SB 1121, introduced this past February by state Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez (D-Shafter), would extend overtime pay to farm workers who work more than eight hours a day or 40 hours per week.

Farm workers are the only employees in California who don't receive overtime at eight hours per day or 40 hours a week, according to Florez's office. Overtime for farm workers currently starts at 10 hours per day or 60 hours per week.

The bill cleared the Assembly on a 47-26 vote on July 1, according to Florez's office.

Now, the bill's opponents and proponents are waiting to see what action Schwarzenegger will take.

“It came down yesterday,” Andrea McCarthy, a spokesman for the governor's office, said of the bill in a Wednesday interview with Lake County News. “Sen. Flores walked it down.”

McCarthy added, “The governor has yet to take a position.”

She said Schwarzenegger had 12 days from Tuesday to decide whether to sign or veto the bill.

Florez released a written statement in which he said that he hopes Schwarzenegger's immigrant experience will “give him empathy to grasp the importance of this bill to some of California’s hardest workers.”

Legislative analysis of the bill cited the California Employment Development Department's 2008 agricultural employment report, which showed that the state's agricultural labor force had at that time 372,600 workers, of which 48.6 percent had an annual family income of less than $35,000.

In 2008, according to that report, 61.8 percent of California's agricultural workers earned $10 an hour or less, 37.6 percent earned the state's $8 minimum wage, 23.8 percent earned between $10.1 and $15 an hour, 14.4 percent earned more than $15 an hour and 8.6 percent earned more than $20 per hour.

The state's June labor report showed that Lake County has 1,660 farm workers, a higher number than usual due to the harvest season.

Florez's bill has raised strong opinions both from those who believe it will help the quality of workers' lives and those who say it will hurt agriculture in California, which they say already has a mountain of expensive regulations.

Lining up against it include groups like the California Farm Bureau and the California Chamber of Commerce, the latter including the legislation is a list of “job killer” bills released in May.

On the other side are farm worker advocates, including the United Farm Workers, whose California political director Merlyn Calderon said that the bill is addressing the inequities that farm workers in the state have been subject to for decades.

Locally, Lake County Farm Bureau Executive Director Chuck March took the issue to the Board of Supervisors at its July 13 and asked them to send a letter to Schwarzenegger urging a veto, which they agreed to do.

March told Lake County News that he believes the bill will end up having negative impacts for workers and farmers alike.

“I've talked to a couple growers and basically what they would do is reduce the hours of their current employees and probably hire more,” he said.

“There's no other state that has the pay requirements that California does,” March said.

Bonnie Sears at Snows Lake Vineyard in Lower Lake said she did a brief analysis to gauge the impact of the bill on their operations.

She estimated that a staff of 100 people making $8 an hour for 60 hours per week would see an $8,000-per-week impact if 20 hours of overtime had to be paid for each worker.

To make up that $8,000 weekly difference, an employer would have to hire 35 more people and reduce the hours of the existing 100, she said.

At Snows Lake, they work a 54-hour week, and would automatically see 14 hours per week of overtime for workers, according to Sears.

“We couldn't afford to pay the difference,” she said. “We would have to hire more people.”

Sears said Snows Lake – which pays more than minimum wage – might reduce pay levels to cover some of the overtime. Another option is to ask employees to approve an alternate work week, such as four 10-hour days, which would require two-thirds of the employees to agree.

“The unintended consequences are negative to the employee,” she said.

Those unintended consequences have reportedly led to concerns among farm workers about the bill, which Calderon acknowledged.

“UFW has been very honest about the mixed reaction from workers on this particular proposal,” Calderon said. She suggested the mixed reactions are a result of “scare tactics” about reduced hours.

Calderon said about 400,000 farm workers in California move between 80,000 farms, often for short periods of time. Labor laws sometimes aren't enforced in the fields, and the UFW wants to make sure they are.

She said that more than 50 percent of farm workers are undocumented.

“This is a really vulnerable workforce and employers know that,” she said.

Calderon accused opponents of the bill of also fighting other important legislation, such as laws requiring heat protections for workers and improved sanitary requirements, using the same claims of harm to their businesses.

“In general, this is an argument that the growers have used continuously whenever laws that benefit farm workers are going to be passed,” she said.

She added, “In the end, farm workers want to have the same benefits that all other workers have in California.”

Farm worker labor laws in place for decades

A Senate bill analysis of SB 1121 explained that in 1938 Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which set statutory minimum requirements for labor laws in all states, including overtime provisions that were not extended to agricultural workers.

California first addressed the farm worker overtime issue in 1941, when it made all agricultural employees exempt from statutory overtime requirements, much as the federal government had done, the analysis said.

A guest editorial Florez wrote for the Sacramento Bee said that in 1976 California gave farm workers the right to overtime pay after 10 hours of labor a day or 60 hour of work a week.

Bob Alvarez, Florez's chief of staff, said in 1994 there was a fight in the Legislature over the eight-hour work day, but the 10-hour day held.

He believes that “a certain sense of fairness” led to the bill getting through the Legislature this year.

Meanwhile, in an attempt to share the challenges of agricultural labor, the United Farm Workers began the “Take Our Jobs” initiative.

Calderon said the campaign is meant to help Americans – especially those currently out of work and seeking employment – to take on the one million agricultural jobs currently held by farm workers without legal status.

The campaign got some high profile attention when United Farm Workers of America President Arturo Rodriguez appeared on Comedy Central's “Colbert Report” earlier this month and got Stephen Colbert to take the challenge.

Colbert hasn't shown up yet, said Calderon, however, “he committed that he would so we look forward to that.”

She said the group has had 4,000 inquiries come in, of which about 40 percent were hate mails.

Once they winnowed those down to people actually interested in getting a job, three people were placed in jobs, far short of the hoped-for one million, said Calderon.

The United Farm Workers also invited members of Congress to take the challenge, according to Calderon.

Have they gotten any response?

“Not at this point,” she said.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews and on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf .

Farmlands are home to abundant wildlife. Far beyond the planted fields or property boundaries, farms and ranches are important land and water resources for many native species. Almost every farmer or rancher has a creek or woodland – part of the ranch, environment and habitat we so badly need to protect.

Since 1965, farmers have been protecting their land from development pressure with the help of the Williamson Act.

This landmark legislation, also known as the California Land Conservation Act, has allowed farmers to maintain open space with a focus on acres, soil quality and development potential.

This act has been, frankly, a keystone of the state’s agricultural and open space protection.

Named for former Kern County Assemblyman John Williamson, the Williamson Act conserves agricultural and open space lands through voluntary contacts, reduces tax assessments on bona fide farmlands and directs state support to make up the tax deficit to counties.

By state law, county assessors must lower the value of Williamson Act properties to reflect their use as agriculture and open space, instead of their potential development value.

Private property owners sign contracts with counties and cities, agreeing to restrict their land to agriculture, open space, and compatible uses for 10 years.

Williamson Act contracts then automatically renew each year so that protection for the land rolls into the future. Once under contract, the likelihood that farmland will stay in agriculture increases significantly.

What does this program cost?

Historically, the state’s general fund has paid counties and cities about $40 million a year to make up for the property tax revenues lost because of lowered assessments. In addition, the general fund automatically backfills school districts for lost property taxes.

Until now.

In the revised budget proposal that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger unveiled in May, Williamson Act funding would be reduced to $1,000 for the entire state.

Many people are concerned that, absent the state’s support, the resulting hole in county budgets will be filled by increased taxes on farmers who are already protecting the state’s critical resources of streams, forests and grasslands.

More likely, the virtual elimination of state support for one of California’s most cost-effective land conservation programs will force many farmers to abandon productive agricultural land and sell it to residential or commercial developers.

In response to this potential threat, I introduced SB 1142. My bill, the California Farmland Conservancy Program Act, creates a relief stream of funding for critical farm and ranchland habitats. While it does not require any additional taxes, it does establish the Farm, Ranch and Watershed Fund.

This important new fund would be managed by the state Department of Conservation, which would seek its own grants for the program. Money would come from existing bonds for soil, water and farmland conservation. Nonprofits could also be involved, via cost-sharing, in the identification of critical habitats and other joint projects.

The purpose of the new fund is to buy conservation easements on agricultural land. Those easements allow the continuation and improvement of agriculture, but keep it in its existing envelope. The easements would not affect farming practices. The goal is to protect those “nonagricultural qualities” that are “inherent to the property.” And the best way to do that is to protect farms … and farmers.

And farms are truly threatened. In Sonoma, Napa and Solano counties alone, almost 100,000 acres of farmland has been lost since 1984. The biggest loss was in grasslands, which are good for livestock, wildlife and watershed protection.

SB 1142 is good government. It gives farmers the ability to tap into an existing funding stream to protect the farms from which we all benefit. And it makes better use of tax dollars through carefully evaluated easements to protect critical habitats and watersheds.

Better yet, it gives the state the power to derive money from some non-tax sources for farm and ranch protection so that conservation is not annually subject to the state’s changing budget.

The Williamson Act may be in a state of limbo, but that’s no reason to give up on farms and ranches – not to mention farmers and ranchers – while we wait.

Patricia Wiggins represents California’s 2nd Senate District, which includes portions or all of Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, Napa, Solano and Sonoma counties.

The Konocti Fiddle Club added to the festival atmosphere at the Friday Night Farmers' Market on Friday, July 16, 2010. Photo courtesy of the Lake County Community Co-op.

CLEARLAKE – The Friday Night Farmers' Market hosted the Konocti Fiddle Club this past Friday as part of their summer series of music specials.

The market also was attended by local Chic Le Chef cuisine preparer, Esther Oertel, who was busy previewing the current harvest by the farmers for her slated demonstration next week.

Oertel, also known as the Veggie Girl, plans on giving a cooking demonstration at the market at 6 p.m. Friday, July 23, at the co-op booth after shopping with the farmers present at the market that day.

The market runs from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. through August, 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. in September and is managed by the Lake County Community Co-op as part of their commitment to strengthening the local food system in Lake County.

The Konocti Fiddle Club, featuring more than 20 youth and adult musicians, entertained and educated the large, attentive audience with various styles of music, including bluegrass, hoedowns, waltzes and jigs, as well as some fiddle history.

Various instruments were demonstrated, including the washboard, mandolin, banjo and the spoons, as well as many very well tuned and played fiddles.

Upcoming musicians at the market include Michael Barrish, Borrowed Time, Blue Collar and Without A Net.

The market, in its third year of operation, is located under the cool trees on the lakefront lawn of Redbud Park in Clearlake and features local and regional farmers, artisans and food vendors, including a new line of organic and gluten free baked goods of Sweet Freedom. Owner Lisa Rosen had an appealing variety of sweets including cheese cakes, cookies, lemon bars and brownies.

The farmers are accepting WIC and senior farmers' market vouchers distributed by the USDA and are just reaching full peak of the summer harvest season, which includes basil, tomatoes, zucchini, beans, cucumbers, watermelons, peppers, strawberries, potatoes, boysenberries, onions, cantaloupe, okra and more.

The farmers' market is part of the Lake County Community Co-op's vision for a more sustainable local food system. They collaborate with the Clear Lake Chamber of Commerce and the City of Clearlake.

For more information on the market, go to www.lakeco-op.org, or call Market Manager Hileri Shand at 707-483-0785.

Now celebrating more than two and a half years years in existence, the Lake County Community Co-op envisions cultivating an evolving community by nurturing values of social, economic and environmental responsibility.

The co-op encourages member input and participation for the continued success of its co-creation. It wishes to support local farmers and producers while providing a forum for community activities.

For more information or to become a member of the LCCC, follow the links at www.lakeco-op.org or call 707-993-4270.

Visitors to the Friday Night Farmers' Market at Redbud Park in Clearlake, Calif., can find fresh fruits, vegetables and baked goods. Photo courtesy of the Lake County Community Co-op.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Wednesday the House Agriculture Committee passed the Rural Energy Savings Program Act (H.R. 4785) to encourage energy efficiency projects in rural communities.

The bipartisan bill, introduced by House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., and Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., passed the Committee by a voice vote.

The committee approved four amendments to the original text, including a manager's amendment from Chairman Peterson and amendments from Reps. Holden, Dahlkemper, Lummis and Luetkemeyer.

“We have an opportunity to enact policy that will improve the quality of life in our rural communities as well as significantly reduce their energy bills,” said Chairman Peterson. “Rural Americans have always been committed to implementing energy conservation measures, and this program will help them continue to make important contributions to the nation's energy efficiency efforts.”

The bill authorizes the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural Utilities Service to make interest-free loans to eligible entities, including rural electric cooperatives, that will then make loans to qualified consumers to implement energy efficiency measures.

The program will provide funds to retrofit residences and small businesses with structural improvements and investments in cost-effective, commercial off-the-shelf technologies to reduce energy costs and consumption.

Consumers will repay the loans through their electricity bills at an interest rate below 3 percent.

The committee held a hearing to review H.R. 4785 on May 12.

Copies of the bill language considered by the committee and the amendments that were adopted are available on the committee's Web site at: http://agriculture.house.gov/inside/legislation.html.

SANTA ROSA – A Sonoma County organic producer is responding to statements made about it by the California Department of Agriculture.

After entering into a settlement agreement with Valley End Farm to resolve without trial some minor technical violations pertaining to the National Organic Program, the CDFA issued a press release on July 9 regarding the settlement.

The CDFA press release was issued without prior disclosure or authorization by Valley End Farm, and with incomplete information concerning the settlement, the business alleged, calling it “unprecedented” for CDFA to publicize minor technical violations in this manner, especially where the certified organic farmer is allowed to retain its organic certification and continue to operate its business.

Valley End Farm suggested that CDFA may have issued its press release regarding these minor technical violations in an apparent attempt to cover its own failures which were recently documented in a March 2010 Audit Report issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, regarding oversight of the National Organic Program to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, which administers the NOP.

In the audit report, specific findings were made that for approximately six years the CDFA had failed to implement proper state organic program approval procedures in its oversight of California organic farmers.

The audit report specifically found that CDFA’s actions in this regard “reduces NOP’s assurance that California – which had over 2,000 organic operations whose sales exceeded $1.8 billion in 2007 – was producing organically labeled products that met NOP regulatory requirements.”

The report concluded by recommending that the CDFA must “[i]mplement a time-phased action plan for the California SOP to fully comply with NOP regulations.” If it does not improve, then the USDA has been advised to “initiate appropriate enforcement actions against the California SOP.”

Valley End Farm contends that the findings in the audit report directly contradict the statements made in the press release by Rick Jensen of the CDFA that “California’s organic oversight system is the leader in protecting consumers from fraud.”

Similarly, the rest of the story regarding the minor technical violations which were settled by Valley End Farm demonstrates that CDFA did not provide the public with a full and accurate portrayal of the nature of the settlement, the company alleged.

Valley End Farm is a 70-acre farm located in Santa Rosa, Calif., which is owned and operated by a mother and her son. Valley End Farm has been certified organic since 1996. Its founder and owner, Sharon Grossi, strongly believes in the NOP, and has never done anything to intentionally mislead her customers.

Valley End Farm sells affordable organic fruits and vegetables to the local community through its community supported agriculture program. Valley End Farm also has nurtured long-term relationships with its wholesale accounts, which sell organic produce to retail consumers. The farm interacts with its customers in mutually trusting relationships.

The technical violations that occurred included Valley End Farm’s selling $600 of locally sourced special heirloom fruits to its CSA customers, through their weekly boxes of organic fruits and vegetables. The weekly box insert with recipes and emailed newsletter to CSA members regarding their weekly produce deliveries clearly distinguished the fruits from other organic items in the box as “heirloom.”

Valley End Farm was faulted for not identifying in writing that the “heirloom” fruits were not organic, although the CSA customers were orally told this information.

Valley End Farm also was faulted for using the term “transitional organic” on produce it sold from a certified transitional farm it formerly operated in Yolo County (which farm was ultimately certified organic and then sold). Technically, Valley End Farm should have identified the produce as only “transitional.”

However, Valley End Farm has proof that none of its customers were misled by its use of incorrect terminology. All of its CSA customers and its wholesale customers were provided with complete information that the Yolo County farm was not certified as organic at the time the produce was sold. Moreover, the wholesalers all sold the produce to retail consumers as “conventional” or “transitional,” and not as organic.

Valley End Farm was also faulted because at a certification inspection, the records produced did not identify all sales. This was also a technical violation. Current sales records for produce delivered by Valley End Farm were kept with the produce delivery truck until the receipt book was completed. The inspector was not aware of this practice.

Valley End Farm settled the technical violations on which it was cited because it would have been very costly for Valley End Farm to fight these violations in court. In connection with the settlement, Valley End Farm was specifically authorized by the CDFA to continue as a certified organic business.

Valley End Farm said the CDFA led it to believe that it could put these technical violations behind it, by simply paying a fine over a three and a half year year period and complying with all of the technical aspects of the NOP, which Valley End Farm fully intends to do.

The CDFA never informed Valley End Farm that it intended to publicize the settlement, which the farm said could do harm to its business, contrary to the express terms of the settlement negotiated by the CDFA.

In these tough economic times, where it is very difficult for small businesses to survive, Valley End Farm responded to the CDFA statement by saying it is “difficult to fathom” that the CDFA would be trying to harm a small business which it has authorized to continue in operation.

Valley End Farm has authorized its attorney to protest the issuance of the press release by the CDFA on these matters to the California Attorney General’s office, to the USDA and to the director of the CDFA.

Siemens 2.3 megawatt wind turbines, like this one pictured, are proposed to be installed in the Walker Ridge area bordering Lake and Colusa counties as part of one of the options for a 70 megawatt renewable energy project planned by AltaGas Income Trust of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Siemens press photo.

LAKE COUNTY – In the midst of the push for increased use of renewable energy sources, a Canadian company is proposing to build a wind farm along Walker Ridge in Lake and Colusa counties.

AltaGas Income Trust, based in Calgary, Alberta, submitted a proposal to the Bureau of Land Management on Jan. 22 for the farm, which be located within a 8,157-acre area leased by the BLM to the company, according to Rich Burns of the Ukiah BLM field office.

The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to receive a report on the project at 11 a.m. during its Tuesday meeting.

AltaGas applied for an area that covers all of Walker Ridge, from Bartlett Springs to the north, to Highway 20 in the south, with the western side stretching halfway down to the Indian Valley Reservoir and Bear Valley bordering the eastern side, Burns said. The project area follows the county line between Lake and Colusa.

Burns said a notice of intent on the project is expected to be published in the Federal Register within the next few weeks.

That will kick off the public process for developing an environmental impact statement, which will evaluate the wind farm's plan of development, Burns explained.

Burns said the plan of development hasn't yet been perfected, but will be available to the public once the Federal Register notice is published.

Watching the plan as it unfolds are groups including Tuleyome and the Sierra Club.

Tuleyome, a group formed in 2002 that seeks to protect the Putah-Cache bioregion, has voiced its concern to BLM officials over the project proposal.

Bob Schneider, Tuleyome's senior policy director, said the group is a strong supporter of renewable energy, but he told Lake County News that “renewable energy should not go everywhere and in fact we should not be destroying important ecological parts of the planet to save the planet.”

Schneider said Tuleyome is asking the BLM to withdraw Walker Ridge from consideration of all soil disturbing projects at least until detailed studies have been completed.

Speaking on behalf of the local Sierra Club, Victoria Brandon said they've been following the project for years and have a number of concerns, but are waiting until the BLM puts out the plan of development before taking a formal position.

“Of course the Sierra Club favors renewable energy in the abstract, but each project has to be assessed individually to see how green power balances against ecological damage,” Brandon said.

An overview of the project

In response to a series of questions submitted by Lake County News, AltaGas officials said the project is expected to generate up to 70 megawatts of renewable energy, which they said would supply the electricity needs of up 25,000 homes. They're actively seeking a California utility to purchase the prospective output from the project.

AltaGas reported that it is considering two options – one for 29 turbines that produce 2.3 megawatts each, and one for 42 turbines producing 1.6 megawatts each.

Julia Spiess, spokesperson for the company, said the turbines would measure 129 meters – or 423 feet from the tower base to the tips of the blades, with the distance from the bottom of the blades to the ground measuring 31 meters, or 101 feet.

The area that will be used during construction will be limited to 500 of the 8,157 acres being leased by AltaGas, the company reported. Once constructed, the wind farm facility would use 80 acres of Walker Ridge, including currently developed areas, such as roads.

An overview of the plan of development noted that it would have an underground electrical collection system and an overhead transmission line, and would feature Siemens wind turbines.

The operations and maintenance building would occupy a three-acre site at the project's southern end near Highway 20, the company reported.

Plans call for using Walker Ridge and Bartlett Springs roads for access, with Bartlett Springs Road to be expanded to 40 feet in width.

With the current road into the area only about 26 feet wide, “It's a given they're going to have to do a lot of road construction to be able to do this project,” Burns said.

AltaGas, through its division AltaGas Renewable Energy Pacific Inc., has been working on the project since 2008, when AltaGas acquired the project through the purchase of Greenwing, the previous project owner, company officials reported.

AltaGas reported that, due to its ridgetop location, AltaGas and BLM have determined Walker Ridge to be “a promising wind resource.” Another benefit, the company said, is that the area is close to power transmission lines and well advanced in the transmission queue, and won't require a new transmission line.

More than five years of wind data has been gathered from the site, and three additional meteorological towers have been gathering data since early 2009, the company told Lake County News. AltaGas said there is good demand for renewable energy from utilities and the site is located entirely on BLM-administered land.

The company added that the proposed project will help the state of California meet its Renewable Portfolio Standard program goals.

Company officials couldn't offer estimates on the project's annual estimated revenue, but said several hundred jobs are expected to be created during construction, with skilled workers and businesses in neighboring counties getting the opportunity to offer services.

Once up and running, the wind farm would likely employ between two to four full-time staff plus require additional contractors on an ongoing basis for maintenance purposes, the company said.

If the project gets the go ahead, construction could begin in April 2012, with completion expected in December 2012, the company reported.

Burns said the plan has called for preconstruction work to begin in the summer of 2011. “That's overly optimistic, I think,” he said, adding that the environmental impact study will ultimately determine the project's timeline.

Starting in the 1990s several companies considered the area for wind generation, Burns said. Enron was involved at one point, as were GE Wind and then Greenwing, the predecessor to AltaGas.

When the BLM did its resource management plan – BLM documents show a final record of decision approving the plan was signed in September 2006 – part of the work was contracted out to the US Department of Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which Burns said looked at areas that were believed to have good wind resource levels.

“Even though there wasn't a whole lot of information about it at the time, the Walker Ridge area was an area that looked like it had potential for wind energy development,” he said.

Burns said there are numerous potential impacts to consider, from soil to mercury to water quality, as well as how it will affect recreation and health and safety, since the area won't be closed to the public.

The turbines likely won't be located in the 14,500-acre area which was burned in 2008's Walker Fire, although a transmission line might, Burns said. He said the fire didn't do longterm damage to the area, where a lot of vegetation already is coming back.

He said BLM has met with several tribal and environmental groups and other interested parties about the project.

Meanwhile, he said AltaGas continues a number of studies, including botanical, cultural and biological.

One concern is for the raptor species in the area, including bald and golden eagles. Burns said US Fish and Wildlife has established guidelines for wind turbines and farms with respect to raptor species, and BLM will follow those guidelines.

Nests currently are being monitored, and turbines must be located at least two miles away, he said.

He added that it isn't yet certain how the project might impact the raptors.

“Fish and Wildlife is going to have a significant role when it comes to raptor species,” especially with respect to the eagles and the regulations protecting them, Burns said.

A map of the proposed project area along Walker Ridge on the board of Lake and Colusa counties, with wind turbine locations noted. This map is included in a plan of development produced by AltaGas Income Trust of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Supporting a 'conservative approach'

Schneider and Tuleyome have pointed out a number of reasons for not allowing the project to move beyond the proposal stage.

“It's a hard one because everyone likes renewable energy,” Schneider said.

He said the California Native Plant Society petitioned the BLM in 2005 to make the entire Walker Ridge region – a total of about 14,000 acres – an “area of critical environmental concern.”

He said the area has a high amount of serpentine soils and rock with a potentially high mercury content. Special, rare types of plants grow in those serpentine soils, Schneider said.

The project would require “substantial” soil disturbance, specifically for widening roads and for building the 52 feet by 10 feet deep foundations needed for the massive turbines, he said.

Schneider said that soil disturbance is a concern particularly because one half of all of the mercury that enters the Sacramento River system comes from the Cache Creek watershed.

“For us it's a public health issue,” he said.

He added, “We strongly support that the BLM is presently spending millions of dollars on toxic mercury clean up on Walker Ridge, but think it risky to the agency and the taxpayers to risk exacerbating this issue with this project that has a high risk potential with very marginal gain at best.”

Schneider said that Tuleyome believes that the BLM should take “a very conservative approach,” consult with the US Geological Survey on the project and complete the necessary studies before moving forward on any major soil disturbing proposals.

There also are concerns about ridgetop removal, soil stability and having enough time to do a thorough biological study, which Schneider said could take at least three years to complete.

Brandon, noting that the Sierra Club's Redwood Chapter is taking the lead on following the project, said their questions are similar to those of Tuleyome – including impacts on birds, rare plants and bats, as well as unstable geology, disturbance of serpentine soil and the possibility of increasing airborne mercury and asbestos in two watersheds, the north fork of Cache Creek and Bear Creek, that already are impaired.

“On the other hand the wind resource seems marginal, as evidenced by the number of companies that have considered similar projects in the location but decided 'no thanks' in the end,” she said.

Brandon suggested that without federal subsidies there's no way the wind farm project would pencil out.

If the money were invested in other ways – such as subsidizing insulation and weatherstripping – the reduction in fossil fuel consumption would be a lot more dramatic, she said.

Beyond those concerns, Schneider brought up others. He said in Altamont sparks are thrown off the wind turbine blades, causing wildfires. “That would really be a bad idea on Walker Ridge,” he said.

Schneider credited the BLM with being transparent and responsive. “I think they understand our concerns.”

However, once the federal National Environmental Policy Act process gets started there will no longer be transparency, said Schneider.

At that point AltaGas will hire a consultant, with a confidentiality agreement covering that relationship. He said Tuleyome wants a third party entity, such as the US Geological Survey, to provide the necessary information to help the government and public make good decisions.

“It's an ecological treasure up there and it's a potential public health issue,” said Schneider. “We need an open transparent process.”

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews and on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf .