Mechoopda Casino Projects:
Bad Location with Dangerous Consequences

Aerial view of current habitat and land use with the proposed site of the casino superimposed. (Click to view larger image)

Why are the Mechoopda people proposing a casino in the middle of grazing land off Highway 149? Location. The investors in the casino project who have a troubled past (Enterprise Record March 29, 2005), have made it clear to the Mechoopda and BEC that that it is their preferred location even though it is fraught with serious and significant impacts that could alter the middle of Butte County forever. Fortunately, BEC was not the only group to point out the serious consequences of this scheme through comments on the Environmental Assessment (EA) that was prepared for the casino (future plans for expansion beyond a casino were not addressed though this is legally required).

Concerns Raised by Butte County, January 26, 2004:

1. The casino and parking lot (and future expansion projects) (Casino Projects) are not consistent with the Butte County General Plan and zoning.

2. The Casino Projects did not adequately assess endangered species in the EA.

3. The Casino Projects have the potential to lead to cumulative impacts by converting agricultural land to a “highly intensive commercial use” and creating growth inducing impacts that could lead to development pressure in the communities of Durham and Dayton as well as “discontinuous patterns of urban development and significant impacts to the agricultural resources of the County.”

4. The EA contains “NO mitigation measures” (emphasis in the original) for traffic or transportation impacts.

5. The Casino Projects raise deep concerns regarding flooding, hydrology, and wastewater impacts.

6. “…the EA estimates thirty-one (31) fire related incidents annually. The EA does not present any empirical analysis to support this estimate. Based upon known incident loads from two existing tribal casinos in operation in Butte County, this figure appears to be significantly underestimated. There is not a fire station close enough to realistically provide the medical or fire services needed in a time of critical life-threatening emergency.”

Concerns Raised by the City of Chico, April 19, 2004:

1. The City of Chico would be impacted by approximately 1,300 to 1,880 additional vehicle trips per day and suggest that the EA provide a much more accurate analysis of the expected traffic impacts by reviewing the actual changes that have occurred with existing northstate casinos.

2. The Casino Projects have not adequately analyzed the air quality impacts and should actually prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to provide a more in-depth review.

3. “There is no water service for the proposed casino site… The proposed well is in a FEMA-designated floodplain, and the interaction between surface and groundwater at this location is unclear. This is especially important as year-round groundwater pumping in an area that exhibits a strong groundwater/surface water interface could result in significant impacts to riparian habitat downstream along Dry Creek, as well as the fragile vernal pool complexes located adjacent to the proposed project site.” The pumping could also adversely affect flows to Dry Creek, a tributary of Butte Creek where millions of public dollars have been invested to restore its native fish population.

4. The visual impact analysis is inadequate. “The fact that a 41,600 square-foot casino building with signage and a 288,500 square-foot parking lot filled with lights will be placed on a [sic] undeveloped rural setting adjacent to a highly traveled highway that connects SR 99 and SR 70 is itself noteworthy evidence of a substantial change to visual resources.”

5. An Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared.

We are so pleased that local government entities have taken such a responsible role in commenting on the Casino Projects, however, the County has withdrawn its objections after private meetings with the proponents. A July 23, 2004 letter refers to a Memorandum of Understanding where the Mechoopda have agreed to mitigate for all of their impacts, an impossibility with this site in the middle of grazing land and a hydrologically sensitive area. Money doesn’t cover everything. In an attempt to avoid a legal confrontation over the many issues mentioned above, BEC has organized many meetings with the tribe to discuss other possible locations, but the tribe has declined to continue the conversation. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has recently stated that additional environmental review is required for this project, so hopefully an Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared for additional public review.

This article originally appeared in Summer/Fall 2005 Environmental News.