August 30, 2010

Mudslide Clean-Up Continues; Highway 395 Open



Thunderstorm-caused mudslide at Dunmovin, California, pushes a big rig off the northbound U. S. Highway 395 and into a culvert on Thursday, August 26, 2010. Video captured by Jeff Bradshaw of Laguna Niguel shows mud flowing from the southbound lanes and across the divided highway.

Written by Benett Kessler
Sierra Wave


After last Thursday's horrendous flood and mudslide across Highway 395 south of Olancha, Caltrans and others have worked constantly to clear the highway and now to free a big rig that was pushed down into a culvert by the flood.

Susan Lent, PIO of Caltrans, said that the roads are open, but there is a lot of clean-up to do. Intermittent lane closures continue as crews work to clean things up.

Lent said that an Incident Command meeting would take place at the mudslide site on Tuesday among representatives of Caltrans, the CHP, BLM, the Forest Service and DWP. Officials planned to discuss completing clean-up and removal of the big rig which is blocking a culvert.

The initial mudslide had caused complete closure of Highway 395 for several hours. Some motorists headed back to Ridgecrest and detoured through Death Valley although initially Highway 190 was closed due to flooding.

Crews were able to restore northbound and southbound traffic flow, although restricted, by Friday.

August 26, 2010

Flash flood warning issued for Mojave preserve

From Staff Reports
Desert Dispatch


A flash flood warning is in effect for areas within the Mojave National Preserve and the Morongo Basin area until 4:45 p.m., according to the National Weather Service. A flood advisory is also in effect near Joshua Tree National Park.

Flash flood activity from a thunderstorm near Kelso in the preserve was detected at about 3 p.m. Thursday. Motorists along Kelbaker Road south of the Kelso Depot and Cima to the east of Kelso, according to the weather service. Other dirt roads within the Mojave preserve may be washed out.

Most deaths related to flash floods occur in cars. Motorists are warned not to drive cars into areas where water covers the road.

August 24, 2010

Dozens of burros die at dried-up spring

By DAVID DANELSKI
The Press-Enterprise


Fenner Spring CA - Nearly 60 burros were discovered dead in and near a horizontal mine shaft in a remote Mojave Desert wilderness area late last week, federal officials said Tuesday.

The animals probably were seeking water from a spring inside the tunnel that apparently had dried up. In all, 56 burros died, most likely of thirst, BLM officials said.

Some of the animals had been dead for as long as two weeks and were decomposing in the 100-degree-plus heat, said a spokesman for the federal Bureau of Land Management. Bureau officials saved the lives of another 13 burros that were suffering from severe dehydration.

A helicopter delivered 750 gallons of water to the site, about 35 miles west of Needles, on Thursday. By the next morning, all of that water had been consumed. Another 4,000 gallons were brought in by helicopter and a county water tender and placed in portable troughs.

The survivors remained at the remote site on Tuesday but probably will be moved to the federal corrals in Ridgecrest, nearly 200 miles away, officials said.

While BLM officials believe the 56 burros most likely died from lack of water, they are checking the possibility that they consumed contaminated water in the mine tunnel, Briery said

Fenner Spring, inside the 6-by-6-foot tunnel, is a regular water source for wild burros, said BLM spokesman David Briery.

But the spring appeared to have dried up, he said. The next available source of water is about 12 miles away.

Briery said the burros had pushed as far as 30 feet into the tunnel.

"They just started piling in," Briery said.

Alex Neibergs, a BLM horse and burro specialist, said the spring probably was their only water source. He said one of the animals may have become stuck in the tunnel and blocked the others.

"I have never seen anything like it," said Neibergs, one of several BLM officials who went to the scene on Thursday and Friday .

The dead burros were discovered by a rancher who grazes cattle near the Piute Mountains Wilderness Area, Briery said. He tried to pull the bodies out of the tunnel with his horse, but couldn't, Briery said.

Working in temperatures as high at 105, BLM officials removed the bodies, then used heavy equipment to bury them.

Wild burros have roamed the Mojave Desert since they were brought to the area by gold and silver prospectors. The BLM regularly captures them and holds them in federal corrals in Ridgecrest. They are then made available for adoption.

July 1, 2010

An Artistic Apprenticeship

Surrounded by the vast Gila wilderness, learning to paint with the reclusive desert artist Carl Faber

"Desert Wash" by Carl Faber.

By Esther Jamison
Desert Exposure


I first met Carl Faber in 2007 when I visited Gila Hot Springs with my husband. Upon meeting Carl and seeing his artwork, several things were apparent to me: First, his painting was jaw-dropping in its detail and refinement, and I wanted to be able to paint like that. Second, it became clear he was looking for a serious student to whom he could pass on his knowledge.

I don't know how I had the nerve to ask such an accomplished artist to sit for me so I could draw his portrait. It seems in hindsight to be a particularly rash, if not a downright arrogant thing to do on my part. I have always liked to draw the portraits of people with whom I have a good rapport, but it is quite an intense thing to draw someone's portrait, and given my inexperience, somewhat risky. I think I hoped somehow this portrait of Carl would be my way of proving myself as worthy to study with him. Fortunately, the sketch turned out well and he was pleased with it. I felt an overwhelming desire to stay, and to commence my studies then and there. But it would take us over two years to return.

After saving money, quitting my teaching job in England, and going through the grueling US immigration process, we finally arrived back here. Because not much had been said two years ago on the matter, and because Carl's responses by email were noncommittal, I was a bit nervous about whether I was right in thinking he might want to teach me. So when I knocked on his door the morning after I arrived, getting him out of bed, I was very relieved to find I had not been mistaken after all.

"I'm not a practical person. I don't think you're very practical either," he told me equably. "Artists follow their dreams and don't really think about the practicalities. Not many people are like that."

Carl Faber studied commercial art at a vocational school in Delaware, and worked in sign painting, metalwork, business displays and silkscreening in Florida and California. He moved out to the East Mojave desert in 1972 to focus on easel painting, and to study the desert landscapes that have become his hallmark.

His unique artwork and simple lifestyle drew attention from local and national press during the 1980s. Looking through these newspaper articles, he complains that the Los Angeles Times described him as a "reclusive hermit," when in fact he was constantly talking to people who visited him. Groups such as the Sierra Club and Friends of the Mojave Road brought many visitors, and gave him a constant stream of buyers.

Originally one of these visitors, his partner Adrienne Knute met Carl when he was living at the Rock House at Rock Springs, a Homestead-era building just off the old Mojave Road. Carl illustrated Adrienne's botanical study, Plants of the East Mojave, which was published in 1991 and reprinted in 2002. They first came to Gila Hot Springs in 2004, originally looking for a winter home. Despite winter temperatures being no warmer than the East Mojave, they fell in love with the place and it quickly became a full-time residence.

Once I was sure Carl was happy to teach me whatever I had the appetite to learn in terms of oil painting, I commenced my apprenticeship. For the first month, I went round to his house every day, waiting for whatever instruction or exercise he thought appropriate to give me. At the age of 30, I suppose I am a little too old to be thought of as an apprentice, but it certainly felt like I was undertaking something of that nature, and there was an old-fashioned feel to the arrangement — which, in Carl's words"would have nothing to do with money."

At first, Carl did quite a lot of talking. Once he saw I was paying attention to the degree necessary, information would stream from him in an unbroken torrent. He introduced me to the technical side of oil painting, but also to the spirit with which he undertook it. In one particularly memorable transmission, he described the process of painting a tree, seeing the posture of the branches in relation to each other, and using triangulation to capture the exact proportion and ratio. This was important, he explained, because in its very posture a tree expresses its struggle for survival, its struggle towards the light, towards divinity.

Carl described how his experiences of using LSD back in the 1960s shaped his perception of the natural world. "Not everyone sees what I see" he told me without arrogance. It is not that he sees things that are not there, but that he sees more clearly and vividly the detail of what is there, and what most people don't notice. By painting the delicate beauty of nature and by directing the eye towards its inherently poetic arrangements, Carl's artwork guides the viewer towards a broader perception of and appreciation for nature. "Nature is your greatest teacher as an artist, and it will teach you more about art than I ever will."

Carl lived for 33 years in the East Mojave desert, several of those years in solitude. "If you live for seven years in solitude, you learn patience. I used to want to finish my paintings in one day. There, I found I could go back the next day, the day after that, and if it took me three months to finish a painting, it wouldn't matter."

While he watched other artists go down the photorealism route, he developed his painting style through sustained observation in the immediacy of nature. This loyalty to how things appear to the human eye — rather than to the camera lens — gives his paintings an intimate realism. Carl can talk all afternoon on what he considers to be the superiority of field painting: "Far more information is gathered by the eyes than by the camera, for example in the subtle interplay between light and shadow, and in determining spatial relationships."

Carl showed me how to stretch canvas, using wooden frames, a canvas clamp and a staple gun. He started out with cotton duck, then he changed his mind and decided I should paint on his linen canvas. My first study of a skull on oil board turned out fairly well, and I think it did something to raise his expectations. "You're not a waste of time at all," he assured me. As we set up the still life he told me with a twinkle in his eye, "This time I'm going to accept nothing less than excellence."

As I sat down in front of a daunting still life, which included a pestle and mortar made of glass, I quickly buried the pencil drawing I transferred to the canvas under a layer of amateurishly clumsy paint. I sat there, listening to the bluegrass station on the satellite radio in his studio, wondering what to do now. "Nothing less than excellence." The silent reiterations of this expectation weren't helpful. I decided to quit for the morning and went inside to confess that my efforts were far short of excellence. I added plaintively that it was too hard. He nodded quietly but uncritically.

When I returned after lunch, he said, "Let's go and have a look at that nightmare out there." I watched, grateful and spellbound, as in a few deft strokes, he resurrected the painting, offering guidance, encouragement and a choice: Quit now, and we can scrub and save the canvas for something else. "This is a very difficult set-up. I just put these out there, and I was kinda surprised you wanted to paint them." He was offering me a way out. "Or, you could continue — but it's going to take a lot of fussing with before you're happy with it."

I thought for a while. His artistic intervention and encouraging words made up my mind. I could tell that, even though he expected excellence, I wouldn't be punished if I didn't produce it. The main thing he cared about, it seemed, was that I tried my best.

In December, when the uninsulated studio kept the lard oil solid until midday, I leaped at the chance to draw Carl's portrait again, as I knew it would happen next to the wood stove in the house. When I finished the portrait, I suggested perhaps it was not one to show the friend he had been trying to persuade to sit for me. With some trepidation I showed it to Carl.

"It's an honest portrait," he said generously, and he seemed happy with it as a study. Adrienne didn't like it. She looked at it and said, "Ugh."

"That's what she says when she sees me first thing in the morning," Carl joked.

The second portrait I did was slightly more user-friendly, but still didn't capture his gleeful spirit. Adrienne was not convinced by this attempt, either. I complained that it is difficult to see where his mouth and jawline are because of his beard.

Carl again defended my artwork by saying that Adrienne doesn't see him as he is now, but as he was when they first met 25 years ago. "She sees me as all young and handsome still." Carl stood up and cuddled her.

"Isn't he pretty?" she said affectionately.

When people ask him whether they can chat while he works, Carl replies, "You can talk to me about anything, as long as you don't talk to me about what I'm doing."

When I painted, Carl didn't talk to me about what I was doing, but he did talk about art, artists, galleries and stories from his past. I found myself putting down my brush and listening, particularly as he reached every now and then to get art books down from his shelves, to show me examples of artwork. After a while he would notice I've stopped painting, and he'd leave me in the studio alone. He'd just come in every so often to check how I'm doing, and offer guidance. He seemed to appreciate the fact that I was happy for him to take over with the brush to demonstrate or to correct something. Some students are very touchy, he said, wanting the painting to be all their own.

One morning I found Carl had done a self-portrait to demonstrate the use of white charcoal on tinted paper. I saw that Carl's sharp technique is the result of deft, single strokes with either pencil or brush, which creates a freshness and clarity in his work. I tend to go back and forth with lines until I get them right, producing a more muddy effect. He agreed with my self-assessment and thought up the next exercise for me to do.

As a sign painter, he learned calligraphy and the importance of accurate and deft brushstrokes. He set out an exercise with a lettering brush using tempura on newsprint. He showed me how to roll the brush to paint a thinner line, and left me for an hour to practice capital letters.

Feeling like a change from being inside the studio, I picked out a sycamore tree in their yard to do a study of. Carl stretched a good quality cotton duck canvas and I transferred my drawing of the tree to it. It is quite a logistical operation to get set up to paint outside, and Carl does not scorn the finer details of equipment; he treats finding the right palette and maulstick as just as important as what paint and brushes to use. He is certainly an expert at painting in the field. In his studio I came across a photo of him sitting on a stool in the middle of a river, painting the roots of an alder tree on the riverbank, with his equipment laid out in an archipelago around him. Carl still owns that painting, which I think is one of his most appealing.

"Painting these squares is going to become like water torture for you" he'd told me gleefully when he set me the task of completing a large color chart. As I sat in front of the wintry sycamore tree, its branches naked and mottled with complex pastel hues, I was grateful for the time-saving knowledge that allowed me to mix the right color faster, especially when every minute outside is metered out by how long I can stand the cold.

After about an hour of painting, I began to feel a dualistic tension building between me as the painter and the tree as the object of my painting. I sat still and tried to drop the unconscious barriers. My hands were almost numb and had lost much of their fine motor skill. I allowed my brain to slow down to accept the cold, and put up my hood. After a few minutes, I saw a new color in the bark of the tree, and by painting it in where I saw it, the tree on the canvas looked a little bit closer to being life-like.

After a couple of weeks of working on the tree, I was becoming slightly less enthusiastic and somewhat stuck, so Carl offered to help me put in some of the background, in order to illuminate the next priorities for the foreground. He is quite unusual as a painter for painting the foreground first, then doing the background, and then returning to the foreground; his main enthusiasm lies in the detail of the foreground.

He showed me a technique where he paints a branch across another branch (the paint from the first branch already having dried), then uses thinner to take away the paint that crosses the original branch. This leaves a clear and well-executed crossover of two branches, when normally an artist would be struggling to take the edge of the second branch accurately and convincingly up to the edge of the original branch.

My main desire in learning to paint in oils is to do portraits. I had in mind to paint our neighbor, a beautiful Native American woman with piercing gray eyes and straight gray and black hair. I told Carl that she was willing to sit for me, and his eyes twinkled in approval. He said, "You'll want to do a good likeness, a real portrait of Susan. But when you first start, you're going to get frustrated and you don't want to get frustrated in front of your model, because she will get discouraged. You'll also feel under quite a lot of pressure — so perhaps you should practice on someone else first."

I saw the sense in his words, so I enlisted my husband as model. He has fair skin, lively auburn hair, kind green eyes and, most important, much patience.

Carl fussed around getting us set up in his studio, making us coffee and bringing out cookies. I was a bit nervous about starting, but Carl encouraged me to jump right in with oils, since I have done several sketches of my husband in the past. The painting went through many stages of development, and since I went straight into oils without doing a preliminary sketch, my husband's features morphed alarmingly from day to day.

I became stuck at the impasse of not wanting to put too much paint down when I wasn't entirely satisfied with the structure, but equally not being able to get the structural lines right. Carl showed me how to use color to help find and define the correct form of the subject. He used the maulstick to point out specific parts of my husband's face, indicating areas of cool and warm shades, highlights and value changes. As I put the paint down more thickly and used richer colors with greater boldness, the structure of his face began to fall into place.

After finishing my husband's portrait and starting Susan's, I decided to return to the unfinished sycamore tree before its leaves came out. After painting for a couple of hours, I asked Carl, "What would you do next?" — a question I almost regretted, as he launched into a morale-dissipating list of things that he would change, and ways in which I hadn't done justice to the detail and mood of the tree. I thought to myself: That's the last question you should ask a perfectionist.

"The tree doesn't look like a map. What you've done is kind of like this — " He pointed to his camouflage jacket. "Look at how crisp the delineation is between this patch of bark and this one." He pointed to two closely colored patches of green with the maulstick. "And how this patch gradually shades from this to this color. And make sure you don't make these branches look like the limbs of some sea creature."

He spoke for several minutes in a similar vein. After a moment's silence I said, "I'm just not sure I could paint that kind of detail with a brush."

Carl must have detected some disheartenment in my voice. His eyes lit up as he chided me humorously, "Shame on you!" He proceeded to remind me of all the ways in which I could paint finer lines and manipulate them to get the desired effect.

Despite Carl dismissing the idea that my tools were inadequate for the task, I bought three of the smallest oil brushes I could find the next day in town. When I returned to paint the sycamore, my size 0 round gave me a renewed enthusiasm for the process, allowing me to put in the fine lines that Carl expected of me. The frustration I had experienced previously was forgotten.

After a couple of hours it started to rain, and I took the painting in to show Carl. I could tell that he was happy with my progress by the light in his eyes as he put it carefully on his workbench to dry.

Originally from England, Esther Jamison is an artist living in Gila Hot Springs.

June 13, 2010

Remote California town blazes trail with solar plant that saves water

New technology uses less water, which suits Nevada’s climate

A view of the Skyline Solar facility in Nipton, Calif. Friday, June 11, 2010. The 80 kilowatt , High Gain Solar (HGS) 1000 system power plant will provide 85% of Nipton’s electricity needs. (Steve Marcus)

By Stephanie Tavares
Las Vegas Sun


On the southern horizon is a new breed of solar plant, one that could be a game changer for the industry.

Just across the California border, Nipton has unveiled a sun-powered generator that is expected to provide about 85 percent of the town’s electricity over the course of a year.

The solar plant uses a new technology, concentrating solar photovoltaic, known as CPV, which could be a boon in places like Nevada where the sun is strong, but water for power plants is scarce.

Concentrating solar power plants are expected to use far less water than their solar thermal cousins because they lack the cooling requirements and don’t need water to heat for steam. And because they have fewer photovoltaic panels to be cleaned than a traditional photovoltaic plant, they could use less water than traditional photovoltaic arrays.

Although massive solar arrays on thousands of acres of mostly federal land get the lion’s share of the attention, some think everyday Nevadans will benefit more from growth in small-scale renewable energy systems called distributed generation. These smaller projects, like rooftop solar or small terrestrial projects like the one in Nipton, provide electricity directly to a building without expensive transmission lines. No bulldozing the desert, either.

The state energy office this month announced it will seek third-party agreements with small-scale solar developers to build dozens of new arrays on state land. Some of the projects are expected to be relatively portable solar arrays on vacant lots — just like the one 64 miles southwest of Las Vegas in Nipton.

The 80-kilowatt project is part of the one-time mining camp’s plan to become an eco-tourism mecca. Nipton is on the northern edge of the Mojave National Preserve, home of the popular Kelso Dunes. Many park visitors are “granola and Prius” types, and they usually stay at campgrounds and hotels in Nipton. The town is betting that stepping up its environmental reputation will drive tourism growth.

“We’re in the hospitality business in Nipton,” said Gerald Freeman, its principal administrator. “This is all part of our plan to be an environmentally friendly destination. We’re going to project our environmentalism strongly. That’s the underlying theme of Nipton for the future: to move progressively toward a sustainable, environmentally friendly community.”

And in the Mojave Desert, that means solar panels.



Freeman has been looking into powering the town with renewable energy since the 1980s. But it was only recently, with the new technology, federal tax incentives and the advent of third-party ownership, that the plan became economically viable.

It took just a few months for Freeman to find a company that would finance the purchase and installation of the system in exchange for a set price per kilowatt hour sold to Nipton residents.

Prices charged by the local utility, Southern California Edison, have gone up an average of 6 percent a year, Freeman said. Under the power purchase agreement, the rate could increase only 3 percent a year. And after the tax incentives run out in about six years, the town has the option of buying the installation at a reduced price.

“We’re pleased to be able to lower our cost and also do our bit in terms of getting off fossil fuels,” Freeman said. “It’s going to save us money right from the start and will get better later on as electric (bills) rise. It was an easy decision to put in a system that would cover most of our power needs in Nipton.”

The system is designed by Skyline Solar, a Silicon Valley-based solar photovoltaic manufacturer that has combined the portability of solar photovoltaics with the concentrating power of mirrors used in solar thermal power plants.

With the help of an Energy Department grant and U.S. Patent Office fast tracking, Skyline is among the first American companies to bring concentrating photovoltaic designs to market.

Its system resembles the Nevada Solar One thermal array in Boulder City, except where the center-mounted pipes full of molten salt would be is a row of photovoltaic cells. Using photovoltaics on a concentrating solar power frame allows the plant to take up less land, and eliminates the need for extensive land leveling, pipe laying and liquid storage silos. And with the addition of mirrors, it can produce far more electricity than a traditional solar photovoltaic array.

No pipes, no buildings and no water or chemicals are needed, Skyline spokesman Tim Keeting said.

Products such as Skyline’s can be planned and assembled quickly — the Nipton project took just five weeks to come online — and they can be built with tiny footings drilled into the land or no drilling at all, making it easier to convert back to bare dirt should the land be needed for another use later, said Robert Mumford, spokesman for the solar division of Panelized Structures, which installed the system.

The Skyline system is one of the first concentrating solar photovoltaic systems to come to market. That’s mostly because the federal government has historically channeled research and development grants to rooftop photovoltaic technologies, according to National Renewable Energy Lab reliability group manager and photovoltaic pioneer Sarah Kurtz, who was involved with the Energy Department grant and attended a ribbon-cutting celebrating the new power plant in Nipton on Friday. A few of the town’s residents were there along with local and county dignitaries and the team of engineers, government workers, contractors and financiers who made the project happen.

“There has been a real change in just the last few years,” Kurtz said.

The Skyline system, which she called “elegant and versatile in its design” was able to move from paper to prototype much more quickly than some other CPV systems because the design was simple and took components that had been tested elsewhere and combined them for increased efficiency and expedited assembly.

“Skyline has broken some records on bringing this to market with speed,” Kurtz said.

These smaller solar installations also save land because they usually sit on developed sites or sites that were bulldozed in anticipation of development. And they rarely need new transmission lines and corridors to carry the power to market because they usually serve nearby buildings.

Skyline has about 20 megawatts worth of projects in various stages around the globe, including Nevada. Keeting said it is too soon to reveal exactly where and when its first CPV project will begin construction in the state, but he says if all the contracts and permits work out it could be within the next couple of years.

Small-scale solar is a growing business in Nevada. Panelized Structures’ Las Vegas team built its first large distributed generation solar project in the parking lot of the ProCaps laboratory in Henderson two years ago. The business has grown by as much as 100 percent each year since, while the rest of its building divisions foundered, Mumford said.

“The business has just exploded,” Mumford said. “In the month between May and June, we’ll install 3.4 megawatts of solar panels across the Southwest — about 2.5 megawatts in Nevada alone.”

June 12, 2010

Letter: Put people first in pipe debate


OPINION

Gay Smith and Jack Dugan
Pioneertown Property Owners Association
Hi-Desert Star


As president and vice president of the Pioneertown Property Owners Association, we would like to set the record straight as to the water situation in Pioneertown. We in Pioneertown have been waiting 10 long years to get safe water to drink. Yet each time we are about to realize our dreams, someone who does not live in Section 19 and therefore does not pay a water bill or drink the water, or bathe in the water, or give their pets the water to drink, or worry about the health issues that this contaminated water brings with it, steps in and wants to save the tortoises. We have not seen a tortoise in years. Nor have we seen Indian artifacts on Skyline Ranch Road. Yes, there are some artifacts, i.e. burned pottery chards, in the gullies off the road.

Each time it rains Skyline Ranch Road is dragged so that the residents can get in and out. Do the people who drag the road put up barriers to save the tortoises or walk the road first to remove any valuable artifacts? We think not.

It is time to put people’s lives and the lives of their pets first. It is important to make an 18-inch-wide ditch down the middle of Skyline Ranch Road, which will be covered each night to protect the tortoises, so that the people of Pioneertown have safe water to drink. And after all is said and done, Skyline Ranch Road will look the same as it does today — locked gate and all.

June 11, 2010

Ivanpah Airport in a holding pattern

By ALAN CHOATE
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

Development of the proposed Ivanpah Airport, considered crucial to Southern Nevada's future just a few years ago, has been suspended indefinitely because of lower passenger numbers and planned improvements at McCarran International Airport.

The Ivanpah plan has been going through an environmental review, and studies already under way will be completed, said Rosemary Vassiliadis, deputy director of aviation for the Clark County Aviation Department.

There also will be continued monitoring of the site, on Interstate 15 north of Primm, in case other plans or developments would have an effect on the proposed airport, she said.

But with passenger counts at McCarran declining, it was decided that a new airport wasn't an immediate need after all.

"We don't lose anything" by stopping the planning process now, Vassiliadis said. "We can restart it at any time."

Halting the process now is expected to save $15 million, spokeswoman Elaine Sanchez said.

In April, almost 3.4 million passengers passed through McCarran, which is 5 percent lower than the more than 3.5 million who used the airport in April 2009. In 2010, passenger counts are 3.9 percent lower than in 2009, and 2009's numbers were 8.2 percent less than 2008's counts.

"The drop in traffic, the economy, are certainly two elements that affect the need for a new commercial airport," Vassiliadis said.

Another element is known as NextGen, or Next Generation Air Transportation System. It involves replacing ground-based air traffic control systems with one using satellites, which will allow planes to fly closer together on more direct routes, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.

McCarran's current capacity is 53 million passengers a year. Because of the air traffic improvements, that should increase to 55 million within 18 months, Vassiliadis said.

If the program is fully funded, McCarran could handle 60 million people a year, she said.

McCarran was the nation's seventh-busiest airport in 2009 with 40.5 million passengers.

No timeline has been established for restarting planning for Ivanpah, which was once expected to open as soon as 2017.

"We know we're beyond 2025, so it wouldn't be meaningful to come up with a date," Vassiliadis said.

That's a far different tune than the one being sung as recently as 2008. When Las Vegas was still growing and adding more hotel rooms, plans called for the $7 billion Ivanpah airport to handle as many as 35 million passengers a year, as well as air cargo.

The project had its critics, though, who were concerned about putting an airport so close to the Mojave National Preserve just over the California state line.

And the area is home to several protected species, including desert tortoises that are relocated when development threatens their habitat elsewhere.

May 26, 2010

Hoover Dam's Perpetual Power

Franklin Roosevelt's signature project created more than jobs and energy—it incited one of our nation's greatest transformations

A view of part of the Hoover Dam in 1936. (CSU Archives/Everett Collection)

By MICHAEL HILTZIK
Wall Street Journal


Seventy-five years ago this summer, President Franklin Roosevelt journeyed west from Washington to place the New Deal's indelible stamp on an outstanding symbol of governmental might.

The occasion was the official dedication of what is today known as Hoover Dam. As FDR told 10,000 spectators at the Colorado River dam site and 20 million more via radio, the dam meant gainful employment, cheap hydroelectric power, reliable irrigation and protection from the obstinate elements, all ripped from a forbidding desert canyon by the hand of a visionary federal government. Eleanor Roosevelt, who accompanied her husband on his visit to the Colorado River, would tell friends that the trip brought home to her the sweeping achievement of his administration as if for the very first time. That the project had originated with Republicans—indeed, it was originally conceived by her own Uncle Theodore—went unmentioned.

It is customary to think of Roosevelt's New Deal as the driver of the social and economic changes that gripped America after 1945. But this transformation really began a decade earlier, when the completion of Hoover Dam heralded a period of explosive industrial development and population growth in the West that would reverberate nationwide. The story of America in the last half of the 20th century should be seen as the story not of the postwar era, but the post-dam era.

The dam did more than contribute to the physical and economic remaking of its region; it prefigured and inspired a fundamental change in American values—political, ideological, even psychological. The path from an America of self-contained localities, each one trying address its problems and needs in local isolation, to one in which every state or local issue is seen as a piece of a broad national agenda points us back to Hoover Dam.

Yet the history of Hoover Dam warns us, too, that the nationalization of regional public works can come at a cost. As the Sept. 30 anniversary of FDR's dedication approaches, the country is debating, even more vehemently than it did 75 years ago, the place of the federal government in our lives. It was people's concerns about ceding their personal relationships with doctors to a remote government bureaucracy that animated the opposition to the health-care reform bills in Congress. State and municipal officials complain about the strings that almost always come attached to federal program funding—whether it's minimum benefit standards imposed on federally subsidized health and relief programs, or wage or employment rules attached to federally funded public works.

Then there's the infiltration of national politics into local contracting. Consider the case of a $54 million rail project in California's Napa Valley, which went, without competitive bidding, to a contractor owned by an Alaskan Native American tribe in 2008 because of a preference written years ago into federal law by former Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska.

These sorts of conflicts and concerns will only become more common as the federal government takes more of a role in upgrading the nation's infrastructure, whether through stimulus funding or by other means. As the Government Accountability Office determined in 2008, the vast majority of the nation's roads and highways are owned by state and local governments, as are the nation's bridges, ports, transit lines and water systems. Few of these can be repaired or even maintained without some federal funding. Indeed, it is hard to conceive of a major public construction project that can be launched without a huge federal appropriation, whether it is an aqueduct, flood-control levee, highway or transportation link.

Hoover Dam made the West but also confined it in a straitjacket. The growth of such great regional urban centers as Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, Salt Lake City and Denver was driven by the water and hydroelectricity it promised. But the millions of residents drawn to those metropolises over the decades have had to confront the realization that its promise was equivocal. Today the Colorado River cannot provide enough water to fulfill all the expectations that the building of Hoover Dam excited in the seven states of the river basin. Even taking advantage of its actual capacity comes at a price—as the federal government controls the water, states and smaller communities must cede to it a large measure of control over their own politics and policies.

The dam that would wield national influence was born in a quintessentially local crisis: a series of floods that devastated Southern California's Imperial Valley in 1905.

The valley had been converted from an arid desert into an agricultural Eden by water irrigated from the Colorado via a 50-mile canal. When the river burst its banks that winter, the private company managing the canal proved itself unequal to the engineering challenges and the financial demands it entailed. The Southern Pacific Railroad stepped into the breach, rescuing the valley from almost certain catastrophe at a cost of some $3 million. But the episode underscored for conservation-minded President Theodore Roosevelt—at a time when "conservation" connoted not only the preservation of nature, but the exploitation of natural resources—that the U.S. government alone could marshal the resources and the authority to manage the river for the public good. In 1907 he proposed that the government undertake "a broad, comprehensive scheme of development" for the Colorado "so that none of the water of this great river which can be put to beneficial use will…go to waste."

Roosevelt's successors expanded on his vision, to the point that Woodrow Wilson's interior secretary, Franklin K. Lane, would proclaim in 1916 that "every tree is a challenge to us, and every pool of water and every foot of soil. The mountains are our enemies. We must pierce them and make them serve. The sinful rivers we must curb."

The Colorado was the most sinful of rivers, unpredictable and destructive in its violent moods. In the 1920s, curbing it became a Republican cause, promoted in Congress by Sen. Hiram Johnson of California, whose Boulder Canyon Project Act was signed into law by Calvin Coolidge in 1928.

Even then, the government's traditional fiscal conservatism stood in the project's way. Federal spending, focused largely on the nation's standing Army and Navy and the payment of obligations incurred in wartime (such as interest on war debt and the upkeep of veterans), amounted to roughly 2% of gross national product. By the end of the 20th century, that figure would be closer to 20%.

What changed the political calculus was the onset of the greatest economic crisis in modern history. By 1930, President Hoover was contemplating a vast increase in federal public works spending to combat unemployment. The problem then was the dearth of "shovel-ready" projects to absorb the additional money. Only one stood out, already authorized by Congress, approved by Calvin Coolidge, and nearly designed and engineered: the great dam on the Colorado.

Hoover's successor, Franklin Roosevelt, instinctively recognized the power of great public works to inspire and encourage. Within a year of his 1935 dedication, three more dams would be under construction in the West, all ranking with Boulder Dam as among the world's grandest. (The dam was christened with Hoover's name by his friend and interior secretary, Ray Lyman Wilbur, at its 1930 groundbreaking, renamed "Boulder Dam" by the Roosevelt Administration, and restored to its original name by a Republican Congress in 1947.) The New Deal's Tennessee Valley Authority would eventually encompass 29 hydroelectric dams. FDR began to see himself as the nation's premier dam builder, calling constantly for more projects, like a man under a spell. Seven more dams would rise on the Colorado itself, exploiting it so completely that its once mighty flow into the Gulf of California has been reduced today to a brackish dribble, runoff from Mexican farms.

Hoover Dam inspired more than irrigation works. Even before its final concrete was poured, construction of the Golden Gate Bridge was under way, involving some of the same contracting firms working in the Colorado gorge. The power of America's concerted will and financial resources, demonstrated so decisively by the raising of the dam in such inhospitable conditions, would continue to assert itself over the succeeding years. This was true in times of acute crisis, as after Pearl Harbor, at D-Day, and in the Manhattan Project; and in times of more placid if not entirely tranquil aspiration, as during 1950s and 1960s, which bequeathed us the interstate highway system and the moon landing.

The rationale for nationalizing public works is largely a sound one: in our mobile, interconnected world even regional infrastructure projects produce nationwide benefits. Westerners and Easterners, Northerners and Southerners fly in and out of each others' airports and ship and receive goods over roadways and rail lines binding the nation together from the rocky coast of Maine to the Pacific shore. Who would begrudge the coastal communities of Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, and Texas the federal assistance contributed to the efforts to combat the Gulf of Mexico oil spill?

But as the residents of the West well know, the price is a loss of local self-determination. The Colorado River Compact—the interstate treaty that cleared the way for Hoover Dam in 1922 by balancing the water rights of the seven states of the Colorado basin—created a precedent for federal oversight of the river. But its full implications did not become clear until four decades later, with the Supreme Court's 1963 ruling in Arizona v. California.

In that decision, nominally concerned with a dispute between those two states over water rights on the Colorado, the Justices awarded the authority to apportion surpluses and shortages from federal reclamation projects to the Department of the Interior. Farm regulations, urban growth policy, industrial development—on these and myriad other issues, any state that depended on water from a federal reservoir henceforth would have to defer to Washington. This was so astonishing an expansion of federal power over the states that the liberal Justice William O. Douglas excoriated the majority for what he labeled "the baldest attempt by judges in modern times to spin their own philosophy into the fabric of the law."

And so Hoover Dam, born in an effort by Southern California farmers and ranchers to bring willful nature under control, became the instrument by which they ceded control over their destinies to a higher governmental authority. A new set of internecine conflicts over water—between cities and farms, big cities and small towns, wet regions and arid zones—would be decided not in the chambers of state capitols and city halls, but in Washington, D.C. That situation continues to this day: For the citizens of the seven states of the Colorado watershed, the most important cabinet appointee in any new administration is not the secretary of defense or state, but the secretary of the interior.

For all that, Franklin Roosevelt envisioned the Boulder Canyon Project in a way that his predecessor Herbert Hoover would have found entirely alien: as a symbol. The dam signified not only man's mastery over nature, Roosevelt observed, but also a people's ability to find greatness by coalescing into a social and economic community.

Roosevelt was fully alive to the totemic significance of what he called "the greatest dam in the world," its elegant machine-like beauty and alabaster majesty. He understood the spell it would cast on every visitor: Hundreds of thousands of visitors had preceded him, peering over the canyon rim during the construction phase at the ant-like workers 700 feet below; afterwards, a million tourists a year would heed his call "to come to Boulder Dam and see it with your own eyes."

Movie companies would set their melodramas against the improbable backdrop of the exploding cliffsides and pouring concrete; novelists would nudge their plots into motion with mysterious events unfolding in the dam's shadows; advertisers would pose their models against its elegant lines; poets would sing of its flawless beauty.

The United States after the construction of Hoover Dam was very different from the United States that built it. The nation was transformed from one that glorified individualism into one that cherished shared enterprise and communal social support. Public construction projects put millions of people to work creating long-lasting community improvements—hospitals, schools, parks and bridges such as New York's Triborough (now Robert F. Kennedy Bridge) and the San Francisco Bay Bridge. From the end of the war to the 1970s, America's economic growth was broad-based and income inequality suppressed, and socially inclusive federal policies such as civil rights, affirmative action and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society were enacted with popular, if not unanimous, support.

To be sure, that change was not all the making of the dam itself; Social Security, the Works Progress Administration, and other New Deal programs forged in the crucible of Depression all played an essential role, as did four years of war. But the dam remains the physical embodiment of this great transformation, a remote regional construction project reconfigured into a symbol of national pride.

Michael Hiltzik is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times. This essay is adapted from "Colossus: Hoover Dam and the American Century," due out from Free Press in June.

May 21, 2010

Sen. Dianne Feinstein presses ahead with monuments bill

PETER URBAN
Desert Sun

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

It may not happen this year, but Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Thursday she will succeed in protecting an additional 1.5 million acres of California land from development.

“I'll get it passed,” the California Democrat told reporters after appearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

She was there to promote a bill she has authored to designate two new national monuments and add lands to three other federal parks and preserves in the state.

Feinstein's proposal has drawn support from the Coachella Valley, where it is seen as a potential boon to the $1 billion tourism industry.

The proposed 134,000-acre Sand to Snow National Monument would abut the western boundary of Joshua Tree National Park and include Big Morongo and Whitewater canyons, the San Gorgonio Wilderness and 23.6 miles of the Pacific Crest Trail.

The bill would also keep the Whitewater River free-flowing and expand Joshua Tree National Park by 2,900 acres.

New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman, who chairs the committee, said he called the hearing because the 180-page bill touches upon a broad scope of issues that will inevitably raise concerns.

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the ranking Republican on the committee, didn't wait long to express her reservations.

“I do have some concerns about this bill before us — primarily the message concerning renewable energy on federal lands,” she said.

Murkowski worries the bill would encourage “Not In My Backyard” opposition to alternative energy projects that could turn investors away at a time when the nation should be weaning itself off foreign oil.

“I am worried that investors will be gun-shy,” she said.

Feinstein drafted the bill after learning in February that an 800-megawatt solar energy project was being proposed for the southern part of the Mojave Preserve. The proposed facility would sit on 8 square miles of land purchased for conservation with federal and private funds, she said.

“A beautiful valley would be destroyed, effectively. The whole valley,” she said.

Rather than construct the solar energy project there, Feinstein said, there are 350,000 acres of federal land the Bureau of Land Management has identified as “solar study zones” — more than enough, she said, to meet the state's future needs for solar power.

None of the 1.5 million acres proposed for protection extends to those study zones, she said.

The bill would not interfere with the nine solar and three wind projects that the BLM is seeking to “fast-track,” nor would it impact applications for solar power plants that could generate 4,803 megawatts of energy, which are under review by the California Energy Commission, she said.

Feinstein also has recommended that the BLM establish an additional solar study zone on a vast expanse of land directly north of Edwards Air Force Base.

BLM supports bill

The bill, which has no co-sponsors, was generally supported Thursday by the BLM, the Defense Department and the National Forest System.

BLM Director Robert Abbey said the Interior Department supports the goals of the legislation, but raised concerns about some of the changes that Feinstein has proposed to streamline the solar and wind energy application process.

Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Dorothy Robyn told the committee the designation of large monuments and wilderness areas as off-limits to development may help protect nearby military installations from encroachment.

She said, however, further study is needed to determine the impact that steering development to other areas would have on the military's mission requirements.

Faye Krueger, acting associate deputy chief of the National Forest System, said the department supports the goals of the legislation but recommended several minor changes in how the areas would be managed.

The committee also heard testimony from proponents of the bill that included the Wildlands Conservancy, Southern California Edison and the California Association of 4WD Clubs.

May 20, 2010

Authorities Say Mojave Desert Replacement Memorial Cross Must Come Down



Joe Abrams
FOXNews.com
Associated Press



Apple Valley resident Mark Ware was the first person to see the new cross at Sunrise Rock. (Mark Ware and HighDesert.com)


Authorities say a Mojave Desert war memorial cross that replaced one that was stolen is illegal and must come down.

Linda Slater, a spokeswoman with the Mojave National Preserve, says a maintenance worker spotted the 7½-foot replica cross made of metal pipes on Thursday in a federal park.

The original cross was stolen more than a week ago. It had been the subject of a lawsuit arguing that the Christian symbol didn't belong on public land.

The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily allowed the old cross to stand, but Slater says the new cross isn't covered by the ruling and will be taken down.

The site's caretakers constructed a replacement cross on Saturday. Wanda Sandoz, who has watched over the site with her husband Henry since 1984, said the one put in place Wednesday night is not the one welded by her husband.

Sandoz said the cross that went up overnight is white, but their replica has not been painted yet -- indicating that the replacement could be the original stolen cross or someone else's replica.

"I'm curious as to how they got it up there," Sandoz said, explaining that erecting the cement-filled pipes was a rigorous and difficult process — and would be much harder by the light of a quarter moon.

"It's not like you can dig a hole and put a cross in there. It's solid rock up there," she said.

Thieves used bolt cutters to rip through the inch-thick bolts that had kept the cross in place since 1984. That memorial replaced a wooden cross that was put up in the Mojave Desert in 1934 by veterans of World War I to honor troops who died in battle.

Sandoz said her husband was helped by about five or six ranchers when he put up the metal cross in 1984. "One man couldn't have taken it down, and one man couldn't put it back up," she said.

The Park Service told FoxNews.com on Wednesday that it opposed replacing the stolen cross as long as litigation continues.

A $125,000 reward has been offered for information leading to the arrest of the thieves who took the memorial.

May 11, 2010

Mojave Cross torn down by vandals

Bill McDonald shows where the Mojave Cross once stood. The cross was torn down by vandals sometime Sunday night. (William Wilson Lewis III/The Press-Enterprise)

Ben Goad
Press-Enterprise


The 76-year-old Mojave Cross war memorial in San Bernardino County's High Desert has been torn down by vandals, just days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the religious symbol could remain -- at least temporarily -- on public land.

Sometime Sunday night, the cross was taken down from its perch atop Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve, according to Liberty Institute, a group that represented veterans groups and caretakers of the cross in the recent Supreme Court Case.

"This is an outrage, akin to desecrating people's graves," said institute president Kelly Shackelford. "It's a disgraceful attack on the selfless sacrifice of our veterans. We will not rest until this memorial is re-installed."

The cross was erected in the 1934 by a veterans group as a tribute to their fallen brethren in World War I. It has been the subject of a decade long court battle between those who want it to remain and those who believe it violates the separation of church and state.

In a split decision late last month, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling that the cross must be removed. The High Court remanded the case back to federal district court in Southern California. The ruling was a major victory for proponents of the cross, but the American Civil Liberties Union vowed to renew its opposition to the cross.

Liberty Institute is offering an undisclosed reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for the removal of VFW property.

War Memorial Torn Down by Vandals!

Reward Offered for Information Leading to Arrest and Conviction of Responsible Parties

PRNewswire

PLANO, TX -- The Mojave Desert War Memorial, which was saved temporarily by a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, was torn down by vandals sometime Sunday night. Liberty Institute, which represents longtime memorial caretakers Henry and Wanda Sandoz, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW), The American Legion, Military Order of the Purple Heart, and the American Ex-Prisoners of War, is offering a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for the removal of VFW property.

"This is an outrage, akin to desecrating people's graves," said Kelly Shackelford, president/CEO of Liberty Institute. "It's a disgraceful attack on the selfless sacrifice of our veterans. We will not rest until this memorial is re-installed."

The ACLU and its plaintiff originally won a decision to tear down the memorial cross, but that was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court on April 28. The ACLU has stated that, as the case returns to the district court, it still plans to argue for the memorial to be torn down.

"This was a legal fight that a vandal just made personal to 50 million veterans, military personnel and their families," said VFW National Commander Thomas J. Tradewell, Sr. "To think anyone can rationalize the desecration of a war memorial is sickening, and for them to believe they won't be apprehended is very naive.

"The memorial will be rebuilt and the vandals will be caught and prosecuted in federal court, since the crime occurred on government property," said Tradewell, a combat-wounded Vietnam veteran from Sussex, Wis. "We hope this horrible act will highlight the importance of resolving this case quickly so that the memorial and land can be transferred to the VFW so that the service and sacrifice of all American war dead will be properly recognized and honored, as originally intended by a group of World War I VFW members 76 years ago."

"Reports that the Mojave Cross was illegally removed overnight are very disturbing," said The American Legion National Commander Clarence E. Hill. "The American Legion expects whoever is responsible for this vile act to be brought to justice. While the memorial has been attacked, the fight will continue to ensure that veterans memorials will remain sacrosanct."

"This was never about one cross," said Hill. "It is about the right to honor our nation's veterans in a manner in which the overwhelming majority supports. The American Legion strongly believes the public has a right to protect its memorials."

Liberty Institute works to uphold Constitutional and First Amendment religious and speech freedoms in the courts. Liberty Institute represented all major veterans groups as amici in the Supreme Court case of Salazar v. Buono involving this 76-year-old war memorial.

For more information or to leave a tip.

April 30, 2010

The Mojave cross ruling: a blow to the 1st Amendment

The Supreme Court sends the message the government can treat a Christian symbol as a national emblem and display it on public property.

OPINION
Los Angeles Times


The Supreme Court on Wednesday sent a simple — and disturbing — message in a complicated ruling about an 8-foot cross in California's Mojave National Preserve. The message is that the government can treat the preeminent Christian symbol as a national emblem and display it on public property.

The decision didn't explicitly approve the display of the cross, the successor to one erected in 1934 by a veterans group to honor fallen World War I soldiers. Nor did it render a final judgment on whether Congress acted constitutionally in approving a deal in which the Interior Department would swap the public land on which the cross stands for a privately owned five-acre parcel elsewhere, on the condition that the new owners maintain it as a war memorial. The latter question will be reexamined by the lower court that issued an order against the transfer.

But these technicalities can't obscure the fact that a majority of the justices seem willing to accept Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's assertion in the court's main opinion that "a Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs. It is a symbol often used to honor and respect those whose heroic acts, noble contributions and patient striving help secure an honored place in history for this nation and its people." At oral arguments in the case, Justice Antonin Scalia made the same point, prompting this devastating response from the lawyer for the former National Park Service employee who challenged the display: "I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone for a Jew." Yet more than 3,500 Jewish American soldiers died in World War I.

Conceivably the Veterans of Foreign Wars, which would be responsible for the memorial after the land swap, could obtain congressional approval to add a Star of David or an Islamic crescent to the cross or, better yet, to erect a memorial containing no religious symbols. But they needn't consider such alternatives given Kennedy's conclusion that the cross is a generic tribute to war dead rather than a symbol that sends what dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens called a "starkly sectarian message."

It's distressing that the court seems inclined to uphold the government-sanctioned display of the cross in a national preserve (even if it actually stands on a tiny parcel of private land). More ominously, Wednesday's decision suggests that the court is moving toward what Kennedy in his opinion called a "policy of accommodation" of religious displays — even if the only display is the symbol of a single religion. The 1st Amendment deserves better.

April 29, 2010

Mojave Cross can stay on display in California

Supreme Court defends public religious symbol

By Valerie Richardson
Washington Times


An 8-foot cross honoring fallen soldiers in the remote Mojave National Preserve in California can stay where it is, because the Supreme Court said Wednesday that the Constitution nowhere requires the "eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm."

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing the lead opinion in a 5-4 decision in which several justices wrote separate concurrences and dissents, compared the Mojave Cross to a hypothetical highway memorial marking the death of a state trooper to make the point that such displays "need not be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs."

"The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion's role in society," Justice Kennedy said in his opinion. "Rather, it leaves room to accommodate divergent values within a constitutionally permissible framework."

Leading the dissenters was Justice John Paul Stevens, who called the war memorial "unprecedented" in its starkly religious tone.

"Congressional action, taken after due deliberation, that honors our fallen soldiers merits our highest respect," said Justice Stevens, who recently announced his plan to retire. "As far as I can tell, however, it is unprecedented in the nation's history to designate a bare, unadorned cross as the national war memorial for a particular group of veterans."

The justices didn't rule technically on the constitutional issue of whether the cross constitutes an establishment of religion. However, they declined to rule that the cross was a First Amendment violation, as asked, and the majority justices' language indicate a more benign view of religion expression on public lands.

Instead, the justices sent the case, Salazar v. Buono, back to a lower federal court and told the judge to look again at how the constitutional issues are affected by a congressional plan to transfer the federal land beneath the 8-foot cross to a veterans group. Lower federal courts had said the transfer was insufficient, a finding the justices implicitly rebuked.

Voting with Justice Kennedy in favor of keeping the cross was the court's conservative bloc, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Opposed were Justices Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Steven G. Breyer.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of Frank Buono, a former assistant superintendent at Mojave National Preserve, who said that the memorial offended him. The original cross was erected atop an outcropping known as Sunrise Rock in 1934 by World War I veterans.

A federal court ruled in Mr. Buono's favor and ordered the removal of the cross, but Rep. Jerry Lewis, California Republican, inserted language into a defense appropriations bill declaring the cross site a national memorial.

Barstow Veterans of Foreign Wars, thus placing the cross on private land.

The ACLU argued that the land transfer was a calculated effort to circumvent the court ruling, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, saying the land transfer "would leave a little donut hole of land with a cross in the midst of a vast federal preserve."

But the lower court "did not acknowledge the statute's significance," Justice Kennedy said in his opinion.

"In belittling the government's efforts as an attempt to 'evade' the injunction, the District Court had things backwards," said Justice Kennedy. "Congress's prerogative to balance opposing interests and its institutional competence to do so provide one of the principal reasons for deference to its policy determinations."

The case was sent back to the lower court.

Peter Eliasberg, managing attorney for the ACLU of Southern California, said the organization would continue to argue that the land transfer failed to address concerns over the separation of church and state.

"Although we're disappointed by today's decision, we're encouraged that the case is not over," Mr. Eliasberg said. "The cross is unquestionably a sectarian symbol, and it is wrong for the government to make such a deliberate effort to maintain it as a national memorial."

The Mojave Cross is now encased in a plywood box, hidden from view while litigation is ongoing. The original wooden cross has been replaced several times, and the current version is constructed of white metal.

"Congress has repeatedly voted overwhelmingly to protect the Mojave Cross as a memorial to veterans and those who have died to defend our nation, never intending it to be preserved as a religious symbol," said Mr. Lewis, whose district includes the desert area where the cross is located.

"I am gratified that the Supreme Court has upheld the right and authority of Congress to seek these solutions in memory of our veterans," he said.

The decision came as a victory for religious-freedom groups fighting efforts to eliminate religious symbols and references from the public square.

"A passive monument acknowledging our nation's religious heritage cannot be interpreted as an establishment of religion," said Joseph Infranco, senior counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief defending the cross. "To make that accusation, one must harbor both a hostility to the nation's history and a deep misunderstanding of the First Amendment."

Eric Rassbach, national litigation director of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which also filed a brief in the case, applauded the ruling as "simple common sense."

"The First Amendment guarantees the right to speak and believe freely; it does not give busybodies the right to cut down religious symbols they don't like," Mr. Rassbach said.

At the same time, the ruling leaves unanswered several questions, such as what legal standard should be applied to religious displays on public property, according to the Becket Fund.

The cross supporters had feared that an unfavorable ruling would have jeopardized the nation's hundreds of cross-bearing roadside memorials, as well as other war memorials.

At least two other cross cases are in federal courts. One concerns a 29-foot cross at a war memorial on Mount Soledad near San Diego and the other the 12-foot roadside crosses that Utah uses to memorialize highway patrol troopers killed in the line of duty.

April 28, 2010

Court backs Mojave cross deal; case sent back to 9th Circuit

Joe Nelson, Staff Writer
Redlands Daily Facts


A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a lower court erred when it invalidated a land transfer that prompted the veiling of a 76-year-old Latin cross in the Mojave National Preserve honoring fallen soldiers.
In a 5-4 ruling, with the court's conservatives in the majority, justices remanded the case back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to reconsider its decision.

The Supreme Court majority voiced strong support for allowing the nearly 6-foot-tall cross, which has stood in various forms in the Mojave National Preserve for more than 70 years, to stay.

"The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in his opinion.

The cross, crafted from metal pipe, was erected by members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in 1934 to honor American soldiers who died during World War I. It sits in an area called Sunrise Rock, about 11 miles south of the 15 Freeway, east side of Cima Road.

"A Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs. It is a symbol often used to honor and respect those whose heroic acts, noble contributions and patient striving help secure an honored place in history for this nation and its people," Kennedy wrote. "Here, one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten."

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens agreed that soldiers who died in battle deserve a memorial to their service. But the government "cannot lawfully do so by continued endorsement of a starkly sectarian message."

In 2001, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the National Park Service on behalf of retired Mojave National Preserve Assistant Superintendent Frank Buono, who argued the presence of a sectarian religious symbol on public property was not admissable, said ACLU attorney Peter Eliasberg.

Buono argued that the government had showed favoritism to one religion and cited the Park Service's denial of an application to erect a Buddhist symbol near the memorial.

About a decade ago, the land on which the cross sits was incorporated into the Mojave National Preserve by executive order from President Bill Clinton.

In 2004, Congress authorized the transfer of the one acre of land under the cross back to the VFW, a private organization, in exchange for five acres of other land.

The ACLU argued the land transfer was unconstitutional.

"Although we're disappointed by today's decision, we're encouraged that the case is not over," Eliasberg said in a statement Wednesday.

He said the ACLU will continue to argue that the cross, as it currently stands, does not remedy the government's unconstitutional endorsement of one particular religion.

Joseph Infranco, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said the Supreme Court's decision sends a strong message to the 9th Circuit court.

"If they do not straighten this out and get it right and allow the land transfer to stand, I'd be surprised if the Supreme Court does not overturn them again and slap their hand a little harder," Infranco said.

The cross has been veiled by plywood for the last several years as the case has wound its way through the courts. It will remain veiled until the 9th Circuit court makes its decision, maybe longer, Infranco said.

San Bernardino County Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt, a former Marine whose district spans much of the High Desert, applauded the Supreme Court's decision.

"This is great news for the memory of fallen soldiers and for all who treasure this historical landmark in the Mojave Desert," Mitzelfelt said.

Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Redlands, also praised the high court's ruling.

"Congress has repeatedly voted overwhelmingly to protect the Mojave cross as a memorial to veterans and those who have died to defend our nation, never intending it to be preserved as a religious symbol," Lewis said in a statement Wednesday. "I am gratified that the Supreme Court has upheld the right and authority of Congress to seek these solutions in memory of our veterans."

Mojave cross case: a signal on religious symbols

By MARK SHERMAN | Associated Press Writer
San Luis Obispo Tribune


The Supreme Court's conservative majority signaled a greater willingness to allow religious symbols on public land Wednesday, a stance that could have important implications for future church-state disputes.

By a 5-4 vote, the court refused to order the removal of a congressionally endorsed war memorial cross from its longtime home atop a remote rocky outcropping in California's Mojave Desert.

The court directed a federal judge to look again at Congress' plan to transfer the patch of U.S. land beneath the 7-foot-tall cross made of metal pipe to private ownership.

Federal courts had rejected the land transfer as insufficient to eliminate constitutional concern about a religious symbol on public land - in this case in the Mojave National Preserve.

While the holding Wednesday was narrow, the language of the justices in the majority, and particularly the opinion of Anthony Kennedy, suggested a more permissive view of religious symbols on public land in future cases.

Federal courts currently are weighing at least two other cross cases, a 29-foot cross and war memorial on Mt. Soledad in San Diego and Utah's use of 12-foot-high crosses on roadside memorials honoring fallen highway patrol troopers.

"The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion's role in society," wrote Kennedy, who usually is in the court's center on church-state issues.

Speaking of the Christian cross in particular, Kennedy said it is wrong to view it merely as a religious symbol. "Here one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten," he said.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens agreed that soldiers who died in battle deserve a memorial to their service. But the government "cannot lawfully do so by continued endorsement of a starkly sectarian message," Stevens said.

The cross has stood on Sunrise Rock in the 1.6 million-acre Mojave preserve since 1934, put there by the Veterans of Foreign Wars as a memorial to World War I dead. It has been covered with plywood for the past several years following the court rulings.

Justice Samuel Alito, part of Wednesday's majority, noted the remoteness of the location. "At least until this litigation, it is likely that the cross was seen by more rattlesnakes than humans," Alito said, although he also pointed out that Easter services have long been held there.

The controversy began when a retired National Park Service employee, Frank Buono, filed a lawsuit complaining about the cross on public land. Federal courts sided with Buono and ordered the cross' removal.

In 2003, Congress stepped in and transferred the land where the cross stands to private hands to address the court rulings. But the courts said the land transfer was, in effect, an unacceptable end run around the constitutional problem.

In Wednesday's case, six justices wrote separate opinions and none spoke for a majority of the court.

But supporters of the cross memorials were pleased with Kennedy's language, especially because Alito and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would have gone further. Chief Justice John Roberts signed onto Kennedy's opinion.

"We know this is just the beginning. Until that box comes off that veterans' memorial, the veterans consider that a disgrace," said Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel at the conservative Liberty Legal Institute in Plano, Texas. He wrote a brief for several veterans' groups.

"We hope that some of the statements of Justice Kennedy go to the bigger issue, attacks on any veterans memorial that has any sort of religious imagery," Shackelford said.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the court's reasoning "bogus."

"It's alarming that the high court continues to undermine the separation of church and state. Nothing good can come from this trend," Lynn said. "The court majority seems to think the cross is not always a Christian symbol. I think all Americans know better than that."

Muslim and Jewish war veteran groups complained in court papers that they view the Mojave cross as a religious symbol that excludes them. The Jewish War Veterans called the cross "a powerful Christian symbol" and "not a symbol of any other religion."

Stevens largely agreed. He called the Mojave cross a "dramatically inadequate and inappropriate tribute." Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined his opinion, while Justice Stephen Breyer also dissented.

High court supports Mojave cross in Calif.

By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press


WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court said Wednesday that a lower court went too far in ordering the removal of a war memorial cross from its longtime home atop a remote outcropping on federal land in California.

Signaling support for keeping the cross, the justices ordered the federal court in California to look again at Congress' plan to transfer a patch of federal land beneath the cross into private hands.

The lower court had barred the land transfer as insufficient to eliminate concern about a religious symbol on public land in this case, the Mojave National Preserve.

The 5-4 ruling, with the court's conservatives in the majority, could have important implications for future church-state disputes.

The VFW erected the large cross in the federal preserve more than 75 years ago.

The cross 7 feet tall, made of 3-inch metal pipe filled with concrete to deter vandals has been covered with plywood for the past several years as the case made its way through court.

"Here one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens agreed that soldiers who died in battle deserve a memorial to their service. But the government "cannot lawfully do so by continued endorsement of a starkly sectarian message," Stevens said.

Six justices wrote separate opinions and none spoke for a majority of the court. The holding itself was narrow, ordering lower courts to look again at the transfer of land from the government to private control.

Lower federal courts previously ruled that the cross' location on public land violated the Constitution and that the land transfer was, in effect, an end run around the constitutional problem.

Kennedy, who usually is in the court's center on church-state issues, suggested there may have been no problem in the first place.

"The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm," Kennedy said.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would have gone further than Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts, who joined Kennedy's opinion.

Alito said he would allow the land transfer, barred until now, to take effect. Scalia and Thomas said they would not even have allowed the former National Park Service employee who complained about the cross to bring his objection to the transfer into court.

Roberts took a decidedly commonsense approach to the matter. At the argument in October, a lawyer argued there probably would be no objection if the government took down the cross, sold the land to the VFW, and gave the VFW the cross to immediately erect again.

"I do not see how it can make a difference for the government to skip that empty ritual and do what Congress told it to do sell the land with the cross on it," Roberts said.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor also dissented.

Supreme Court Sends 'Mojave Cross' Case Back For More Work

By Mark Memmott
NPR


A lower court was wrong to invalidate a plan that would keep the "Mojave cross" on top of a rock formation in what is now the Mojave National Preserve, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision announced this morning.

The court did not directly address the issue that had brought the case national attention: Whether the cross, because it is on federal land, violates the Constitution's ban on government establishment of religion.

Instead, the opinion (written by Justice Anthony Kennedy) focuses on the question of whether lower courts were right in rejecting a plan to transfer control of the land around the cross from the government to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, which placed the cross on the rock in 1934.

"A court may order an injunction only after taking into account all the circumstances bearing on the need for prospective relief," the opinion reads. "Here, the District Court did not engage in the appropriate inquiry. The land-transfer statute was a substantial change in circumstances bearing on the propriety of the requested relief. By dismissing as illicit the motives of Congress in passing it, the District Court took insufficient account of the context in which the statute was enacted and the reasons for its passage."

The case now goes back to the lower courts.

Supreme Court Sends Cross Case Back

by Jeremy Weber
Christianity Today


The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Wednesday that the much-debated war memorial cross in Mojave National Preserve may remain because Congress' attempted transfer of the plot of land to private hands would resolve any constitutional concerns.

Unsurprisingly, the Court did not directly address the bigger Establishment Clause question of religious symbols on public land, instead ordering a lower court to reassess its challenge to the land transfer solution.

Update: Carl Esbeck tells CT that today's Supreme Court ruling on the Mojave cross is more newsworthy to evangelical church-state watchers than most media have portrayed.

Esbeck, professor of law at the University of Missouri, explains that Justice Anthony Kennedy sent the case back to the district court for additional fact-finding on whether Congress’ purpose in ordering the land swap was religious or secular, i.e. an evasion of the trial court's injunction or an accommodation to those wanting to preserve a war memorial. But Esbeck believes that Kennedy actually says quite a lot about how he thinks a court majority—and hence the Establishment Clause—should handle this kind of religious symbol on government property case.

“It would be a shame for evangelicals to think nothing has changed,” said Esbeck. “The way this will be spun is ‘everything was murky and unclear before, and everything is still murky and unclear.’ That is a way of covering up the loss, because the ACLU victory below was reversed. Are things crystal clear? No. But the ball has moved towards religious symbols on government property not violating the Establishment Clause, and now we know where [Chief Justice John] Roberts and [Justice Samuel] Alito—who are new to the Court—stand.”

“Press releases from the usual crowd probably overstate the scope of the opinion,” said Esbeck. “But it would be wrong to just say this case was not a loss for the ACLU. Kennedy has language that says of course the Roman cross is a Christian cross, but symbols can have multiple meanings, and it is clear in this case that the 70-year-old cross has taken on the message of a war memorial. This language will help the briefs of ACLJ, ADF, etc. And Roberts and Alito signed on to this language in Kennedy’s opinion. Further, Kennedy has never been so forthright on these Establishment issues.”

Esbeck says debate will now shift to whether the congressional purpose in swapping land was religious or not. The case could potentially go all the way back up to the Ninth Circuit and maybe the Supreme Court again, though this process will take years.

The ruling may improve of the odds of religious symbols remaining in public spaces, but Esbeck sees the justifications cited as a mixed blessing.

“I’m not a big fan of religious symbols on government property,” said Esbeck. “I believe there is a detriment because it dilutes the real purpose of the symbol. They’ve taken a symbol of the church and turned it into civil religion. This can be bad for evangelicals because when people look at a nativity scene or a Roman cross, we want people to think of the God of the Bible. If these too become simply civil religion to Americans, it makes the task of evangelism harder for Christians.”