Environment

GIS Program

The Pala EPA Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Program plays an increasingly important role in data management, decision making and problem solving for the Tribe. Our GIS program uses a combination of aerial photography, Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and sophisticated computer software to create and maintain spatial data and produce highly technical maps in support of EPA programs as well as other tribal departments. Currently we maintain up-to-date maps of the reservation boundary, roads, sewer and water systems and commercial operations, as well as current and historic aerial imagery.

Pesticide Program

The Pala EPA Pesticide Program consists of a Pesticide Voluntary Plan, which monitors pesticide usage for compliance under the FIFRA (Federal Insecticide Fungicide Rodenticide Act), an Integrated Pest Management Program (IPM) at the Pala Child Care. The facility utilizes IPM practices in managing pest problems instead of using toxic pesticides that could be harmful to children. Education and outreach on pesticides to the community is done via mail outs and flyers, which include Pesticide Assistance to residents on pest problems, an Earth Day presentation at the Vivian Banks School, and hosting Pesticide and IPM workshops.

Air Program

The Pala Air Program's goal is to monitor and assess the quality of air on and nearby the Reservation and to regulate potential air pollutant sources. Toxic air pollutants are considered to be substances in the air that are hazardous to humans. Our program has successfully monitored air pollutants and weather conditions over the last 8 years. We have put into place a new air pad with state-of-the-art equipment for monitoring and are continuing to expand the program in order to monitor dangerous air pollutants on the Reservation.

Water Program

The Water program monitors water quality on the Reservation, including Pala's drinking water, to be sure it meets all Federal EPA requirements. The water program has three components: The Clean Water Act (Section 106), The Clean Water Act (Section 319) and Source Water Assessment Planning (SWAP). Both Clean Water Acts fund monitoring efforts to reduce pollution, including on-the-ground projects such as junkcar and tire removal. SWAP is used to help identify contaminant sources on the Reservation, especially in drinking water.

Gregory Canyon

1985
County retained Edarra Group to prepare North County Landfill Siting Study.

1986
Edarra Group identifies 18 sites, which were narrowed to six by Citizens' Task Force. Gregory Canyon was not included. Edarra Group conducts Phase II study of six sites. Citizen Task Force selects three. Gregory Canyon not included.

1987
Board of Supervisors hires SCS Engineers for Expanded North County Landfill Siting Study. (Grand Jury could not determine why new study mounted at cost of $100,000).

1988
Archaeologist's report rates Gregory Canyon site may have major constraints as it abuts Gregory Mountain, which had been identified as a sacred mountain by the Pala Band of Mission Indians.

SCS completes report reviewing 168 sites, including Gregory Canyon, which it eliminates in the first round due to insufficient capacity. Study narrowed to six sites and then three sites.

David Lowry, part owner of Gregory Canyon site, reveals that Waste Management Inc. is now involved in Gregory Canyon site.

Board of Supervisors approves CAO to proceed with further studies of the three sites: Blue Canyon, Trujillo Canyon and Aspen Road.

David Lowry formally requested Gregory Canyon site to be added to county study at his expense.

Board of Supervisors approves adding Gregory Canyon to site study.

1989
SCS determines that using evaluation of an additional site using the criteria developed during the Expanded North County Landfill Study that Gregory Canyon would be in the bottom third of sites reviewed without using a negative cultural finding.

A memorandum of understanding (MOU) is signed by Lowry and Waste Management Inc.

Board of Supervisors request Regional Water Quality Control Board opinion on possible water quality issues at the Gregory Canyon site.

Board of Supervisors authorizes EIRs on Trujillo Blue and Aspen Road.

Board of Supervisors vote to all use of Lowry/WMI funds to pay all costs of additional EIR on Gregory Canyon.

1990
County staff conducts first review of Gregory Canyon and concludes, " Staff cannot support the placement of a landfill at Gregory Canyon " for ethnographic/archaeological impacts.

Department of Planning and Land Use (DPLU) formally recommends that Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors find that Gregory Canyon landfill has significant and unmitigable impacts of cultural, Native American, visual, land use, noise and biological resources as well as significant and unmitigable cumulative impacts on habitat loss, land use, and noise.

County Grand Jury recommends that Board of Supervisors reject the original three sites and (a) specifically reject the selection of the Gregory Canyon site. In addition they recommend the Board of Supervisors (b) authorize an additional site study to find sites not near or adjacent to major groundwater resources and (c) make the search a priority.

Butler Roach Group doing study of three sites determines Gregory Canyon would have a 14-year life span.

1991
County staff rejects bid by Waste Management Inc. to own and operate Gregory Canyon landfill site.

CAO and Board of Supervisors vote to do a redefined landfill siting study of approximately 20 sites and an additional study of Aspen Road and Gregory Canyon.

WMI withdraws its application for Gregory Canyon Landfill after CAO states that it would not enter into a joint venture with WMI to operate Gregory Canyon.

Board of Supervisors requests District Attorney investigate WMI on various issues including Gregory Canyon.

1992
Board of Supervisors accepts Butler Road Group's report on 16 additional sites.

District Attorney's final report issued finding: " Our examination of the circumstances and timing of David Lowry's efforts to acquire property in the Gregory Canyon area indicates a possible conflict of interest. " Report also stated: " Lowry and representatives have been actively involved in lobbying members of the Board of Supervisors and others in county government for support of the Gregory Canyon project, including a donation of $50,000 to Sail San Diego, which was headed by Supervisor Brian Bilbray, and of which David Lowry was a participant. At the meeting where the donation was reportedly requested by Supervisor Bilbray, the project manager for WMI, Mr. David Ross, reportedly stated that 'the privatization of landfills and the development of Gregory Canyon' were also discussed. " Report concluded that: " When viewed in the context of their established history of business practice, it is clear that WMI management engages in practices designed to gain undue influence over government officials...This kind of practice appears to be Waste Management's primary reason for their $50,000 contribution to financially troubled Sail San Diego. " Of an article written by the Vice President of Research of the Reason Foundation that was printed in the San Diego Union-Tribune the District Attorney report stated: " This use of the media is an example of a method used by WMI to gain public approval of its enterprises and bring pressure against public officials. "

Board of Supervisors orders not to proceed with additional studies on Aspen Road and Gregory Canyon, but to continue with Merriam Mountain and Gopher Canyon, Merriam Mountain South, Aspen Road and Gregory Canyon.

County adopts County Policy A-116 committing to county ownership of landfills.

1994
Wesley Peltzer files notice with Registrar of Voters for Prop. C " Recycling and Solid Waste Disposal Initiative on behalf of Citizens for Environmental Solutions. " Board of Supervisors votes to place Gregory Canyon Landfill Initiative on the Nov. 8, 1994 ballot.

County Counsel advises Board of Supervisors that certain sections of Prop. C appear to violate several sections of state and federal law.

CAO reports the 1990 draft EIR did NOT conclude that a landfill could be operated at the Gregory Canyon site " consistent with all federal and state regulations governing landfill operation. " He further reported that " Furthermore, if an environmental review on either the implementation of the initiative or the required permits, such as grading, found significant unmitigable impacts, the Board of Supervisors might be forced to make overriding considerations. "

Prop C passed. Proponents had spent more than $900,000 all donations with the exception of $100 being made by the shareholders of Gregory Canyon Ltd. The initiative eliminates the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors from reviewing the permits for Gregory Canyon Landfill and places the sole responsibility on the director of the Department of Environmental Health as the lead enforcement agency.

1995
Board of Supervisors approves preparation of EIR at expense of project proponents.

1996
County adopts siting element with new landfill evaluation criteria as required by state law. Gregory Canyon included due to Prop. C but not analyzed with respect to new criteria.

1999
EIR circulated for public comment by Department of Environmental Health (not the County of San Diego) for public comment.

EIR not certified by DEH after receiving considerable public comments.

New Revised EIR released for comment by DEH.

DEH finds portions for the revised EIR defective and requires those portions be re-irculated.

2001
DEH begins review of a separate " benefits analysis " for the Gregory Canyon project.

This section of the EIR had been removed from the last EIR at the request of the proponent, thus removing it from public comment. Due to the " Significant and Unmitigable " findings, a finding of overriding public benefits must be made to allow the project to proceed. This " benefits analysis " is the basis for such a finding. This document is withheld when a copy is requested by RiverWatch.

2003
Staff report on the draft EIR and partial recirculated EIR is sent to Gary Erbeck with recommendation to certify the EIR.

Approximately 18 months after the close of the comment period, Gary Erbeck, director of DEH, certified the final Environmental Impact Report consisting of the Jan. 28, 1999 Draft EIR, the Dec. 9, 1999 revised draft EIR and the May 25, 2000 revised partial draft EIR. In accordance with the staff report the final EIR finds that there are five areas in which the project will cause significant impacts that cannot be mitigated. " Those impacts are Traffic and Circulation, Noise and Vibration, Air Quality, Ethno History and Native American Interests and Aesthetics. "

A new " benefits analysis " is prepared by the proponent and forwarded to Department of Environmental Health. This document is also withheld from the public. A finding of overriding public benefit is being considered by Gary Erbeck on the basis of this document.

The citizens group RiverWatch engages an attorney to address the withholding of the " benefits analysis " and County Counsel reversed his previous instruction and instructs release of this document to RiverWatch.

RiverWatch and the Pala Band of Mission Indians announce effort to collect signatures for petition drive to overturn Prop C, the Gregory Canyon Landfill Initiative.

2004
RiverWatch and Pala Band of Mission Indians collect more than 100,000 signatures on initiative to repeal Prop C.

RiverWatch and Pala Band of Mission Indians present to the county Registrar of Voters petitions signed by more than 100,000 San Diegans.

Registrar of Voters certifies that more than 82,000 of the submitted signatures are valid.

Board of Supervisors votes unanimously to seek an economic review with the intent of placing the citizens initiative on the November general election ballot.

That November Proposition B, THE INITIATIVE OR ENHANCED TO REPEAL THE GREGORY CANYON LANDFILL AND RECYCLING COLLECTION CENTER ORDINANCE, did not pass. Many people from the county that oppose landfill voted the wrong way. We had to vote yes to mean no and no to mean yes.

The California Integrated Waste Management Board narrowly approved a solid waste permit for Gregory Canyon. Without a majority support from the Integrated Waste Board, the permit was passed by default. There is litigation currently pending.

2005
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region staff conducted a public workshop on May 19, 2005 at the Escondido City Council Chambers. There were approximately 150 people in attendance, to give public testimony. The Pala Tribe and the City of Oceanside hired the Stetson Engineering Firm to review the Joint Technical Document submitted by Gregory Canyon landfill. Our findings found numerous flaws, deleted information, and a lack of information regarding the JTD. We have submitted our findings to the regional water staff. The city of Oceanside, also hired a geologist and a chemist to review the JTD, also they found flaws in the report.

The Air Pollution Control District, has canceled Gregory Canyon Ltd.'s application because it was incomplete for over a year. The applicant will have to deposit more money with APCD and reapply with a new application.

The Army Corps of Engineers is currently reviewing Gregory Canyon Ltd.'s 404 Permit.

We believe the water that flows down through Gregory Canyon into the San Luis Rey River is the water of the United States.