homes and other properties in the Inland region to make way for the needed transmission lines.

The district is seeking energy from solar and wind sources, but is chiefly hoping to capture geothermal energy, which is generated by heat stored beneath the Earth's surface.

Known as Green Path North, the project has already generated criticism from environmentalists and local lawmakers for one of its six possible transmission routes because it would go through the Morongo Valley and some desert preserves west of Joshua Tree National Park.

But a portion of one path under consideration runs through a heavily urbanized area straddling Riverside and San Bernardino counties -- between Interstate 10 and Highway 60, from Interstate 215 to Interstate 15 before the path turns north along Interstate 15 and heads toward the Cajon Pass.

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power might have to launch eminent domain proceedings to make room for the transmission line in the area, which from a map appears to cross into Rialto, Colton and Fontana, among other areas.

Utility officials could not be more specific about the path's location other than a broad swath through the area. They cautioned that all routes are preliminary and could change.

"We'll put it out there for public dialogue -- is it a feasible thing to do, to go out and condemn 3,500 properties?" said H. David Nahai, general manager of the Los Angeles utility.

"That kind of disruption is daunting to say the least and we're a governmental agency," he said. "We like to think that we operate with a conscience and we want to do the right thing by people."

Nahai said there is no estimated cost for that route or any that are being considered. All paths would carry the energy to a new substation in Hesperia, where existing transmission lines already go to Los Angeles and would not require any further construction or condemnation of properties.

Nahai said the utility was planning workshops in the Inland region to address concerns about the project. The first one is set for July 19 in the Morongo Valley. A meeting location has not been set.

Local Reaction

The Los Angeles utility earlier this month sent letters to supervisors in both Riverside and San Bernardino counties to say they want to meet with them and that the utility wants "to move forward with the environmental review of the project through a very open and transparent process."

John Field, chief of staff for Riverside County Supervisor John Tavaglione, who was out of town, confirmed that a letter explaining the project and requesting a meeting was received. But he said there was no map to indicate the transmission paths under consideration. A map shows the line could skirt the northern edge of western Riverside County.

San Bernardino County Supervisor Dennis Hansberger said he was skeptical about the utility's claim that as many as 3,500 homes would have be condemned to allow for the transmission lines in the Colton, Rialto and Fontana areas.

"They certainly haven't tried to document for us whether that statement is true," he said.

Hansberger said he believes there is enough room in the corridor to accommodate the expanded lines.

Roger Sullivan, a Los Angeles attorney who specializes in eminent domain issues, said unless the utility has received authority from the state through special legislation it will be no simple task to condemn property outside its boundaries. The passage of Prop. 99 earlier this month, which placed further restrictions on the use of eminent domain, makes it even harder to take single-family homes, he said.

"They've got a very tough task ahead of them," Sullivan said.

Nahai said the Department of Water and Power is in talks with Southern California Edison to see if it can share a utility corridor along Interstate 10 that is already established but that it only goes so far.

"We're in discussion to see if there's some way of sharing that corridor up to a certain point, but even at that point, the route would then have to go through densely urban areas," he said.

Sandi Blain, Edison's manager of project licensing, said the I-10 corridor begins in the Palm Springs area and heads west, splintering off into different directions. One line, she said, connects to a substation in Mira Loma, she said.

Blain said Edison will meet with DWP on Monday for preliminary discussions. She said Edison is in a data-collecting mode to determine whether it would even be possible to accommodate DWP's request.

"Building transmission is a really complex process," she said. "It takes a good amount of time to really evaluate."

San Bernardino County Supervisor Josie Gonzales, whose district includes Rialto, Colton and parts of Fontana, said she would prefer a project that would have the least impact to the community.

Gonzales said she hadn't been told about the potential taking of so many parcels and was concerned about the economic impact it would have on those cities.

"The people need to know why they're making the sacrifice," she said. "What's in it for them? What's in it for the people I represent?"

Both supervisors said they welcome the promised briefing from the utility district but said they have not been contacted about when it would be held or what form it would take.

Forest Route

Valerie Baca, a spokeswoman for the San Bernardino National Forest, said the Los Angeles utility was planning to meet with forest officials this Friday. She said forest officials have no information yet but a map shows one route going along the edge of the forest.

April Sall, executive chairwoman of the California Desert Coalition, a group formed to oppose the utility's proposed route through the Morongo Valley, was critical of that forest route because it cuts through the headquarters of the Wildlands Conservancy, a nonprofit organization in Oak Glen. That option violates a promise made by Nahai to the conservancy, said Sall, who is the manager of the conservancy's Pioneertown Mountains Preserve.

Sall was also skeptical of the utility's claim that 3,500 homes would have to be taken along the existing path.

She said she believes the utility is trying to make the proposal through the Morongo Valley seem more palatable than the urban route that could destroy people's homes.

What It's About

The Green Path North project would initially aim to generate 800 megawatts, or enough energy to power about 520,000 homes.

Nahai said that Los Angeles, like most California cities, is under pressure by the state's 2006 global-warming law to reduce their dependence on coal-generated electricity. It is one of the major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions that lead to climate change.

"The need is undeniable," Nahai said. "I don't think anyone seriously disputes that Los Angeles needs to access the bountiful geothermal power and solar resources in the Salton Sea area."

"The question, of course, becomes how to bring that power to Los Angeles with the least environmental impact."

Nahai said that geothermal energy is a constant source, whereas the sun doesn't always shine and wind doesn't always blow to generate those renewable energies. Los Angeles gets 8 percent of its power from renewable energies and has set a goal of 20 percent by 2010 and 35 percent by 2020, he said.

"We're trying to diversify away from coal so as to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions," Nahai said. "That's both the right thing to do and it's a requirement under (state law) AB 32 as well."

Extortion and environmentalism

EDITORIAL
Steve Williams, Opinion Page Editor
Victorville Daily Press

The Bureau of Land Management’s California branch manages 15.2 million acres of public lands in the state, which works out to some 15 percent of California’s total surface area. But for environmentalist activists, that’s not enough.

So it uses environmental protection pretexts to extort even more private land and place it off limits to the general populace.

A case in point is what’s going on with offshore drilling in California, particularly areas directly west of Santa Barbara. There, a Houston oil company, Plains Exploration & Production Co., has agreed — in exchange for the right to slant drill from one of its four offshore platforms to tap into an undersea oil field — to donate 200 acres of oceanview property along the Gaviota coast, and an additional 3,700 acres it owns in Santa Barbara’s wine-growing region. Both the oceanview and wine-country acreage would be used for public parkland.

Since 1969, when an oil spill off Santa Barbara helped launch the modern environmental movement in California, environmental groups have fiercely — and almost always successfully — opposed any development of offshore oil deposits along the California coast, including using protracted litigation, congressional moratoriums and bureaucratic delays. But PXP, lured by the skyrocketing price of oil, made the offer of the land — plus donating millions of dollars to fund projects aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions, including low-emission public buses.

The extortion — which is basically what this is — has apparently worked. A lawyer for the Santa Barbara-based Environmental Defense Center has said the Center supports the “deal”. The inescapable conclusion, of course, is that if the money — or the land — is right, environmental groups are more than willing to look the other way.

And who will ultimately pay for the environmentalists’ extortionate ways? You. In higher gasoline prices.

And then there’s this example, much closer to home.

Back in April, Arnold Schwarzenegger ended a speech on California’s role in fighting climate change by singling out the Mojave Ground Squirrel’s role in delaying construction of the new power plant on 388 acres at Southern California International Airport (formerly George Air Force Base). The plant will include a solar facility which will generate about 50 megawatts of the plant’s eventual 700-megawatt capacity.

But the solar part is to be built on land where rumors exist that once upon a time Mojave ground squirrels were seen in the area, and because of that the California Department of Fish and Game has slowed the approval process. That drew Schwarzenegger’s ire, and he said so. The delay, Schwarzenegger said, is “because of an endangered squirrel, an endangered squirrel which has never been seen on that land where they're supposed to build the solar plants. But if such a squirrel were around, this is the kind of area that it would like, they say.”

Final approval will no doubt eventually be given, but not without a little more environmentalist extortion. Victorville has agreed to “set aside” about three acres for every acre used up by the plant, for a total of 1,315.5 acres, some of which might have to be acquired through eminent domain, i.e., the city will pay off any property owners who lose their land to protect Mojave ground squirrel habitat. So taxpayers are going to fund one more bit of environmental extortion. And never mind what it’s costing to delay the project because of the imagined existence of a ground squirrel.

Eminent Domain Reform Qualifies for June Ballot

Threatened Home and Business Owners Cheer

Reuters
PRNewswire

SACRAMENTO, Calif., -- Today, a broad-based coalition of California property owners announced that the California Secretary of State has certified the qualification of the "California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act" for the June 2008 ballot. In November of last year, a coalition of home and business owners, family farmers and taxpayer groups submitted over 1.1 million signatures.

"Government should not be able to profit by seizing private property from unwilling sellers for retail or commercial projects," said former Sacramento Congressman and campaign finance chair Doug Ose. "Finally, Californians will have the opportunity to vote for real reforms that protect their homes, small businesses, family farms and places of worship from eminent domain abuse."

While over 40 states have reformed their eminent domain laws since the 2005 U.S. Kelo v. New London decision, California is not among them. While reforms have not come in time to protect some, local property owners in the Southern California community of Baldwin Park and the Northern California community of Seaside cheer the news that voters will have the chance to consider real reforms on the June 2008 ballot.

According to local residents, the City of Baldwin Park is expediting eminent domain proceedings to demolish over 500 homes and small businesses in an area of approximately 125 football fields. A letter from the developer to the city states that their investors are concerned this ballot measure threatens their project and urges the city to seize the properties before Election Day. The thousands of dollars in campaign contributions used to influence the outcome of the last city election has also prompted standing room only protests at city hall.

"The City of Baldwin Park is using eminent domain to seize my home for a development project that benefits a politically connected developer," said homeowner Ms. Cruz Baca Sembello. "They should not be able to take my home. Where are my rights?"

In the Northern California community of Seaside, property owner Tim Cunha is among hundreds of property owners fighting the city council and the developer, former baseball legend Reggie Jackson.

"I never thought that something like this could happen to me," said Tim Cunha. "Government should not be able to profit by seizing private property from unwilling sellers. It shows what little regard government has for the personal and financial costs associated with throwing us out on the streets."

The California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, is sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Farm Bureau Federation and the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights. The measure prohibits private to private takings, while allowing traditional uses of eminent domain for roads, schools and water projects. It is endorsed by NFIB, the Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, the Black Chamber of Commerce and a diverse coalition of taxpayer, faith and good government organizations. To qualify for the June ballot, 694,354 valid signatures were required. For more campaign information, visit www.yesonpropertyrights.com.

SOURCE: Californians for Property Rights Protection