Did San Joaquin River board tip hand on blast mine proposal? Agenda item raises eyebrows
The governing board of the state agency entrusted with assembling a 22-mile nature and recreation parkway along the San Joaquin River bordering Fresno spent more than an hour Wednesday discussing an agenda item that members themselves ultimately deemed unnecessary.
Up for vote was whether the San Joaquin River Conservancy board should direct Executive Officer John Shelton to engage in talks with multinational mining corporation Cemex regarding a partnership to develop and maintain public trails through its quarry and plant operation sites, properties that border state lands set aside for the river parkway.
That’s the same Cemex, as you’ll recall, that is seeking Fresno County approval to blast a 600-foot-deep gravel pit within a 9-iron of California’s second-longest river before its permits expire in 2023.
The perplexing part, as pointed out by a couple board members as well as members of the public, is that conservancy staff don’t need board authorization to hold discussions with property owners in the parkway footprint. That much is made fairly clear in the 1992 legislation that created the San Joaquin River Conservancy.
Secondly, Shelton has already been talking with Cemex about what a trail alignment through its Friant Road properties might look like — even before the blast-mine proposal became public record.
Which, I should point out, is exactly the proactive approach the parkway has long needed.
While the “action item” didn’t specifically mention the blast mine, there’s no sidestepping the elephant in the room. And if board members gave Shelton express direction to continue talks with Cemex, such a decision could easily be interpreted as their “tacit acceptance” (as one public commenter put it) of the company’s controversial proposal.
Despite assurances from Cemex officials and consultants that the mining application and parkway trails were not intertwined, board members wisely avoided creating any unnecessary perceptions. They voted down the item while instructing Shelton to continue going about his business.
“There is nothing in the project that would prevent or block trails from going through,” Cemex consultant John Buada said over the Zoom call. “In fact, we’re talking about how to make that work … and to get that in place sooner rather than later.”
Cemex crafts public image ahead of outcry
Buada is being a little disingenuous. Only scarce details are available about Cemex’s application to modify its existing aggregate mining and processing operations along the San Joaquin — and extend them for 100 years. Environmental documents are currently being drafted, Buada told the board, with the intention of releasing an initial EIR by mid-to-late summer.
Until the public gets its eyes on those documents, we don’t really know the scope of what Cemex plans to do. So any agreement regarding trails, tacit or otherwise, is premature. Furthermore, the project’s EIR will have to address the river parkway and offer mitigation for the increased traffic and noise. Let’s see what the planners and consultants come up with.
Cemex’s angle is obvious. The public outcry triggered by the company’s proposal will only get louder. By partnering with the San Joaquin River Conservancy, Cemex can craft an image of being supportive of parkway trails — while taking the focus off its continued plunder of an overused natural resource.
Thankfully, board members didn’t get snared. Or at least didn’t want to make it appear like they did.
(Here’s the other thing: If Cemex gets tripped up or voted down, those riverside properties will have zero mining value once current permits expire in two years. The conservancy could then purchase and rehabilitate them — just like it has in so many other locations along the river — and put trails and whatever else where they make the most sense.)
The second most-interesting agenda item during Wednesday’s meeting also didn’t result in any official action. Yet it was instructive nonetheless.
Arambula bill would tilt power structure
In his report, Shelton apprised board members of a piece of state legislation designed to increase their ranks. Sponsored by Assemblyman Joaquin Arambula, D-Fresno, AB 559 would add two members to the 15-member San Joaquin River Conservancy board, one a tribal appointee and a second that would represent statewide interests. Both seats would be appointed by the governor.
In addition, Arambula’s bill would lift the requirement that calls for one public board seat to go to a riverside property owner and open them to members of local nonprofits that promote outdoor recreation, conservation or environmental/social justice issues. (AB 559 passed the Assembly’s Natural Resources Committee by an 8-0 vote in late March. Its next hearing will be in front of the Governmental Organization Committee.)
But perhaps the most interesting provision (and the one most threatening to the current power structure) is a requirement to hold annual elections for chairperson and vice chair. All voting members would be eligible. As currently constituted, the chair and vice chair rotates every two years among the board’s four elected officials representing the cities and counties of Fresno and Madera.
Unsurprisingly, current chair Mike Karbassi, the Fresno City Councilmember, expressed concerns that AB 559 would result in a loss of “local control” of the conservancy board.
Perhaps, but where has “local control” of the San Joaquin River Parkway gotten us? It certainly hasn’t gotten us a parkway that’s publicly accessible most of the time.
Here’s a glaring example: At another point during Wednesday’s meeting, Shelton presented a slide that listed March 2024 as a construction end date for the long-delayed River West Open Space Area.
If accurate, that’ll mean it took 15 years to approve and build a modest parkway expansion near a busy northwest Fresno intersection since initial designs were released in 2009.
Thank goodness for “local control.”
This story was originally published April 9, 2021 at 5:00 AM.
