Consideration of MH in the Environmental Impact Report
The more I read and understand this 2002 environmental impact report, the more disappointed I become in the processes which pass for protection of our citizens and environment in this state.
Consider the inclusion of issues relating to Mountain House in the report. It doesn’t take long to find a pattern: Whenever it was advantageous for Calpine’s interests to include Mountain House in their analysis, they included it. Whenever it was inconvenient to Calpine’s interests to include Mountain House in their analysis, they pretended it didn’t exist.
Let’s take a look at two of the different sections of the report. The first being the issues surrounding the use of water, the second being the issues surrounding public health risk. Let’s compare the “Setting” sections present in both reports.
Water and Soil Usage: “The proposed site is located approximately 8 miles northwest of the City of Tracy, 12 miles east of Livermore, 5 miles south of Byron, and less than 1 mile from the Mountain House community, a new town starting Phase I construction.”
Public Health Risk: “This site is approximately 8 miles northwest of the City of Tracy, 12 miles east of Livermore, 5 miles south of Byron, and less than 1 mile from the San Joaquin County border (EAEC 2001a, pages 8.6-1 and 12-1).”
Notice anything different? We exist as long as they want to use our water, and don’t exist when they have to evaluate our health risk.
Taken out of context? Not in the slightest. The phrase “Mountain House community” or MHCSD appears in the Water and Soil Resources 102 times, all in reference to our community supplying them with water. In the context of public health risk, our community is referred to, well, actually never. Not a single time. The phrase “Mountain House” appears once, but it is in reference to the Lammersville Elementary school, not our community.
That the rank hypocrisy in trying to “have it both ways” is outrageous and offensive goes without saying. This will not stand.