Two bills making their way through the California Assembly would create a Sierra Nevada Conservancy. If passed, the conservancy would direct money to help manage the public lands in the mountain range.
The Union photo/Pico van Houtryve
Posted on 04/03/2004 3:32:33 AM PST by calcowgirl
|
|
|
|
|
Two bills making their way through the California Assembly would create a Sierra Nevada Conservancy. If passed, the conservancy would direct money to help manage the public lands in the mountain range. The Union photo/Pico van Houtryve |
|
It spans nearly 500 miles, supplies the water that nourishes California’s economy and has provided vocations and vacations for generations, but the Sierra Nevada has no benefactor like the conservancies that care for Lake Tahoe or the state’s vast coastline.
That could change this year, however, if one of the two bills now winding through the Legislature is approved - or if the two morph into one. The bills, AB 2600, authored by a Democrat, and the Republican-drafted AB 1788, would create a Sierra Nevada Conservancy.
The conservancy’s nonregulatory board would coordinate the millions of dollars that flow into the mountain range each year from various sources for a variety of conservation uses. Essentially, it could serve as a clearinghouse for the money, which would go toward the most-needy areas instead of being scattered.
“The Sierra is something that cries out for a conservancy,” said John Laird, a Democrat assemblyman from the central coast who authored AB 2600.
Laird, chairman of the Assembly Select Committee on California Water Needs and Climate Change, said the 28-year-old California Coastal Conservancy has served the region - and the state - well. The Sierra, he said, could use the same help.
“A Sierra Conservancy will give people in the Sierra a seat at the table,” he said. “I think the model of the Coastal Conservancy has worked very, very well.”
Unlike the California Coastal Commission, which regulates land use and issues development permits, the nonregulatory Coastal Conservancy works as an intermediary among local governments, public agencies, nonprofit groups and private landowners to purchase, protect, restore and enhance coastal resources.
Republicans seek bigger role for locals
The Lake Tahoe Conservancy is in Republican Assemblyman Tim Leslie’s district. And while he has supported its efforts over the years, including raising thousands of dollars for environmental projects by supporting the Lake Tahoe license plate program, Leslie’s chief of staff, Jedd Medefind, said his boss is generally hesitant when it comes to creating such entities.
“He had to decide to oppose it on principal or get involved to make things better,” Medefind said about why Leslie brought AB 1788 forward.
Surprisingly, Leslie’s involvement was spurred by none other than the state’s top Republican, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. It may have rankled some of his fellow Republicans, but Schwarzenegger’s environmental action plan pledges to create a Sierra Nevada Conservancy.
“I think this is a case where the governor is showing his independent streak,” Medefind said.
Given that the Legislature is controlled by Democrats, the Republicans are drawing up another version of the conservancy plan. While the two bills differ on the boundaries of the proposed conservancy, the biggest differences are the makeup of its governing board and exactly what kind of input local governments will have.
Laird’s bill would have the conservancy’s seven-member board consult with local agencies on proposed projects. Leslie’s proposal has a 20-member board, including two county supervisors from each of the conservancy’s five subregions.
“At this point, we’re working to convince the Schwarzenegger administration that a form of conservancy that cuts locals out of the decision process is unacceptable,” Medefind said.
Conservancy control issues
The Sierra Fund, a Nevada City-based foundation that links donors with conservation projects, is a main proponent of a conservancy for the mountain range and is supporting Laird’s bill. But Izzy Martin, the fund’s Sierra Nevada campaign director and former Nevada County supervisor, said that to increase the chances that the conservancy proposal passes, there is hope that the two bills will become one.
Still, how the issues of local control versus regional and state priorities play out will be key.
The last effort to create a conservancy for the Sierra was derailed two years ago. Although it sailed through the Assembly, it never made it to the Senate floor for a vote. What scuttled the bill were differences on the makeup of the governing board and whether individual counties and towns could opt in or out of the conservancy.
“The more pertinent argument is that already, hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent in the region, and the Sierra doesn’t have a say,” Martin said. “There is no defined, formal role for where the money is being spent.”
Despite Assemblyman Leslie’s aversion to conservancies, Medefind agreed that one could help tackle some of the issues facing the Sierra, like forest and watershed health.
“It conceivably could become an excellent forum to address serious issues,” he said.
Staff from Leslie and Laird’s offices have been in communication on the two bills, and it’s “definitely conceivable” that the bills could come together, Medefind said.
Because the conservancy idea is something Schwarzenneger is behind, Laird agreed that bipartisan support might be easier to come by this time around.
AB 2600 is expected to be heard in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee by April 19.
The $6.5 million Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, or SNEP report, was commissioned by Congress in 1993 to, among other things, study ways to maintain the health and sustainability of the mountain range while providing resources for the people who live in and visit the area.It took three years and more than 100 scientists to study the vast mountain range. Just one of the conclusions in the study was that the costs of achieving conservation objectives and ecosystem restoration in the Sierra are greater than available resources, even though the commodities taken from the range - like water and timber - are valued into the billions of dollars.
"Public funding sources," the report said "have not met the need or demand."
That's where AB 2600, a bill that would create the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, could help, according to Izzy Martin of the Sierra Fund, a Nevada City-based foundation that links donors with conservation projects.
"The conservancy is an outgrowth of a lot of thoughtful consideration of the Sierra Nevada," said Martin, a former Nevada County supervisor. "It is the best way to target public investment in the Sierra."
If AB 2600 passes, or its Republican-sponsored counterpart, AB 1788, a Sierra Nevada Conservancy could get an immediate $30 million infusion from Proposition 50, a $3.4 billion clean water bond approved by voters in 2002.
Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
January 2004
A new plan for the Sierra Nevada
In January 2004 the Forest Service amended the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan (Framework) to improve protection of old forests, wildlife habitats, watersheds and communities in the Sierra Nevada mountains and Modoc Plateau.
The new plan will reduce the acres burned by severe wildfires by more than 30 percent within the next 50 years. It will double the acres of large old growth trees and California spotted owl nesting habitat over the next 50 years. Around communities, fuels will be reduced on about 700,000 acres over the next 20 years, helping to protect them from severe wildfires.
The plan will reduce dangerous fuels on nearly 115,000 acres per year - approximately the same acreage proposed in the 2001 SNFPA. However, under the 2001 SNFPA effective fuels treatments could not be accomplished on that much area due to the complex and overly restrictive standards and guidelines. Strategically placing the fuels treatments will help reduce severe wildfires over an area approximately three times that directly treated. The new plan maintains a cautious approach to protecting old forests and wildlife habitat by treating about one percent of the land each year.
Background
In January 2001, the Pacific Southwest Region adopted the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) for managing 11 national forests and 11.5 million acres of national forest land. The Forest Service received more than 200 appeals to the SNFPA decision. In November 2001, the Chief of the Forest Service affirmed the decision and also expressed concerns about the decision's flexibility and compatibility with other important programs. The Chief and Regional Forester agreed to a review of specific areas of the SNFPA: fire and fuels treatments, compatibility with the National Fire Plan, compatibility with the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) Forest Recovery Pilot Project, and effects of the SNFPA on grazing, recreation, and local communities. A year-long review provided specific recommendations for improving the SNFPA.
The trend is clear. If we do not actively manage our forests to reduce fuels, improve their health and return them to more open, natural conditions, we can expect more catastrophic wildfires and continuing threats to communities, lives, and homes. We can also expect to see more damage to old forests, wildlife habitat, soils and water quality - all those things natural systems provide and we value so highly.
Based on the review recommendations the Region prepared the June 2003 draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) to document new information and to analyze the effects of the proposed improvements. After considering and incorporating public comment on the draft SEIS a final SEIS was completed, analyzing small but important improvements to the 2001 SNFPA. A new Record of Decision was signed January 21, 2004.
I'd say "you go girl," but I don't care for Oprah's supersillyous mannerisms either!!! This thread is BOOKMARKED!!! (It's on the Waspman's Wall Of Fame!!!)
I'm definitely not an Oprah fan... but being in the Waspman's Wall of Fame is a GREAT HONOR! :-) Thanks!
So... what now? GeorgeFBP said he had emailed the Sierra Times. I'm ready to start writing letters to Arnie and my legislators. What ultimately stopped the push for the conservancy last time around? Who are its opponents and how can we help? Mass opposition attendance at the meeting I posted above couldn't hurt, huh?
I found an Editorial from Weintraub of the SacBee written a couple of years ago about the Conservancy effort. The theme was: Poor Sierra, everyone else has a conservancy and they don't. There certainly wouldn't be any support there! Anybody know any property rights attorney's that can get some opinion pieces printed?
I poked around a little on the Sierra Fund. The CEO is Shawn Garvey, a political animal involved in alot of these enviro-nazi orgs, most predominantly the South Yuba River Citizens League (SYRCL), affiliated with RiverKeepers (ala RFK, Jr.). He also founded a opposition research firm called Smart Campaigns, Inc., the firm responsible for bringing down many of the 1992 Republican conservatives with false information, most notably Bruce Herschenson. There is a long article of all these stunts/mistakes in a 1994 article in New Republic (a copy of which I got from my library, online). Here is one paragraph re: Garvey:
...Mary Boyle, a Democratic contender for the Ohio seat, hired Shawn Garvey of the San Francisco-based Smart Campaigns Inc. to supervise her dirt-digging efforts. “My grandfather was a labor organizer,” explains Garvey. “I was a young Socialist. Ten days that shook the world, all that kind of stuff.” But after working for three Kennedys (Ted, Joe, Kathleen), he too made the jump to the dark side. “Times have changed,” he says. “It’s getting ugly out there.” Garvey’s company, started in 1992, is one of scores of opposition research firms now sprinkled across the country like a thousand points of spite.
He jumped to the "dark side" after being a socialist and working for the Kennedy's??? How dark does it GET over there?
From looking through websites of many of the SNC proponents, they appear very well organized, well funded, and they have all their talking points lined up. The first statistic that catches ones eye: 65% of the State's water comes from the Sierra Nevadas. Then the scare tactics... contamination, pollution, etc.
So... back to my original question, What Now? Is there anyway to stop these folks?
Maybe, but they are defenseless since the Warren Court shifted all the votes to the Blue Zone Metro-Sexual Areas with their stinkin "Cows Don't Vote" decision!!!
Now it's WASS (We Are So Screwed), don'tcha know???
Moooooooooooooo!!! Mooooooooooooooooo!!! I want to vote!!!
Shawn Garvey, President is the Founder and President of The Sierra Fund. Mr. Garvey is the former Executive Director of the Nevada City based South Yuba River Citizens League, which during his tenure grew to be the largest single-river advocacy organization in the United States. Under his leadership SYCRL created a nonprofit law firm for California rivers known as RiverLaw, a new regional newspaper, and successfully advocated to secure new funds for non-dam flood control and river restoration.He was also appears to have been heavily involved in the "Save the Yuba Salmon" campaign.Prior to this, Mr. Garvey served as Special Projects Representative for the U.S. Department of Agriculture/Rural Development during the Clinton Administration. He is a founder of a nationally recognized political research and communications firm, Smart Campaigns.
Yes, but it starts the hard way, with public education. Unless and until we get the public to understand why this is wrong for the Sierra as well as the rest of the State, they won't get it.
Would they rather have this:
Or this:
We already have the examples of the Los Alamos, Rodeo/Chediski, San Bernardino, and Biscuit fires. It's time to drive that reality home.
Does the Sierra Nevada region need a state-mandated conservancy to direct the management of, and hold the power to conserve, public lands? The Plumas County Board of Supervisors does not think so, and they will do everything in their power to stop a conservancy from forming.
Two controversial bills, AB1788, authored by Republican Assemblyman Tim Leslie, and AB 2600, authored by Democrat Assemblyman John Laird, are currently making their way through the legislature. If one or both are passed, the Sierra Nevada Conservancy will be born.
At their April 13 meeting, the supervisors voted in favor of writing a letter opposing the two bills to the state.
"These (conservancy) groups are our enemy," said Supervisor Bill Dennison. He said the bills would impose on private property owners' rights.
Supervisor Robert Meacher suggested that Dennison, who will write and send the letter of opposition, be careful with the words he uses in his message. He said that "tact" is necessary in this situation, especially since Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger himself has fueled the bills.
AB 1788 and AB 2600 are similar. The main differences in the two bills are that AB 2600 would not allow for local representation on the Sierra Nevada Conservancy governing board. AB1788, however, calls for two supervisors from each of the five Sierra Nevada subregions, to sit on the governing board.
For more on this story, along with other local stories and features, please see this week's printed newspaper. To subscribe, use the form on this Web site or call 530-283-0800.
Also, I was reading through the AB2600 Analysis and at the end, it has a list of Support and Opposition. Do you know how one gets on this list? Does it require appearance at some sort of hearing or ? Does that mean my letters don't count? I guess the Lion Mountain Foundation and the Jumping Frog Research Institute are more important than the opinion of Joe Citizen. There were several Farm Bureaus listed as opposition and "1 individual". I figured that "1" was you, SW. :-)
VOTES - ROLL CALL MEASURE: AB 2600 AUTHOR: Laird TOPIC: Sierra Nevada Conservancy. DATE: 04/19/2004 LOCATION: ASM. NAT. RES. MOTION: Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. (AYES 7. NOES 4.) (PASS) AYES Jackson Hancock Koretz Laird Lieber Lowenthal Wolk NOES La Malfa Harman Haynes Aghazarian ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING ------------------------------------------------ VOTES - ROLL CALL MEASURE: AB 1788 AUTHOR: Leslie TOPIC: Sierra Nevada Conservancy. DATE: 04/19/2004 LOCATION: ASM. NAT. RES. MOTION: Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. (AYES 9. NOES 0.) (PASS) AYES Jackson Hancock Haynes Aghazarian Koretz Laird Lieber Lowenthal Wolk NOES ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING La Malfa Harman
I have heard talk that maybe Leslie's bill will succeed, only to be allowed to die without coming to a floor vote to shield everyone from embarrassment and humiliation.
I do know that Leslie's staff has been advised in the strongest terms that people in my county are deeply disappointed that our Assemblyman would even lend his name to ANY consideration of such a bizarre concept!!!
Did you notice the "fill in the blank" for the western boundary of the CONSERVACANCY in Leslie's bill???
There is no outcry of support from "The People" in this "region" for any such ruling body of anti-everything but eco-tourism GovernMental EnvironMental busybodies!!!
Ray Haynes and those other Repellicans had better be careful and only be maneuvering this manure into position to die an unsupported death on the compost pile, or they'll end up with some of it, if not all of it on their feces covered faces!!!
People had groan to expect better out of Leslie and Haynes and are upset about this "gaming," if that, in fact, is what it is!!! (Thanks for posting that update)
AB 1788
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Sacramento Mother Lode Regional Association of County Supervisors
Sierra Business Council
Opposition
Amador County Farm Bureau
Butte County Farm Bureau
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Forestry Association
El Dorado County Farm Bureau
Foothill Conservancy
Kern County Farm Bureau
Lassen County Farm Bureau
Taxpayers Association of El Dorado County
Tehama County Farm Bureau
The Waspman is a member of the Taxpayers Assn. of El Dorado County on that list. You are right! We need to grow that list, but with this monster flying below the radar and with the Governor's support, it's hard to get commitments!!!
Everybody, even here on FR, just glances at this and doesn't make the economic/fiscal connection to devastation! They can't bring themselves to believe that even a "fiscal conservative, but social liberal" Governor would support such strange government growth when government growth is the only "growth industry" in the Sierra-Nevada Region!!!
Damn this is frustrating!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.