You are here

Supreme Court Declines To Review Issue Of Landfill Next To Joshua Tree National Park

Share

Published Date

March 29, 2011

Though the U.S. Supreme Court has shown no desire to consider whether the country's largest garbage dump should be allowed next to Joshua Tree National Park, that decision doesn't necessarily end the project.

And while officials for Kasier Ventures LLC say they'll simply work to seek solutions to a land-exchange with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to make the landfill happen, efforts are under way to develop a pumped storage hydroelectric plant next to Joshua Tree.

For now, though, officials with the National Parks Conservation Association are applauding the high court's decision Monday not to hear arguments on the landfill.

"(Kaiser) said they would be going back to the drawing board. To be perfectly honest with you, I’m unsure whether they will," said David Lamfrom, NPCA's California Desert program manager. "But at least as far as I’m concerned, for today we’re extremely happy with the decision not to hear the case.”

Kaiser had wanted the Supreme Court to review the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision back in November 2009 that overtuned a lower court's approval of the needed land swap. 

To operate the landfill, which would be capable of handling 20,000 tons of garbage a day, six days a week, Kaiser needed BLM land that surrounds an old iron ore mine that Kaiser operated from 1948 until 1983. Twenty years ago Kaiser approached the BLM with the land swap proposal, offering 2,846 of its acres for 3,481 BLM acres. In 1997, the BLM issued its final environmental impact statement on the swap and issued a record of decision, which triggered the legal battle that continues to this day.

In its mixed ruling in November 2009, which sent the matter back to the lower court, the 9th Circuit's majority:

* Agreed with the district court's decision that the BLM had inaccurately appraised its lands for the swap. While the BLM's appraisal did not consider the value of the acres as a landfill, the appellate court said it should have in determining the actual value for the exchange.

* Agreed with the district court that the BLM did not thoroughly consider alternatives to the landfill as proposed by Kaiser, but rather "adopted Kaiser’s interests as its own to craft a purpose and need statement so narrowly drawn as to foreordain approval of the land exchange."

* Reversed the district court's finding that the BLM failed to adequately address impacts to bighorn sheep posed by the proposed landfill.

* Agreed with the lower court that the BLM failed to adequately consider how nutrients introduced into the desert landscape by the landfill might impact that landscape.

With the Supreme Court refusing to get involved, the matter goes back to the BLM. Kaiser officials, in a press release following the high court's decision, said "it is just a matter of working with the BLM to identify the best path that may be implemented to fix the identified deficiencies."

While this project takes a backseat for the moment, efforts are proceeding to gain permission for a hydroelectric project in the same location on the eastern side of Joshua Tree. Seen as a greater than $1 billion project, the 1,100-acre Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project would generate electricity by running water down from an upper storage reservoir to a lower one.

According to the NPCA, the project would require 20,000 acre-feet of groundwater from the Chuckwalla Basin aquifer. During times of lower energy demand, water would be pumped from the lower pit to the upper pit, when it would be released back down through the tunnel to generate electricity to meet demand when needed, explained Seth Shteir, who works with Mr. Lamfrom in the NPCA's California Desert office.

“I think honestly this project raises the question of what is a legitimate renewable energy project?" Mr. Shteir said. "For one, you’ve got the net loss of energy, but you’ve got a use of groundwater, which is of some concern. The groundwater they would be mining (from the Chuckwalla Basin) is connected underground with the Pinto Basin aquifer, which is underneath the park. You drain that too much you could get some unintended consequences, which are not too good.”

Those consequences could include depleting surround aquifers that desert-life relies on, possibly generating pollution in seeps from the Pinto Basin acquifer in the national park, creating subsidence problems, and attracting ravens and other birds of prey that could view the desert tortoise as food, the NPCA says.

Overall, the national park advocacy group is increasingly concerned about development to the south of the park, development that Mr. Shteir said “is the de facto industrialization of that area." One of the proposed projects is a 4,410-acre industrial solar energy facility, according to NPCA.

"There are many different projects down there, but there is yet to be a meaningful examination of how all these projects interact to affect night skies, viewing opportunities within Joshua Tree, how they affect air quality, how they may affect or impair wildlife corridors, and how they might affect groundwater in an arid environment," he said.

Support National Parks Traveler

Your support for the National Parks Traveler comes at a time when news organizations are finding it hard, if not impossible, to stay in business. Traveler's work is vital. For nearly two decades we've provided essential coverage of national parks and protected areas. With the Trump administration’s determination to downsize the federal government, and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s approach to public lands focused on energy exploration, it’s clear the Traveler will have much to cover in the months and years ahead. We know of no other news organization that provides such broad coverage of national parks and protected areas on a daily basis. Your support is greatly appreciated.

 

EIN: 26-2378789

Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places

A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.

Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:

  • Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
  • Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
  • Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
  • North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
  • Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
  • Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
  • Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.

Comments

Doesn't "BLM" stand for Bureau of Livestock and Mining?  It just looks to me like their living up to their name.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Your urgent support helps the National Parks Traveler increase awareness of the wonders and issues confronting national parks and protected areas.

Support Our Mission

INN Member

The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.

Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.

You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

FREE for iPhones and Android phones.