U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) will introduce legislation today that will establish a national monument along Route 66 from Needles to Ludlow, Calif., reported the Los Angeles Times.
It would be called the Mojave Trails National Monument, instead of the Mother Road National Monument that was proposed earlier. It would prohibit development along 941,000 acres of railroad land and federal land along the Route 66 corridor there.
Feinstein hopes to have the legislation enacted by late 2010.
“This magnificent land and its lonely beauty are a significant part of our history, and we shouldn’t give it up,” Feinstein said, adding that private donors helped acquire the former railroad parcels “with the belief they would be protected from development. We have an obligation to keep them that way.” […]
At least 19 renewable-energy projects have been suggested within the boundaries of the proposed Mojave Trails monument, according to Feinstein, who has discussed her concerns with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.
Feinstein’s legislation would assist companies with projects currently proposed inside monument boundaries in relocating to federal energy zones being developed elsewhere. It would also permit construction of transmission lines within existing utility rights of way to facilitate the transfer of renewable energy generated in the Southern California desert and adjacent states. […]
James Conkle, founder of the Route 66 Alliance, which seeks to protect the historic route linking Chicago with Southern California, said the bill would “open up the desert to more travelers, sparking interest in fascinating, out-of-the-way places like Ludlow, Amboy and Essex.”
I have a more mixed reaction to the legislation. First, shutting off a major potential source of solar energy for America’s future needs is short-sighted. Secondly, the report says legislation would bar any new development along the corridor from Ludlow to Needles. That means even a great Route 66-related business (such as POPS, for example) would be prevented from building along that historic stretch.
I agree that the Mojave Desert and Route 66 need to be protected in some fashion. However, one also has to balance Route 66’s preservation with the need for economic development and tourism that helps keeps the old road alive. It’s questionable whether this proposal addresses that crucial latter need.
I’ll update this story later as more information develops.
UPDATE: I received a copy of the proposed legislation from a reader, and a few things in it stick out:
- The proposal would not affect existing property owners in the proposed Mojave Trails National Monument area. So, if Albert Okura wants to renovate the motel buildings or add other enterprises to his property in Amboy, he can. If the owner of Chambless wants to do something with his property, he can.
- The legislation generally prohibits new commercial enterprises within the monument boundaries. However, it allows for “authorized exceptions” for a business “that furthers” the purpose of the monument. So there is wiggle room for creating tourism-related businesses.
- The monument specifies the construction of a visitors center, which would undoubtedly help draw more tourists and help them understand Route 66 in that area better.
You can peruse the 178-page Acrobat document here; much of it deals with other aspects not related to the Mojave Trails National Monument. If you see anything else of interest with Route 66, chime in with the comments below.
At first glance, the proposed legislation isn’t perfect, but it’s not terrible, either. On the plus side, it does allow existing Route 66 businesses to continue what they’re doing, and such a national monument will bring more travelers to that part of Route 66. On the minus, it’s a more onerous to new Route 66 entrepreneurs than I would like, although the bill wouldn’t prohibit them entirely. And I hope that the government doesn’t rue the day of removing nearly 1 million acres from potential solar-energy use.
UPDATE2: The Redlands (Calif.) Daily Facts has a good overview about the proposed legislation. So does the Wall Street Journal.
UPDATE3: The New York Times also dives into the issues about the proposal.
I started to pen a couple of page response to this, but I think you pretty much covered it Ron!
Well, good. I was hoping it sounded lucid enough before the caffeine kicked in.
Listen, I’m as big of a fan of national parks and untouched wilderness as anyone. However, I am also a pragmatist who thinks that Route 66 could be missing out on a potentially big source of revenue and development along a stretch that desperately needs it.
Ron,
This bill will NOT prevent new or old business along Route 66 from opening up, in fact it will encourage it. It is to protect the road from heavy truck traffic which would other wise happen and its ‘view scape’ from becoming a sea of solar/wind installations.
This bill will also support the energy industries use of the area, another industry I not only support but am active in.
Being I have been very much involved in this bill for over two years and spending a lot of time working with all the stake holders, Senator Feinstein and her staff have done an excellent job on the finished proposal. And as all bills go thu the process there will be a number of changes before it becomes law. The senator has asked me to stay involved to assure our concerns are kept in the bill.
I will keep you posted on future develpments
As I noted in our previous discsussions Ron, I tend to agree with you. The devil is as always in the details. It’s great that legislation protecting 66 is including. It’s horrible to think that the this legislation is not available for review. Anyone seen it yet? I still have not either.
A description of the bill has been posted at:
https://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2009/12/senator-feinstein-offers-legislation-protect-desertscape-and-around-death-valley-joshua-tree-nationa5119
Copies of the bill are not allowed to be passed on till given approval from the senator’s staff or it is introduced. Also there were so many drafts of the bill that if made public would only confuse people.
Once the bill is introduced there will be ‘town hall meetings’ that each of the stake holders will be involved in. Plus a few trips to DC to work out details and do some lobbying for the bill.
The finished product has come along way since it started out as The Mother Road National Monument bill over a year ago.
The bill was introduced on Monday, December 21, 2009. The bill number is 2921.
I received my copy from the Senator’s office on the 21st. and shared it with Ron. Ron please feel free to post the link.
Warning: It’s loooong.
The link is already on there, Helen.
To Jim — legal-ese usually confuses people, Jim. That’s why it’s written that way! By the way, is there any way you can add me to a mailing list to take part in efforts in California? It seems I’m never contacted on any project when my knowledge could go a long way to support efforts in our state.
Seriously, I maintain that the devil is in the details. Hopefully this weekend I will have the opportunity to read the entire bill and will only then be able to provide my feedback regarding its effectiveness and worth. (Thank you to everyone who posted full links, and to Debra Hodkin who emailed it to me.)
My two cents (disclosure: I have property down in that area and plan to retire in the Mojave one of these years) — what I’m not seeing from the large-scale would-be solar or wind developers is any acknowledgment that smaller scale, neighborhood-level projects might be better in many/most cases than remote large-scale projects (e.g. the neighborhood-level generation development going on as we speak at the 29 Palms Marine base). Also, I don’t see any effort on the part of developers to make full use of desert areas already inhabited or industrialized (e.g. the corridor of BLM land along 395 south of Kramer’s Junction) instead of just blazing new trail through virgin, or near-virgin desert. I just don’t see ANY evidence of good-faith prudence in the project proposals. I also don’t see any consortium efforts from local governments or utilities that aren’t motivated solely by greed. (Disclaimer #2: I’m a center/right mostly-Republican with some Libertarian leanings; I have no problem with projects-for-profit so long as they’re not accompanied by people making dirt-stupid, destructive decisions.) Maybe we should restrict desert solar and wind development solely to not-for-profit utilities owned by California residents <==NOT KIDDING.
Kell,
You have hit the bulls eye with your questions. It is going to be the transmission lines that add the most cost to these projects. So why not eliminate them by installing the wind/solar right at the site where it is going to go in the first place? Did not all homes used to have an ‘outhouse’ in the back yard? And a ‘well’ to draw water from? Could not every home and building have their own solar panels on the roof or if space allowed somewhere on the property? The answers to these questions is YES.
I have a number of concerns about the use of large areas in the desert, or anywhere else for that matter, for the installation of these ‘farms’ as they are called; the cost, the damage to existing roads-infracture, the fact that there are no plans on reducing the cost to the consumer from the use of these projects, the old ‘Not in my back yard’ mentality,
Sorry folks my computer sent this before I was finished.
Spell check missed the word ‘infrastructure’.
Also I had more to add but will do so later.
Jim … awaiting more since you comment of 1/26. Also, all homes used to be without electricity, too. Maybe that’s the best solution.
And there was also a time without cars. Is that worth revisiting? How about not even having tamed horses to travel on? You commentary of what life used to be is not really relevant in terms of the vast timeframe of humanity.
All
Interesting discussion on this complex bill. As an off-roader I am supporting it due to many historic concessions to off-road travel, which is included for the first time in a National Monument (and other areas) as a form of recreation recognized by law. Senator Feinstein seems committed to keeping solar and wind projects out of the monument area. I invite anyone who is interested to the Friends of Mojave Trails Group website on WordPress. We have the bill available, links to leave messages with Senator Feinstein and the Natural Resources Committee (who currently have the bill) as well as our take on the bill. Hope you will join us!