Major concerns associated with the Draft EIS are outlined below:
Odour coming from the wells and failure to perform an odour analysis.
The effect of the project on recreation.
Inadequate screening of project impacts.
Inadequate air quality analysis.
Inaccuracy of information regarding wildlife species, particularly the Owens tui chub and mule deer.
Inadequate explanation of the project’s contribution to habitat fragmentation.
Inadequate analysis and mitigation on thermal water resources, groundwater resources, and surface water quality.
No identification of impacts to the fish hatchery and hot springs.
Little analysis of effects on both winter and summer recreation.
Inadequate analysis of noise impacts.
The project must communicate with Native American tribes in the area on an long-term basis, not just to adhere to the requirements of the EIS process.
One letter claimed that the proponent had a long track record of unauthorized release above permit threshold levels.
Another letter said that it has long been known that the mitigation measures under the CEQA either fail or are not implemented, with no consequences to the permit-holder.
In general, groundwater and air pollution were the largest worries. There was a lack of sampling data for geothermal water in the Mammoth Lakes area, and the Draft EIS failed to provide information about the project’s potential impacts on the coldwater aquifer system used by MCWD. The project would likely reduce levels in the geothermal system, reducing groundwater supply to the MCWD.
In 2014, the MCWD sued the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District because they felt that the project could harm the town’s water supply, and this had not been adequately addressed in the final EIS. This was particularly controversial because MCWD spent taxpayer dollars on the litigation, which they eventually lost.