A decision last week by the Sonoma County Superior Court could
mean the end of gravel pit mining along the Russian River.
A ruling by Judge Robert Boyd overturned a 2008 Board of
Supervisor’s vote that would have allowed an extension of terrace
gravel mining in the Russian River.
The judge’s decision came a year after a California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lawsuit was filed by the Westside
Association to Save Agriculture, the Russian River Keeper and the
North Coast Rivers Alliance.
The group filed the suit last fall after the Board of
Supervisors in October of 2008 voted 3-2 to in favor of Syar
Industries request to extend a terrace gravel mining deadline past
April of 2006. The 1994 ARM plan (certified in 1996) required a
10-year limit and called for the end of mining on the west side of
the Russian River.
“The ARM plan was clear that there were no extensions,” said
Riverkeeper Don McEnhill.
However, last year’s decision from the Board of Supervisors
would have allowed Syar Industries to “finish the job” on phase VI
of the project, west of the Russian River just south of Healdsburg,
and required that no more than a year should pass after mining is
completed for environmental restoration there.
Following a motion from Fourth District Supervisor Paul Kelley,
supervisors Tim Smith and Mike Kerns voted in favor of the
three-year extension in 2008.
But in Judge Boyd’s 12-page ruling last week, he found that
Sonoma County violated CEQA by failing to (1) prepare a separate
Environmental Impact Report addressing the significant adverse
impacts of Syar’s proposed terrace gravel mining, (2) adequately
explain why the alternative of terminating mining and reclaiming
the disturbed land for other uses was not feasible, and (3) provide
an adequate discussion of alternative gravel sources including
importation of gravel from outside the County and development of
existing and proposed quarries within the County.
Boyd called Syar’s requested extension a contradiction of “the
very essence of the project history,” and called their argument
“circular.”
In response to the Board of Supervisor’s finding that the ARM
should be extended because alternatives are infeasible, Boyd
stated, “An agency cannot find an alternative infeasible simply
because the developer does not want to do it.”
David Spielberg, attorney for Syar, was unsure what the
company’s next steps will be.
“At this point, we’re still looking at it and evaluating what
our response ought to be and what our options are,” he said. “Right
now, we’re still trying to digest the decision.”
Terrace gravel mining stopped in 2006 while Syar waited for a
decision on the extension.
“This decision is a great victory for the people of Sonoma
County who rely on the Russian River and adjacent water aquifer for
their drinking water,” said Marc Bommersbach, President of Westside
Association to Save Agriculture (WASA). “Years of strip mining in
the aquifer of the Russian River have severely impacted this
precious resource that supplies the drinking water to 700,000
people in Sonoma and Marin Counties.”
Opponents of Syar’s gravel mining also argue that there are less
costly and more environmentally sound ways to supply gravel for
construction and road projects.
“It has been clearly demonstrated that the county has supplies
of gravel to support projects like roads and buildings without
relying on mining gravel in the county’s drinking water aquifer.
They haven’t mined there since 2006 and the freeway project has not
come to a halt,” Bommersbach said.
McEnhill said the ruling is a big win for the river.
“We feel like this ruling will make it very difficult, if not
impossible, to try and go back and dig up the aquifers,” he said.
“We think the biggest win is for our future water supply and for ag
along the river.
“This is a victory that’s been a long time coming. It’s a
historical win,” McEnhill said.
