Not long after moving here, I became aware that local
politics was the biggest intramural sport in the County. This year is no
exception. Dropped near my doorstep was some campaign literature from Michael
Spence. While this is all to the good, and door-to-door campaigning - the well
spring of democracy - there was one problem. I live in a different Supervisorial
district.
Sadly, there have been reports of campaign sign vandalism.
If the vandals think that they are attacking just a candidate, and are not
attacking free democratic expression, may God have mercy on their souls, for I
have none.
One of our most polarizing issues is SB 1199 recently
introduced into the State Senate by Senator Loni Hancock, who represents Oakland
and Berkeley . This bill would
designate part of the Mokelumne River Amador County
This designation will restrict property rights, negatively
affect local businesses and prevent future gold mining, hydroelectric
development or other uses. It will probably even require water discharges in
drought years to maintain the river’s so-called "wild" designation. Will the
white water rafters have greater rights than farmers and households? If the
poor have no water to drink, will the environmental Marie Antoinettes say: "Let them drink soda?"
The easiest way to voice your objection is to go to the
email form on the State Senators’ websites which can be quickly found from the
California State Senate home page. You can simply state: “I am an Amador (or Calaveras) County resident. and I am against
designating any part of the Mokelumne
River
Please send an email to the bill’s sponsor, Loni Hancock,
and to our State Senator, Tom Berryhill, and to all the members of the Senate
Committee on Natural Resources and Water which is now considering this bill.
They are: Senator Fran Pavley (Chair), Senator Anthony Cannella (Vice Chair),
Senator Noreen Evans, Senator Jean Fuller, Senator Ben Hueso, Senator
Hannah-Beth Jackson, Senator Ricardo Lara, Senator Bill Monning, and Senator
Lois Wolk. Their email forms, phone numbers and mailing addresses are available
on the State Senate website. You may also want to contact our State Assembly
Member Frank Bigelow.
Mark Bennett
This is factually wrong and misleading. First, state Wild and Scenic designation does not affect property rights. People can continue to use their property in all ways allowed by existing law, including gold mining. In a drought year, the state already requires that enough water be allowed to flow down the river to maintain the fishery and other public trust values of the river. Wild and Scenic designation will not affect that. And in all cases, consumptive uses of water come before other uses. State wild and scenic designation won't lead to federal designation because the state and federal laws are so very different that the Secretary of Interior couldn't make the required finding that the river would get as much protection as it would if designated a federal river through legislation. The state Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was amended in 1982 with that in mind. Local businesses will not be harmed by Wild and Scenic designation. In fact, the designation can be a powerful tool in marketing our area and our river to tourists. That's why more than 130 small businesses in Amador and Calaveras counties support the designation. More are signing on every day now. If you want a river in your future, this is they way you get one. If you want more dams on the river regardless of what it does to water quality, wildlife, fisheries, property values, property (agencies condemn property for dams), or the economy, that's another story. But if you want to be able to take your great-grandchildren to see what a river is, and touch the flowing water and catch their first fish, you should support state Wild and Scenic designation of the Moke along with more than 12,000 people who already do.
ReplyDeleteThe 4th paragraph of this Mark Bennett post is pure mendacity and misinformation. The only thing that SB 1199 does is to prohibit construction of new dams and diversions on the designated section of the Mokelumne River. This legislation has no impact whatsoever on private property rights or existing water rights. In terms of gold mining, mechanized suction dredging is already prohibited statewide under a state law passed back in 2009, although gold panning is not affected nor by SB 1199. Also, there are already other existing rivers already in the state wild and scenic system that have upstream dams, such as the lower American, the South Yuba and McCloud Rivers. Unless the opponents of SB 1199 are planning to build some new dam on the designated segment of the Mokelumne, there is no rational basis for inflammatory irresponsible claims made by Mr. Bennett, who "doth protest too much, methinks."
ReplyDeleteBennett hit the nail on the head. Don't think for a moment that declaring the river as "Wild and Scenic" will not result in negative consequences down the road. This bill is an end run around local Amador County government and our locally elected supervisors and water board members who have repeatedly voted no to the idea. The sponsor of the bill Loni Hancock, one of the most liberal state senators, is using the "gut and amend" process to push the bill through in a hurry with little time allowed for debate. Look up "gut and amend" if you're not sure how the process works.The committee meets on the 29th. Due to the fact that EBMUD gets its water out of the river, Hancock claims she has jurisdiction rather than our own elected state representatives who repeatedly oppose the designation over a portion of the river in their districts.
ReplyDeleteThe supporters keep talking about a wonderful "tourist economy" for Amador County. However, a tourist economy means fun for the tourists at the expense of minimum wage jobs for the local residents. Even the rafting jobs would mostly be seasonal and minimum wage. The only reason there is water in the river from summer to early fall is because of the dams built upstream years ago. If they really want to go "wild and scenic" then remove all the dams. Of course, rafting in the winter isn't necessarily fun, and I'm sure Hancock and friends would like something to drink and bathe in during the summer.
Regulation begats regulation. Despite what supporters claim private land owners, people with septic tanks uphill from the river, cattle grazers, etc. should be very wary. Once legislation like this is passed then other things magically come out of the woodwork. In the last few weeks we have all seen how increased government control of public land, the BLM is an example, results in loss of freedom.
I agree with Ms. Evatt. It only stops dams. Their precious mining activities remain unharmed.
ReplyDeletePeople use the river year-round, including kayakers. Summer visitors come for camping, picnics, swimming, fishing, and much more. River visitors around the country typically spend $40-$60 a day in local businesses. That's where the economic boost comes from. Spending.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to know what will happen on the river post-designation, go look at the state WS rivers that are already designated. None of the dire warnings have come to pass.
Now it don’t matter if you think that Climate Change is an act of nature or manmade. But the State of California believes that Climate Change is very important. The State of California measures all policies with Climate Change in mind, and this bill should be no different. Where is the impact study showing the effects of this bill on all the stakeholders? It needs one.
ReplyDeleteNow I don’t think that the supporters of this bill are Climate Change deniers, but they seem to be more like “Climate Change solutions deniers”.
This bill will deny us and the future generations, some of best solutions to counter the effects of Climate Change, that the State of California is forecasting in its’ own document “Our Climate Change 2012”.
The State has forecasted lower snowpack and earlier runoffs. With the lowering of the snow pack, less water is stored in the snow and California will have to store more water behind Dams. That may mean raising older dams or maybe constructing new dams, which this bill denies us these option. We must keep all options on the table.
How can you give a designation of “Wild River” to a river that is not “Wild”? In this case, it takes mans’ releasing of water to make it look like a “Wild River”. So the question is, how will this W&S designation, change how water releases will be determined in the future. Will they be forced to release enough water to maintain the Wild River designation all year around? I don’t think anyone can answer that question today.
ReplyDeleteYou can define a river as wild and scenic when it meets the definition in the law, as the Mokelumne does. Nearly every designated state WS river in California has dams above the designated reaches. The designation will not change flow releases on the Mokelumne. Those are mandated in PG&E's Federal Energy Regulatory Commission License, which is based on a settlement among PG&E, state agencies, federal agencies and nonprofit organizations. The state is a signatory to the (legally binding) settlement and if they did want to change the flows, they would have to come back to all of the parties to work that out. It's highly unlikely that they will do that since they are satisfied with the flows in the license now and the river is monitored to make sure the flows are adequate for the environment.
ReplyDeleteNow it doesn’t matter if you believe in Climate Change or not But the State of California takes that Climate Change very sincerely.
ReplyDeleteIn California’s own document “Our Climate Change 2012”, in which they forecast what they believe are the effects climate change will have on California. They are forecasting an extended droughts, lower snowpack and earlier runoffs just to name a few. We all know what this mean to our ability to store enough water for our future needs.
The supporters of this bill say, that it will not affect anyone water rights. I do not believe that will be true. What they don’t say is that this bill creates new “water rights” to the river itself, the right to be wild. And those NGOs, who are unelected, who are speaking on the behalf of the river today, will be the rivers’ lawyers tomorrow. Will they demand more releasing of water to maintain the Wild River designation all year around or for more rafting, when PG&E goes for relicensing. What happens when the State wants more water to send South or out the delta to flush out salt because the seas are rising, or for the save more fish. If there isn’t enough water being stored to meet all of our needs, our water rights will mean nothing.
I think it is important to look to other counties who have actual experience with the Wild & Scenic designation...
ReplyDelete"In 1999, Nevada County residents and the public were told that state Wild and Scenic River designation for the South Yuba would hurt local property owners and businesses.
Fifteen years later, not one square foot of private land along the South Yuba has been condemned. No one has lost a home or been told what color to paint their house. No new land use regulations are in place. But property values along the river have increased, and the river is broadly appreciated as an important community and economic asset."
http://www.calaverasenterprise.com/opinion/article_3c83dfd2-e207-11e3-a89b-0019bb2963f4.html