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.
Arnold keeps making the oxymoronic comment that in essence trys to say there's no reason EnvironMentalism and the Business Environment cannot coexist in this state. If he was as enamoured with Carry_Okie's formula for this, I might agree!!!
However, he's more enamoured with Robert Kennedy, Jr's extreme views from the NRDC and that's what's driving desperately dumb stuff like this Sierra-Nevada Conservacancy!!!
I talked with someone from the El Dorado County Taxpayers Assn., yesterday and there are further changes on the Leslie bill, including better definitions of the western boundry. Keep sfwarrior apprised (farmfriend and calcowgirl) as much as you can, as he has expressed some interest in this story.
It sure would be nice for news coverage from other than a couple rural newspapers to get this on the radar screen somewhere!!!
"(f) "Region" or "Sierra Nevada Region" means the Sierra Nevada-Cascade Mountain Region, as described in subdivision (e) of Section 5096.347,..."
Looks like Conservancy CREEP, to me!!! Hey Marsh2... It's comin your way! Are you gonna agendize this turkey like a couple of other counties have done? Then vote it down to send an unmistakeable message? Plumas County and I think one other has already. (both bills, by the way)
I stopped when I got to this. Now I gotta go back and see if Leslie's revised bill was there as well.
AB2600: (f) "Region" or "Sierra Nevada Region" means the Sierra Nevada-Cascade Mountain Region, as described in subdivision (e) of Section 5096.347, excluding both of the following: (1) The Lake Tahoe Region, as described in Section 66905.5 of the Government Code, where it is defined as "region." (2) The San Joaquin River Parkway, as described in Section 32510. ------------- PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 5096.347 (e) For the purposes of this article, the Sierra Nevada-Cascade Mountain Region includes those portions of Fresno County, Kern County, Stanislaus County, and Tulare County, and counties with populations of less than 250,000 as of the 1990 United States Census, that are located in the mountains, the foothills, and the area adjacent to the geologic formations of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade mountain ranges.
AB 1788, as amended, Leslie. Sierra Nevada Conservancy. Existing law establishes various conservancies to acquire, manage, and direct the management of, and conserve public lands in the state. This bill would establish the Sierra Nevada Conservancy to acquire and direct the management of public lands within the Core Sierra Nevada Region, as defined, and would prescribe the membership, powers, and duties of the conservancy. *snip* ----------- (c) "Core Sierra Nevada Region" means the area bounded on the south by State Route 58 and Tehachapi Creek; on the west by an elevation of 1500 feet above sea level; on the north by the northern perimeters of the Manton/Battle Creek, Feather River, Eagle Lake, and Honey Lake watersheds; and on the east by the eastern boundary of the State of California, State Route 395, and State Route 14 south of Olancha; but excludes both of the following: (1) The Lake Tahoe Region as defined in Section 66905.5 of the Government Code. (2) The San Joaquin River Parkway as described in Section 32510.
3)Comparison with AB 2600 (Laird)
AB 1788 (Leslie) is being heard in the Assembly Natural
Resources Committee at the same time as AB 2600 (Laird), which
also proposes to create a Sierra Nevada Conservancy. AB 1788
differs from AB 2600 in the following principal respects:
a) The region defined in AB 1788 includes large portions of
the Central Valley and, in Tehama, Fresno, and Kern
Counties, it extends entirely across the valley into the
Coast Range. By contrast, the western boundary of the
region defined in AB 2600 stops at about the 500-foot
elevation contour and includes only small portions of the
extreme eastern edge of the valley floor. The core region
defined in AB 1788, where presumably the Conservancy's
activities will be concentrated, is significantly smaller
than the region defined in AB 2600. In particular, because
AB 1788 uses the 1,500-foot elevation contour as the
western boundary of the core region, long reaches of the
deep canyons of the principal rivers of the Sierra and many
lakes and reservoirs situated below that elevation are
excluded from the core region.
b) On the governing board proposed in AB 1788, 13 of the 20
voting members are supervisors from Sierra counties or
residents of the core region. On the governing board
proposed in AB 2600, two members are state officials and
five are appointees from the general public. The
difference in composition can in part be attributed to
whether the Conservancy is perceived as having regional or
statewide significance.
c) AB 1788 requires that the Conservancy's executive
director be approved by at least 2/3 of the governing
board, that is, by 14 of the 20 voting members. AB 2600
specifies a simple majority.
d) AB 1788 prohibits the Conservancy from acquiring any
property interest or making a grant for that purpose unless
the governing body of the city or county with jurisdiction
over the affected property acts affirmatively to adopt a
resolution supporting the acquisition. This provision is
not found in any of the existing conservancy laws, with the
exception that the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy
may exercise eminent domain through the State Public Works
Board if the affected local government does not object
after receiving notice. Such a restriction is inconsistent
with the role of a conservancy in coordinating the efforts
of diverse public agencies toward common conservation
objectives. Further, it is anomalous to subject the
operations of a state agency to approval by a local
government. AB 2600 has no comparable provision.
e) AB 1788 prohibits the Conservancy from acquiring any
property interest or making a grant for that purpose unless
it documents the proposed use, management, and financing of
management costs of the acquired property. Somewhat
inconsistently, AB 1788 makes Conservancy projects and
grants subject to all general and specific plans of local
governments, which would not necessarily anticipate the
management needs of the property to be acquired. AB 2600
instead requires the Conservancy to cooperate and consult
with affected local governments and to base its project
priorities on local general plans and recreation plans.
f) AB 1788 has detailed provisions, based on the San
Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains
Conservancy's statute, governing water management and water
rights. AB 2600 has no comparable provisions.
g) AB 1788 authorizes the Resources Secretary to resolve
any dispute over jurisdiction between the Conservancy and
other conservancies. AB 2600 has no comparable provision.
h) AB 1788 provides that it will not become operative until
the Legislature appropriates funds to the Conservancy to
carry out the bill or until a bond act is approved that
includes an allocation of funds for the purposes of this
bill. AB 2600, if enacted, will take effect on January 1,
2005. Also, AB 2600 appropriates to the Resources
Secretary the $30,000,000 previously allocated by
Proposition 50 for grants to local public agencies, water
districts, and nonprofit organizations to protect water
quality in lakes, reservoirs, rivers, streams, and wetlands
in the Sierra Nevada - Cascade Mountain Region.
4)Technical amendment
The boundary of the Core Sierra Nevada Region is described in a
way that it traverses the southeastern corner of Shasta
County, but Shasta County is not part of the more expansive
Sierra Nevada Region. Elsewhere, the core region is always
described as being within the more expansive Sierra Nevada
Region. The committee may wish to consider amendments that
add Shasta County to the counties comprising the Sierra Nevada
Region and the north Sierra subregion, as follows:
On page 3, line 13, after "Plumas," insert: Shasta,
On page 3, line 23, after "Plumas," insert: Shasta,Oh my gawd... they got me right on the line!!! My leech field ain't in it, but my dad gummed house is in it!!!
I wunder if'n I cud git wunna them there howse muvers, then wunna them there urth movers an peel ma ridgeline down a foot, then muv ma howse back onna nu foundayshun???
Wholey Cripe! These peephole gots too much time on der hans!!! We've gone frum "The Peepole's Park" in Berserkeley rite up the danged line, to this here!!! Buncha fricken Commonist Hippies!!!
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : A.B. No. 1788
AUTHOR(S) : Leslie.
TOPIC : Sierra Nevada Conservancy.
HOUSE LOCATION : ASM
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 04/22/2004
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 04/26/2004
LAST HIST. ACTION : Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
COMM. LOCATION : ASM APPROPRIATIONS
HEARING DATE : 05/12/2004
TITLE : An act to add Division 23.3 (commencing with
Section 33300) to the Public Resources Code, relating to the
Sierra Nevada Conservancy.
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : A.B. No. 2600
AUTHOR(S) : Laird.
TOPIC : Sierra Nevada Conservancy.
HOUSE LOCATION : ASM
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 04/13/2004
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
Non-State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 05/05/2004
LAST HIST. ACTION : In committee: Set, first hearing.
Referred to APPR. suspense file.
COMM. LOCATION : ASM APPROPRIATIONS
TITLE : An act to add Division 23.3 (commencing with Section
33300) to the Public Resources Code, relating to the
Sierra Nevada Conservancy, and making an appropriation
therefor.
The intro would end up with the announcer saying: "Well calculated, to keep you in... SUSPENSE!"
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : A.B. No. 2631
AUTHOR(S) : Wolk.
TOPIC : Natural resources: invasive species.
HOUSE LOCATION : ASM
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 05/06/2004
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
Non-State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 05/10/2004
LAST HIST. ACTION : Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
COMM. LOCATION : ASM APPROPRIATIONS
TITLE : An act to add Division 37 (commencing with Section
71500) to the Public Resources Code, relating to natural
resources.
AB 2600 StatusThey say suspense... but also show future hearings.
AB 1788 Status
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : A.B. No. 1788
AUTHOR(S): Leslie.
TOPIC : Sierra Nevada Conservancy.
HOUSE LOCATION : ASM
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 04/22/2004
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 05/12/2004
LAST HIST. ACTION : In committee: Set, first hearing.
Referred to APPR.
suspense file.
COMM. LOCATION : ASM APPROPRIATIONS
HEARING DATE : 05/19/2004
TITLE : An act to add Division 23.3 (commencing with Section
33300) to the Public Resources Code, relating to the
Sierra Nevada Conservancy.
------------------------------------------
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : A.B. No. 2600
AUTHOR(S): Laird.
TOPIC : Sierra Nevada Conservancy.
HOUSE LOCATION : ASM
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 04/13/2004
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
Non-State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 05/05/2004
LAST HIST. ACTION : In committee: Set, first hearing.
Referred to APPR.
suspense file.
COMM. LOCATION : ASM APPROPRIATIONS
HEARING DATE : 05/19/2004
TITLE : An act to add Division 23.3 (commencing with Section
33300) to the Public Resources Code, relating to the
Sierra Nevada Conservancy, and making an appropriation
therefor.
Hey cowgirl, looks like both bills will be heard in the appropriations committee on wensday, May 19. I have been to these appropriation committee hearings...they are a joke. People like Burton tell jokes and ignore the public input...it is corrupt, wrong, and anti-American to say the least. Think RUBBER STAMP!!!
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.