FRESNO, Calif. – Ignoring overwhelming community opposition, a dire warning of “catastrophic risk” by a key state agency and the likelihood of litigation, the Republican majority on Fresno County’s highest elected body greenlit an unprecedented hard-rock mine near California’s second-longest river.
Following a special meeting that lasted nearly 5 hours, the Fresno County Board of Supervisors on Thursday gave multi-national mining company CEMEX its thumbs-up to blast and drill a 300-foot-deep pit 3.5 miles outside the Fresno city limits for the next 63 years. The company already mines near the San Joaquin River using traditional alluvial methods. Blast mining has never before been permitted in the area.
The 3-2 vote followed political party lines with Republican supervisors Garry Bredefeld, Nathan Magsig and Buddy Mendes granting their approval and Democrats Luis Chavez and Brian Pacheco voting “no.”
“This is going to be their legacy, and if it goes wrong this is going to be their albatross,” said Friant resident Jim Durando, who lives across the street from the quarry site where the blasting and drilling would occur.
Bredefeld, considered the key swing vote, granted his approval after getting CEMEX to pitch in an extra $150,000 per year to help fix Fresno’s roads that will be degraded by additional gravel-hauling trucks. The dollar amount increases slightly in future years.
Public comment was limited to 60 minutes on both sides by Bredefeld, the board chair, with each speaker getting one minute.
Many in support of CEMEX, including dozens of employees, wore light blue T-shirts with the words “Building a Better Future” printed over an outline of the state of California. Many of those opposed wore navy blue T-shirts with a silk screen design that read: “Don’t let CEMEX blast a hole in the river’s soul.”
Bredefeld and Magsig based their support on avoiding job losses – CEMEX employs roughly 95 people – as well as the need for gravel aggregate for future construction including the recently approved Friant Ranch housing development. Both expressed the viewpoint that gravel would have to be trucked in from further distances, creating more air pollution.
“When you shut down resources that you actually have, in the name of protecting the environment, you’re really not protecting the environment at all,” Bredefeld said.
But the vast majority of letters from members of the public during the environmental impact report process were opposed to the project. As were the vast majority of public speakers during an Oct. 8 planning commission hearing. The commission voted 3-3 for the project, which amounted to a technical denial, but the company immediately appealed the decision.
Prior to public comment on Thursday, Julie Vance, Central Region manager for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, raised concerns about land ownership, water rights and potential impacts to both salmon restoration and nesting birds.
CEMEX’s plant site has “encroached” onto an adjacent state-owned ecological reserve by nearly 14 acres, Vance told the board. She also questioned CEMEX’s legal standing to divert river water.
Vance also brought up the ongoing federal and state effort to restore salmon runs on the San Joaquin River that were extirpated by the construction of Friant Dam. She pointed out the state has already spent $107 million toward the restoration effort, including constructing a state-of-the art salmon hatchery in Friant. The federal government has spent hundreds of millions more.
“The proposed project threatens these successes,” Vance said. “[Salmon are] spawning and holding next to the mine site. We’re going to have fry, we’re going to have juveniles and we’re going to have adults. The impacts to those are unknown.”
According to Vance, no other hard-rock blast mines exist in California next to a river channel. CEMEX attorney Pat Mitchell identified several during his presentation, but all are located on the East Coast. Vance also warned the board of “catastrophic risk” to water quality in case of a severe flood.
“There’s an excessive amount of uncertainty with respect to this project,” Vance said.
During public comment, a city of Fresno employee told the board that the expanded project’s environmental impact report did not adequately address traffic issues or threats to the safety of cyclists or pedestrians.
Pacheco, one of three lame-duck board members, said he couldn’t vote to approve due to concerns about hard-rock mining and its duration.
“I'm not comfortable giving them 60 years,” Pacheco said. “I will say I usually side with business, but I don't believe we have the appropriate tools to offset what’s going to come in the next 20 or 30 years, and I don’t think we should be making a decision that will tie a whole other generation.”
The board’s approval now faces the high probability of litigation from environmental groups, nonprofits and county residents whose domestic wells and property values could be negatively impacted.
“I will be supportive of trying to stop it, or delay it until I’m dead or decomposed,” Durando said.
