County Planning Commission Deadlocks on River Mine After Skipping Search for Safer Sites

A proposed blast mine 200 yards from the San Joaquin River stalled Thursday when the Fresno County Planning Commission split 3-3 on whether to approve it — a tie that amounts to a preliminary denial and sets up a likely appeal to the county Board of Supervisors.

CEMEX, a Mexican building-materials company, wants to blast hard-rock granite from a site near the river parkway where salmon spawn. Federal regulators at the Bureau of Reclamation have warned of a “notable risk” that the pit could be breached and spill lead, arsenic, and sediment into the river system that supplies the region’s drinking water.

The commission’s meeting hall was packed Thursday morning — standing-room-only, with three overflow rooms filled — as speaker after speaker said they could not imagine a worse location for a mine than a river, inside a public parkway, near where salmon spawn and children play at summer camp.

“How this is even a project is beyond comprehension,” said one mother, shaking her head.

Around 95 people work at CEMEX’s site, and many of them showed up Thursday in support of the proposal. “Allow us to build Fresno,” said CEMEX employee Jessie Gonzalez. “Let’s not go against Fresno.”

Commissioners John Arabian, Kyle Chaney, and David Borchardt voted yes. Commissioners Linda Hill, James Quist, and Chair Ken Abrahamian voted no. When given an opportunity to explain their support, two of the three yes votes gave no answer — they just voted yes.

“I’m really leaning on staff and the EIR and trusting them,” Arabian said.

The turning point in the debate came when commissioners learned that the county’s environmental review never looked for alternative locations, even though the resource CEMEX wants to mine — hard-rock granite — can be mined virtually anywhere along the valley floor where the soil meets the granite protruding at the base of the Sierra Nevada.

“When you have a project that involves resources like aggregate materials, there’s a provision in CEQA that you need not look at alternative locations,” said a consultant who worked on the project’s environmental review. “So we relied on that in not looking at other locations.”

“I thought that would have driven the county to a little more looking,” Quist said, referring to the trade-offs of blasting a pit near the river.

“It’s not in the right place. It’s too many lives to impact — whether it’s recreation, Boy Scouts in the river. I have a real major concern with that,” said Vice Chair Linda Hill.

The area is in a federally designated flood zone. The federal Bureau of Reclamation has warned the county of a “notable risk” that the huge mine pit could be breached, spilling lead, arsenic, and other sediment into the broader San Joaquin River system, which flows to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and broader Bay Area.

Ronald Bohigian, a lifelong Fresno resident who spoke during public comment, said the county should extend CEMEX’s existing permits while the company finds a new site away from the river parkway and its critical habitat. He described it as a win-win-win: save the jobs, help the parkway, and steer away from the catastrophic risk of a mine breach.

“Aggregate, jobs, and a world-class parkway: How can we have all of that together?” he said. “The entire valley is underlaid by granite next to the foothills. I don’t think a serious look has been given to where granite can be mined.”

The commissioners did not take up Bohigian’s recommendation. They took a simple vote on the proposal and did not request that any alternative locations be considered.

The 3-3 split now sets the stage for a vote by the Board of Supervisors, which has a conservative majority that has been supportive of CEMEX in the past. “There’s nothing wrong with what they’re [CEMEX] doing on the river,” Supervisor Buddy Mendes said last year. “It’s good to have competition. It’s better not to have one company own all the gravel. That’s not a healthy thing.”

No date has been set for the Board of Supervisors vote, although it’s likely to come in November.

The Breakdown

• CEMEX wants to blast a hard-rock granite mine about 200 yards from the San Joaquin River, near the river parkway and where salmon spawn.
• Federal regulators at the Bureau of Reclamation have warned of a “notable risk” that the pit could be breached and spill lead, arsenic, and sediment into the river system that supplies the region’s drinking water.
• The Fresno region already has 530 million tons of gravel permitted — more than twice the 227 million tons it’s projected to need over the next 50 years, according to the California Geological Survey.
• The resource CEMEX wants to mine can be found virtually anywhere along the valley floor where the soil meets the granite at the base of the Sierra Nevada.
• The county’s environmental review did not look for alternative locations, relying on a provision in state environmental law (CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act) that does not require it for projects involving aggregate materials.
• Around 95 people work at CEMEX’s site.
• The Planning Commission deadlocked 3-3. The decision now likely goes to the Board of Supervisors, which has backed CEMEX in the past.

What This Means for You

The Board of Supervisors, which has backed CEMEX in the past, will cast the final vote on whether to approve the mine expansion. Federal regulators have warned of a “notable risk” that the pit could breach and spill lead, arsenic, and sediment into the San Joaquin River system, which supplies the region’s drinking water and flows to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Bay Area.

One resident proposed extending CEMEX’s existing permits while the company finds a safer site in a region where granite can be mined virtually anywhere along the valley floor.

What You Can Do

The Board of Supervisors is expected to take up the decision in November, though no date has been set yet. You can contact the Board of Supervisors through the county’s website or by calling the Clerk of the Board at (559) 600-4787 to weigh in before the vote.

What to Watch

The county already permitted more than twice the gravel the region is projected to need over the next 50 years — 530 million tons permitted versus 227 million tons projected.

The county’s environmental review did not look for alternative locations. The consultant working on the review said the county “relied on” a provision in state law that does not require looking at alternative locations for aggregate projects.

But relying on that provision is a choice — the county could have required it anyway.

One resident, Ronald Bohigian, proposed extending CEMEX’s existing permits while the company finds a new site away from the river. “The entire valley is underlaid by granite next to the foothills,” he said — the resource is common.

The commissioners did not take up that recommendation or request that any alternative locations be considered.

Two of the three commissioners who voted yes gave no explanation for their vote. One, John Arabian, said he was “really leaning on staff and the EIR and trusting them.” That same staff never looked for an alternative site.

Watch for whether the Board of Supervisors asks for alternatives before they vote, or whether they vote on the proposal as-is.

Watch for who shows up to the Board of Supervisors meeting — and how many of them are CEMEX employees versus residents.

Watch for whether your supervisor explains their vote, or whether they just vote and move on.