LETTERS, EMAILS & FAXES ARE NEEDED TO CALIFORNIA STATE SENATORS, SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER AND CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCY.
Find your State Senator - www.sen.ca.gov
CA. SENATE COMM. ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WILDLIFE http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/sen/committee/STANDING/NRW/_home1/PROFILE.HTM
Mike Chrisman Secretary of Resources 1416 9th Street, St. 1311 Sacramento, CA. 95812-2815 Ph/916-653-5656 FX/916-653-8102 www.resources.ca.gov
Assistant to the Secretary for Resources Cynthia J. Paulsen Cyndy.Paulsen@Resources.Ca..Gov
Arnold Schwarzenegger State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-445-2841 Fax: 916-445-4633 www.governor.ca.gov/state/govsite/gov_homepage.jsp governor@governor.ca.gov
BACKGROUND:
AB1788 Leslie This bill creates the Sierra Nevada Conservancy (SNC) in the Resources Agency, with a governing board consisting of 20 voting members and three non-voting members, to acquire, and direct the management, of public lands located primarily within the "Core Sierra Nevada Region."
AB2600 Laird This bill creates the Sierra Nevada Conservancy (SNC) in the Resources Agency, with a governing board consisting of seven voting members and three non-voting members to undertake activities that encourage tourism and recreation, protect, conserve, and restore the region's resources, reduce the risk of natural disaster, protect water quality, help local economies, identify high priority projects for funding, enhance public use and enjoyment of public lands, and advance environmental preservation and economic well-being.
Bill Status and Background Information:
AB 1788 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1788&sess=CUR&house=B&search_type=email
HISTORY http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_1751-1800/ab_1788_bill_20040609_history.html
STATUS http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_1751-1800/ab_1788_bill_20040615_status.html
AB 2600 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_2600&sess=CUR&house=B&search_type=email
HISTORY http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2551-2600/ab_2600_bill_20040609_history.html
STATUS http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2551-2600/ab_2600_bill_20040615_status.html
PING your pinglist, please
On another thread in a reply, Analysis from the legislature itself on AB 2631, says this is about non-native, undocumented pests.
See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1141897/posts
The Analysis agrees that "the underlying idea of better coordinating state (and federal) efforts" is a good idea. Of course there are important reasons to oppose it nevertheless.
IMO even if it was not another one of those enviro-wacko attempts to take advantage of a problem and impose further restrictions on private property ("rural cleansing") there's good reason to oppose it. The Governor already has a major effort to better coordinate state bureaucratic activities.
Gee I hope they can keep those harmful non-native, undocumented pests away from our highways. They're bad enough now, worst in the country.
Ping on leftwing attack!
bookmark for later reading...
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WILDLIFE
Senator Sheila Kuehl, Chair
2003-2004 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 1788
AUTHOR: Leslie
AMENDED: May 16, 2004
FISCAL: Yes
HEARING DATE: June 29, 2004
URGENCY: No
CONSULTANT: Syrus Devers
SUBJECT: Sierra Nevada Conservancy
Summary: This bill establishes a conservancy for the
Sierra Nevada.
Existing Law: Creates the Coastal Conservancy, the
Coachella Conservancy, the Santa Monica Mountains
Conservancy, the Baldwin Hills Conservancy, the San Diego
River Conservancy, the Los Angeles Rivers and Mountain
Conservancy, the Tahoe Conservancy, and the San Joaquin
River Conservancy.
Proposed Law: This bill does all of the following:
1) Defines the boundaries of the conservancy, the
most significant of which is the western boundary set
at 1500 feet above sea level, and requires a
two-thirds vote of the board to undertake activities
outside of that boundary;
2) Defines five "subregions" within the conservancy
comprised of the counties in the
north, north central, south central, south, and east
areas within the conservancy;
3) Establishes the conservancy within the
Resources Agency;
4) Provides for a 20 member board made up of the
Secretary of the Resources Agency, the Director of
Finance, six public members appointed by the Governor,
one appointed by each house of the Legislature, and
two from each of the five subregions to be appointed
by the subregions supervisors;
5) Authorizes the conservancy to adopt
procedures, hire staff, and establish subcommittees;
6) Establishes the powers and duties of the
conservancy;
7) Authorizes the conservancy to acquire any type
of interest in land, and to act through nonprofit
organizations.
Arguments in Support: Several Land Trusts, including the
Lassen Land Trust, the Placer Land Trust, the Eastern
Sierra Land Trust, and the Truckee Donner Land Trust,
expressed support for the concept of a conservancy, and
expressed gratitude for the author's efforts to address
local concerns.
Arguments in Opposition: The California Forestry
Association argues that "Although the bill contains
provisions that appear to safeguard the rights of private
property owners, we are concerned that this measure will
result in (1) more private land being transferred to the
state; and (2) the creation of another layer of
bureaucracy?In our view, the establishment of a Sierra
Nevada Conservancy would likely result in additional
government bureaucracy that could accelerate the further
decline of our industry."
Comments: The committee may wish to address the following
issues.
Issue #1: State or local control . State conservancies
exist to pursue the interests of the state. Although that
seems to state the obvious, this bill would tend to obscure
this point. If the parochial interests of local governments
were in harmony with the interest of the broader public,
there would be no reason to establish a state conservancy,
and local governments would be expected, instead, to forego
the economic gain that could be realized by developing the
resource, and preserve the resource for future generations.
This bill would create a state conservancy more
deferential to local desires than any other conservancies.
It does so by establishing a board and operating procedures
that gives the members who represent the local governments
either direct control or veto power over various aspects of
the proposed conservancy. For example, the bill would
require a two-thirds vote to authorize conservancy activity
outside of the narrowly defined "Core Sierra Nevada
Region". More to the point is the indication in Section 2
of the bill that the author plans to amend the bill so that
local concerns "cannot be disregarded by the conservancy?."
The committee has been informed that the author will amend
the bill so that a board member representing a local
government can notice an objection to an acquisition and
thereby trigger a two-thirds vote requirement.
The question of whether state interests or local
interests are more likely to prevail under this bill is the
fundamental issue for the committee in deciding what type
of Sierra Nevada Conservancy will be established. It would
be far more efficient to simply make block grants and let
local governments decide what resources to protect. The
only real justification for the cost of the conservancy is
to have an entity that can act on behalf of the public, be
charged with advancing the state's interests, and,
therefore, be entrusted with public funds
The committee should also consider the
ramifications of allowing one state conservancy to be
subject to such a high degree of local influence. It is to
be anticipated that local entities within the boundaries of
existing conservancies could press for the same degree of
influence, and every future conservancy forced to argue so
as not to accept the same conditions.
Issue 2. Restrictions on fee authority . On page 10, line
20-21, the bill limits fees to "the reasonable cost of
providing the service for which the fee is charged." This
is fine in regard to fees for services rendered to others,
but not for user fees. If the conservancy possesses an
asset that will command a user fee, the conservancy needs
the flexibility to charge what the market will allow in
order to offset the cost of maintaining assets that do not
generate income. User fees should be exempted from the fee
restrictions in the bill.
Issue 3. Abandonment of state water rights . On page 11,
line 9, the conservancy is prohibited from exercising
"powers over water rights held by others." The legal
implication of this provision is that the conservancy will
be powerless to defend water rights that it holds against
any person or entity with a right to take water from the
same source as the conservancy. For example, if an adjacent
land owner diverts excess water from a stream, and the
water right held by the conservancy is injured, the
conservancy would be prohibited from acting to defend its
right as any other private person would be able to do. This
provision should be struck from the bill as it would defeat
the conservancy's ability to protect the state's most
valuable natural resource.
Issue 4. Limitations on the conservancy authority . On page
11, lines 13 though 27, the conservancy is prohibited from
interfering, delaying, hindering, or being in conflict with
any public entity or public utility. None of these
provisions are necessary as the conservancy is not given
authority over any public entity or public utility, but the
restrictions are written so broadly that almost any act
could potentially "hinder or delay" someone somewhere. If
the conservancy needs policy guidance to avoid conflicts
with local agencies, these limitations should be recast as
legislative findings and declarations so that the
conservancy will not be vulnerable to endless lawsuits.
SUPPORT:
Amador Land Trust
Nevada County Land Trust
Placer Land Trust
Sequoia Riverlands Trust
Shasta Land Trust
OPPOSITION:
California Forestry Association
1 Individual
Leslie sent me this in the e-mail. I haven't replied as I have been busy with local issues and we are not in the Sierra range. Help me with some brief talking points and I will respond:
Dear Sierra Friends,
I am seeking your thoughts.
As you may know, I am carrying AB 1788, which would create a Sierra Nevada Conservancy. A state conservancy is an agency that delivers state funds to areas of special value, such as Lake Tahoe or the California Coast. It makes grants and undertakes projects for a wide range of efforts, from acquisition of habitat to fire prevention and economic development. Unlike entities such as the "Coastal Commission" or the T.R.P.A., a conservancy does not have any
power to regulate lands.
As a staunch defender of private property rights and local control, I approached the idea of a Sierra Nevada Conservancy with trepidation. Most current state conservancies work in a friendly, cooperative manner with landowners and local communities. Still, if a conservancy board were to
become dominated by activists, it could become yet one more tool of those who have little respect for Sierra residents or our values. Despite my concerns, I decided to introduce AB 1788 for two simple reasons. First, Governor Schwarzenegger stated clearly that he intends to create a Sierra Nevada Conservancy. Second, the California Legislature is ready,
willing, and able to create a conservancy that leaves local communities with no say in conservancy decisions.
It appeared almost certain that there would be a Sierra Nevada Conservancy. One question remained: "What kind of conservancy would it be?" I have been working to ensure that the conservancy remains the right kind of conservancy. It must guarantee strong local influence in conservancy decisions, while also honoring legitimate state interests. In my negotiations with the Schwarzenegger Administration and my Democrat colleague, Assemblyman John Laird, we appear to be nearing a point of agreement.
I have heard from many of you already. However, I would greatly value your thoughts at this critical juncture.
Remember, many of the provisions noted in the proposal below do not represent what I would view as ideal. They are the result of intense give-and-take negotiations. I did not receive every condition I sought; even so, I did gain many important provisions. I believe this may be the very
best we can hope for, providing an unprecedented level of local influence in the conservancy decision-making process.
For those who remain opposed, I certainly identify with your concerns. Just bear one final thought in mind. Under current law, the state often carries out conservation projects with little or no local input. Activists and
bureaucrats in Sacramento have total control. However, a well-designed conservancy would change all this. Decisions would no longer be made in "smoke-filled rooms," but by a board with strong representation from the Sierra. Local perspectives and priorities would carry an influence not seen
in decades.
Certainly, the conservancy might still carry out some activities we would find objectionable, but much less so than at present. In addition, local priorities like parks, trails, public access, economic development, and fire prevention would receive increased attention. In the end, I believe the
residents of the Sierra - both present and future generations - would be much better off than under the status quo.
Please review the following details and reply to this e mail as soon as is possible. I would greatly value your input.
Sincerely,
Tim Leslie
Assemblyman, 4th District
DETAILS OF CURRENT PROPOSAL
STATED GOALS OF THE CONSERVANCY
(a) Provide increased opportunities for tourism and recreation.
(b) Protect, conserve, and restore the region's physical, cultural, archaeological , and historical resources.
(c) Reduce the risk of natural disasters, such as fire.
(d) Protect water quality from degradation.
(e) Assist the local economy, including providing increased economic opportunities.
(f) Identify the highest priority projects and initiatives for which funding is needed.
(g) Undertake efforts to enhance public use and enjoyment of lands owned by the public.
(h) Support efforts that advance both environmental preservation and the economic well-being of Sierra residents in a complimentary manner.
(i) Aid the preservation of working landscapes.
CONSERVANCY BOARD
13 Members
6 Locally-elected supervisors appointed by their fellow supervisors
5 Gubernatorial appointments, including the Director of Finance and the Secretary of Resources
1 Senate Appointment
1 Assembly Appointment
(*I am currently seeking to ensure that one of the five Gubernatorial candidates is an elected official from within the Sierra.)
CONSERVANCY BOUNDARIES
In addition to the Sierra proper, the Administration intends to include the portion of the Cascade Mountains watershed that drains southwest into the Central Valley.
The conservancy's western boundary will be at approximately 500 feet in elevation. In order to make sure funds are not inordinately directed to the lower, more populated areas, language will be included that reads, "The board shall make
every effort to ensure that over time conservancy funding and other efforts are spread equitably across the various sub-regions and among the stated goal areas, with adequate allowance for the variability of costs associated with individual regions and types of projects."
CONSERVANCY LIMITATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
* No powers of imminent domain.
* No regulatory authority
* All business shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act
* The conservancy shall hold meetings throughout the Sierra to receive local input and identify local funding priorities.
* All efforts and projects shall be undertaken based upon consultation with locally-elected officials and local agencies.
* No land shall be acquired unless the means and funding for appropriate management of that property have been identified.
* With any proposed land acquisition with a value of $250,000 or higher, the locally-elected agency with land use planning authority will have the ability to file an "objection" to the proposed acquisition. In the
event of an "objection," the conservancy will be able to proceed only with a 2/3rds vote of the board. (**Note: It has been suggested by some that this provision "sunset" in five years. I will stand absolutely opposed to any
proposal that contains a sunset on this important provision, no matter how long the period.)