The San Bernardino County Supervisors meeting on August 18 drew a large number of commenters on item 76: "Conduct a public hearing to consider the proposed ordinance to repeal and reenact local surface mining and land reclamation regulations." Commenters expressed strong concerns that through the proposed changes, the County was handing over environmental review to the recently greatly weakened federal environmental review process. After the comment period, Chair Dawn Rowe and other supervisors expressed their concern that staff had not effectively communicated with the public about the intent and implications of the proposed changes. Chair Rowe then moved to continue the hearing to October 20. She requested that staff do additional research and clearly present the proposed changes and address the public's questions.

Chair Rowe suggested staff should review and address the three questions asked by commenter Chris Carraher (MBCA Board Member Emeritus and Past President).

The video of the hearing is available here, starting at 41:35 (or you can scroll down the agenda that’s below the video window to item #76.).  Additional news coverage can be found at the Hi Desert Star, and a very in-depth report with extensive quotations at the Desert Trumpet.

In a coalition with over 210 public health, environmental, and environmental justice organizations, MBCA has signed a letter to members of the California legislature with deep concern about the proposed fall ballot initiative 25-0023A1. Proposed by the California Chamber of Commerce in November 2025, it has been cleared for circulation and is in the petition signature collection phase (due June 24). The coalition letter asks all state legislators to publicly oppose the initiative. It would “fundamentally undermine the public health and environmental protections provided under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), upon which our state has relied for over half a century. ” Below are the six main points of concern. Detailed explanations can be found in the letter.

1. Reverses CEQA's Foundational Principle to Protect the Environment and Overrides Other Laws
2. Applies to a Sweeping Range of Consequential Projects
3. Undermines Recent Legislative Efforts
4. Strips Agencies of Tools to Protect Communities and the Environment
5. Increases Agencies’ Litigation Exposure While Undercutting CEQA’s Enforcement
6. Shifts Long-Term Costs onto Public Agencies and Taxpayers

Although the House and Senate Congressional resolutions S.J.Res.109 and H.J.Res.151 deal specifically with overturning the management plan for Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah, the implications for public lands everywhere would be dire. MBCA has sent letters to Representative Obernolte, Senator Padilla, and Senator Schiff asking them to oppose the House and Senate resolutions directing the cancellation of the management plan. A key message to Representative Obernolte is "For a district like ours, where tourism and small business activities are closely tied to public lands, this kind of policy uncertainty has direct economic consequences." To the Senators, the message concludes by thanking them for their continued service and commitment to safeguarding public lands and environmental decision-making.

In support of the California desert environment beyond San Bernardino County, MBCA signed on to a letter outlining concerns about the Bonanza Peak Solar Project in Inyo County. The Old Spanish Trail Association (OSTA) maintains that relying only on an Addendum to the 2015 Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the project is not sufficient for measuring the effects of the extensive changes to the original project. They request that a Supplemental Environment Impact Report be performed "to analyze the Project's new and more severe impacts, and to provide meaningful public review and participation."  

MBCA's appeal (with 7 co-appellants) of the Planning Commission's approval of the Sienna II Solar Project in Lucerne Valley was denied by the Supervisors on Tuesday, January 28. 

(Timestamps are from the County meeting video - scroll down the Supervisors meetings page to find the meeting date of 2026-01-27 and its video link.) Supervisor Rowe introduced the topic and the process at 26:40. The review started with the County Land Use Services staff presentation (28:16), followed by MBCA's presentation (44:37). MBCA President Steve Bardwell presented a 15-minute fact-filled and passionate defense of the position that the project approval was flawed. (Here also are the PowerPoint slides in PDF format, Part 1 and Part 2.) The developer, Avantus, then presented its 15-minute summary of the project (1:01:53).

Public comment was opened at 1:17:38 and timestamps are listed below for all comments in support of the appeal. Final 5-minute presentations were offered by Avantus (2:34:55) and MBCA (2:35:34).

Supervisor Dawn Rowe (in whose district the project lies) had extensive questions for County Land Use Services staff (2:42:27 - 2:52:05), followed by her comments (2:52:06 - 2:55:38). Supervisor Hagman commented from 2:55:39-3:00:38. Supervisor Rowe made two more comments starting at 3:00:38, first offering to show those seeking to develop in the desert how the expansive landscapes must be specially considered, and then chastising the "snarky" tone of one of the Avantus speakers (Ann Mudge, "counsel for the project," 2:31:21), while complimenting Steve's professional approach. The vote against the appeal was unanimous (3:02:00).

MBCA's appeal was in great part based on how different the Sienna II Project was from its earlier approved versions. However, a 2019 amendment to the Renewable Energy Conservation Element of the Countywide Plan (4.10, Section 3.) allowed revised but similar previously approved projects to be considered on "policies and regulations in effect at the time the application was accepted as complete." In this case the current project was deemed by the Supervisors to be "equal" to those prior approved projects, despite extensive changes and uncertainties outlined in the appeal. This formed the basis for the Supervisors' decision, as they found no legal justification to overturn the previous approvals so denied the appeal.  

Many supporters of the appeal including MBCA Board members and numerous Lucerne Valley area residents made comments that ranged from dust concerns to economic issues and anger that the formal State Scenic Highway designation was not considered by the Planning Commission. The entire session begins at 26:40 in the County video.  Below are time stamps for comments made on camera by MBCA and other appeal supporters:

1:17:38 David Fick
1:20:08 Janet Johnston
1:23:06 Laraine Turk
1:25:34 Sarah Kennington

1:28:58 Eric Menendez
1:34:55 David Smith
1:38:09 Karen Smith

1:40:35 Bob Howells
1:43:44 Steve Mills
1:46:39 Catherine Howells
1:57:05 Michelle Gibson
2:01:09 Ondine Hollander
2:04:37 Brian Hammer
2:08:30 Neville Slade
2:11:45 Arch McCulloch
2:14:59 Erin Gatlin
2:16:17 Sarah Kennington
2:19:30 Suzy Boyd

2:22:43 Bill Lembright
2:25:15 Linda Gommel
2:28:12 Lorrie Steely

After the County Planning Commission approved the third iteration of the Sienna Solar Project in Lucerne Valley, MBCA joined local Lucerne area groups in an appeal to the Supervisors, which is to be heard on Tuesday, January 27, 2026. The case for appeal will be presented with a PowerPoint by President Steve Bardwell, with maps, illustrations, and data gathered by a committee of MBCA Board members. A key point to be contested is that the latest plan differs so greatly from the earlier proposed projects that it cannot be approved based on prior submitted plans. The final appeal letter outlines these issues in more detail. Also see our January 19 Eblast for additional information on the Sienna Solar project.

In partnership with several other organizations and individuals, MBCA filed an appeal of the County Planning Commission's October 23 approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the 1,854-acre Sienna Solar and Storage Project, including gen-tie lines to the future Southern California Edison Calcite substation in Lucerne Valley. Should these projects be constructed it would fundamentally change the character of the already-disadvantaged Lucerne Valley Community, creating the potential for severe dust and air pollution and opening the door to additional utility-scale solar projects on undisturbed desert land.

An additional concern is that Land Use Services failed to inform the Planning Commission of the September 4 official CalTrans designation of Highway 247 as the High Desert State Scenic Highway, as reported on local radio station Z107.7. The project is within the designated scenic view shed.

The appeal has been accepted and a hearing date will be set.

A notice issued on August 29, 2025, by the Forest Service, an agency of the Department of Agriculture, announced the intent to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The intent of the Rule is "to provide lasting protection for inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest System in the context of multiple-use management." MBCA's opposition letter describes the likely negative consequences of rolling back this rule, including environmental harm to wildlife, watersheds, and water quality, plus increased fire danger (not less). Recent polling concludes that there is also widespread public support for maintaining designated roadless areas. 

MBCA submitted a letter to California's Wildlife Conservation Board in support of grant funding to plan two wildlife crossing overpasses on Highway 62. Mojave Desert Land Trust is spearheading the effort. Learn more about the proposal from MDLT's August Press Release and this story from local radio station Z107.7. In MBCA's Wildlife Corridors map below, notice the bright pink area in the lower left, representing an area of "Irreplaceable and Essential Corridors" between Morongo Valley and Yucca Valley, the targeted area. Additional detailed maps can be found in MDLT's Press Release.