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.

The California Energy Commission, the state's primary energy agency, has launched a website intended to keep Californians up to date on the state's progress toward 100% clean energy. California's Clean Energy Journey highlights topics such as innovation, transportation, efficiency, and equity and tribal partnerships. Content incudes graphs, charts, and videos about various projects and goals. 

On March 23 in a special extension to its March 10 regular meeting, the Twentynine Palms City Council rejected the E-Group Solar Project proposed for the Harmony Acres area of the City after hearing about 3 hours of public comments. Residents expressed concerns about dust, water usage, destruction of desert habitat, and health issues. MBCA formally commented in 2024 and several Board members including Twentynine Palms resident Pat Flanagan have continued to comment in writing and at meetings. (Read Pat's most recent comment letter.)

The developer's contention that they could take their project to a state-level review via AB 205 was disputed, as the project doesn't appear to meet those criteria. Instead, residents encouraged the City Council to abide by its ban on utility-scale solar, instituted into its development code in 2012. Board member Janet Johnson commented after the decision, "This shows how having decision-makers living locally, and are accountable locally, and know first-hand that no one wants to live next to solar panels, makes a difference." 

Here is the report from local radio station KCDZ 107.7, and an in-depth review of the entire meeting including quotations from speakers by The Desert Trumpet.

MBCA's comment letter for the Soda Mountain Solar Project was presented at the February 5 California Energy Commission public hearing. MBCA has followed and opposed this project since 2009. The latest letter references a number of scientific papers demonstrating the likely negative effects of wind and dust, harming both people and the land. Papers cited include Vulnerability of desert biological soil crusts to wind erosion  and Sand Transport Pathways. The Desert Under our Feet explains the harm caused by destruction of the critical underground desert biome. A comprehensive overview of these and many other concerns about this project, as well as a sample comment letter, can be found on the Basin and Range Watch website. Comments are due February 27.

You can view the entire Annual Meeting and Greywater presentation via our YouTube Channel. The Introduction to Greywater Irrigation Systems presentation by keynote speaker Nicholas Holmes begins at 1:07:28 in the video, but we encourage viewers to start at the beginning for the presentations on MBCA's issues and programs that precede the Keynote presentation. Below is a timestamp list for all segments of the presentation.

MBCA Annual Meeting, January 24, 2026
Timestamps
   00:08  Welcome and Thank-Yous - MBCA President Steve Bardwell
   04:16  Announcements by meeting participants
              -Desert Video Astronomers
              -Chromium 6 petition
              -Candidate petition
              -Giant Rock Cleanup
              -29 Palms Solar Farm petition
   09:50  Introduction of 2026 MBCA Board of Directors
   12:35  Overview of recent and current MBCA Issues - Steve Bardwell
              -Annual Desert-Wise Living Landscape Tour April 19
              -Water issues
              -Dark night skies
              -Scholarships
              -8^th Grade Field Trips
              -Inland Deserts Working Group/CA 30x30 Climate Change Program
              -Candidate Forum this fall
   18:16  Morongo Basin Development Projects (with PowerPoint slides) - Steve
                   Bardwell
   31:06  Habitat Connectivity (PPT) – Steve Bardwell
   38:59  Education – 8^th Grade Field Trips (video) – Janet Johnston
   46:42  Housing (PPT) – Janet Johnston
1:06:14  Break
1:07:28  Keynote Presentation – An Introduction to Greywater Irrigation
                  Systems, Nicholas Holmes
2:00:30  Question and Answer session
2:14:29  End of Program

 

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