Supervisors’ Discussion: the Sierra Nevada Conservancy and Prop 84 funds

On 7/23/13 the Sierra Nevada Conservancy made a presentation to the Amador County Board of Supervisors. I made the following public comment:

"We are all forced to make decisions within constrained “black boxes” that we did not create and often don’t like.  Therefore, I do not oppose applications for Prop 84 funds. If money is available we should take it. However, I have read the Prop 84 grant history, the material from the Sierra Nevada Conservancy and their allied organizations and wish to make several comments.

All of these documents and projects are to protect watershed, but there is not one mention that watersheds are threatened because the water remains in the overgrown forest canopy and evaporates before it can reach the ground. There is also no mention of reducing overgrown forests through increased logging, which would produce profits rather than subsidy. The Sierra Nevada Conservancy values forests for carbon capture, accepting the fraud of CO2 induced climate change. Today that increased carbon is making deserts bloom around the world. Also the Sierra Nevada Conservancy initiates, encourages and supports efforts that improve, among other things, the social well being of the Sierra Nevada Region.  This is a radically new concept of government responsibility and I wonder about its origin and purpose. There is also troubling god like desires to micro manage nature and other areas of endeavor partly expressed in the inordinate expenditures for studies. The website of the Central Sierra Resource Conservation & Development Area informed me that the ancestry of 46% of the white population of this area is of English, German and Irish origin. That may make a great freshman Sociology term paper, but it seems hard to justify as an expense of over indebted government.

None of what I’ve said is meant to abrogate, among the many millions of dollars and hundred plus projects, the value of some projects such as firebreaks. But can’t existing parts of government do this? How many agencies do we need? Many of the Prop 84 monies have been appropriated to other parts of government such as UC Berkeley, the US Forest Service and to state parks which we know have hidden funds elsewhere.  This process where one government entity appropriates money to another government entity can only lead to government by connivers.  I much prefer the transparent process where the actual appropriations to education, or parks, or forests or whatever are discussed openly. This process also funds unelected bodies like the Association of Bay Area Governments which appears to be usurping local governmental authority with its One Bay Area Plan. Also funded, and among the various stakeholders, are ideological advocacy groups.

Prop 84 has devoted a huge amount of funds to land trusts and easements of various sorts. All these schemes have taken land from private ownership and preclude future subdivision and private ownership. This reverts to the aristocratic land tenure system of the Middle Ages. I find little difference between the omnipotent aristocrats of the past and the replacement omnipotent bureaucrats of today.

The entire American dream of land ownership is being assaulted. The Mokelumne/Amador/Calaveras Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update, Community Outreach Plan contains appropriate wording protecting economically disadvantaged individuals from changes their plan may create. And while certainly there are some individuals to old or disabled to care for themselves, the vast majority of low income people are best served by plans that make economic growth the priority.”

Copyright 2013 © by Mark Bennett.