Posted on 05/25/2004 9:09:15 AM PDT by farmfriend
RED ALERT!!! RED ALERT!!!
There are three bills ready for a vote in the Assembly. Two would turn the entire Sierra Nevada mountain range into a conservancy. The other one would give the state total control over water and private property. Unless these bills are stopped, you can give up on CA.
RED ALERT, RED ALERT!!!
All bills are to third reading!!!
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: 05/20/2004
LAST HIST. ACTION : From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 16. Noes 5.) (May 19). Read second time. To third reading.
FILE : ASM THIRD READING
FILE DATE : 05/25/2004
ITEM : 116
TITLE : An act to add Division 37 (commencing with Section 71500) to the Public Resources Code, relating to natural resources.
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : A.B. No. 2600
AUTHOR(S) : Laird.
TOPIC : Sierra Nevada Conservancy.
HOUSE LOCATION : ASM
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 05/20/2004
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
Non-State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 05/24/2004
LAST HIST. ACTION : Read second time. To third reading.
FILE : ASM THIRD READING
FILE DATE : 05/25/2004
ITEM : 211
TITLE : An act to add Division 23.3 (commencing with Section 33300) to the Public Resources Code, relating to the Sierra Nevada Conservancy.
20040525
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : A.B. No. 1788
AUTHOR(S) : Leslie.
TOPIC : Sierra Nevada Conservancy.
HOUSE LOCATION : ASM
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 05/20/2004
TYPE OF BILL :
Inactive
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 05/24/2004
LAST HIST. ACTION : Read second time. To third reading. To inactive file on motion of Assembly Member Leslie. Notice of intention to remove from inactive file given by Assembly Member Leslie.
FILE : ASM NOTICE TO REMOVE FROM INACTIVE FILE
FILE DATE : 05/25/2004
ITEM : 17
FILE : ASM INACTIVE FILE
FILE DATE : 05/25/2004
ITEM : A- 44
TITLE : An act to add Division 23.3 (commencing with Section 33300) to the Public Resources Code, relating to the Sierra Nevada Conservancy.
Okay, you got my attention. Now, can you please explain about the state taking over private water. I read the links and it's just government-ese to me, very close to Greek.
Bumping this bad boy.
Short list and Sac area list.
COMMENTS : This bill apparently arose out of a workshop convened by the Nature Conservancy in January 2003. Participating in the workshop were state and federal officials, universities, industry associations, and non-governmental organizations. The workshop participants came to consensus that there needs to be more efficient coordination of existing activities, as well as a statewide strategy for addressing terrestrial, aquatic, and marine invasive species.
There is a vast number of plant, animal, bird, fish, insect, microbial, and other species that have been either deliberately or unintentionally introduced into California. Most of these non-native species are benign and have brought great benefits to the inhabitants of the state. Most ornamental plants, for instance, are introduced, as well as pets, livestock, game fish, some wildlife, crops, grape vines, fruit trees, forage grasses, etc. Some non-native species, on the other hand, are highly detrimental to the environment, including yellow star-thistle, Zebra mussels, Chinese mitten crabs, pine bark beetles, West Nile Virus, Exotic Newcastle disease, Caulerpa taxifolia, Giant Reed (Arundo donax), tamarisk (saltcedar), Mediterranean fruitfly, and others. A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report estimates that a new non-native species is introduced into San Francisco Bay from the ballast water of cargo ships every 14 weeks.
The author acknowledges that California has several strong pest prevention and eradication programs. As well, California has a number of committees, interagency panels, and ad hoc working groups that address individual invasive species and threats. The federal government, as well, has many programs to control the interstate or international transportation of invasive species. Although many of these programs have been highly successful, the thesis of this bill is that more could be accomplished if all the efforts of all these groups were coordinated and a statewide strategy adopted. The author argues that the various agencies and other interested groups need to consolidate their joint authorities and coordinate their efforts and their funds.
This bill, however, goes much farther. It authorizes the Council to identify, list, and classify all non-native species in the state. The Council would then be authorized to establish programs to control and eradicate detrimental species. Finally, the Council would be authorized to restore native species that have been crowded out.
As originally introduced, this bill created a vast regulatory, permitting, and enforcement program. This bill has been substantially reduced in scope, but still creates a major new state program. Interested groups have participated in working groups that have re-written much of this bill, but many still have significant concerns.
A major concern is the funding for the program proposed in this bill. Although the funding for all the existing programs would presumably be rolled into funding for the Council, the Council is charged with many powers and duties that go well beyond the powers and duties of the existing agencies and departments. Additional funding would be needed, and probably could not entirely be supported by permit fees. The additional funding would need to come from the General Fund.
Although the underlying idea of better coordinating state (and federal) efforts to fight invasive species and developing a statewide strategy is a good one, this bill goes far beyond that goal. To carry out all the requirements of this bill would require a large bureaucratic structure with a full-time professional staff.
In otherwords, what they don't control through ESA they will control through this bill.
I can't figure out what the heck they're talking about either. Are there any links to the actual text explanation of these bills?
Just think, our tax dollars pay for people to baffle us with BS.
Well, if they propose tearing out EVERY acacia tree, eucalyptus tree, and scotch broom plant, it's okay by me. They're all non-native, and they all introduce misery to the state by being horrible allergens and fire hazzards.
COMMENTS : Pursuant to enactments going back to 1933, with the creation of the Wildlife Conservation Board, the Legislature has recognized the utility of multi-agency entities for land conservation. Since 1973, the Legislature has created eight conservancies in specified areas of the state having similar or related resource conservation objectives. According to the Legislative Analyst's report California's Land Conservation Efforts: The Role of State Conservancies, "Generally, state conservancies are most effective where specific land resources of extraordinary, unique value to the entire state are found to be inadequately protected..." [page 13; emphasis in original].
The Sierra Nevada is a large, distinct region of the state, in terms of its geology, plant communities, wildlife, and climate zones. Its rich natural resources and wide range of recreational opportunities qualifies it as a specific geographic area of exceptional statewide, and arguably global, importance and therefore is, by the Legislative Analyst's criteria, appropriate for protection by a multi-agency conservancy.
According to the Sierra Nevada Conservancy Working Group's July 2002 report, "Sierra Nevada Resource Investment Needs Assessment," the Sierra Nevada supplies 60% of California's water, but 23 of its 24 watersheds are impaired; population is projected to triple between 1990 and 2040 and the accompanying residential development increasingly threatens farms and other working landscapes; annual recreational visit-days are now about 50 million, a 75% increase in the past 15 years; and the region's overall economy is changing rapidly from resource extraction and development to business activities that serve or employ increasing numbers of recreational visitors and retirees and other migrants from areas outside the region.
According to Governor Schwarzenegger's Action Plan for California's Environment" ( www.joinarnold.com/en/agenda ), "The Sierra Nevada Mountain Range [sic] is one of the state's crown jewels. Yet, unlike many of California's other natural treasures, it has no conservancy. As Governor I will propose establishment of a Sierra Nevada Mountains [sic] Conservancy."
AB 1788 (Leslie) also proposes to create a Sierra Nevada Conservancy. AB 2600 differs from AB 1788 in the following principal respects:
a) AB 2600 defines the western boundary of the Sierra Nevada Region as extending down to about the 500-foot elevation contour, which include small portions of the extreme eastern side of the Central Valley. This western boundary encompasses major lakes and reservoirs and long reaches of the Sierra rivers as they descend through the mountains to the valley floor. The region defined in AB 1788 includes large portions of the eastern portions of the Central Valley and, in Tehama, Fresno, and Kern Counties, it extends across the valley into the Coast Range. 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 2600, two members are state officials and five are appointees from the general public. 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. The difference in composition can in part be attributed to whether the Conservancy is perceived as having regional or statewide significance;
c) AB 2600 requires its Conservancy board to act by a simple majority of the total appointed membership, that is, by four of the seven voting members. 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;
d) AB 2600 requires the Conservancy to cooperate and consult with affected local governments and to base its project priorities on local general plans and recreation plans. AB 1788 instead 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;
e) AB 2600 has no specific provisions regarding water management and water rights. 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;
f) AB 1788 authorizes the Resources Secretary to resolve any dispute over jurisdiction between the Conservancy and other conservancies. AB 2600 has no comparable provision; and,
g) AB 2600 will become operative on January 1, 2005. AB 1788 does not become operative until the Legislature appropriates funds to carry out the bill or until a bond act is approved that includes an allocation of funds for the purposes of the bill.
The question is do you want government doing it with a huge budget and bureaucracy or do you want private property owners doing it?
Let me put it this way: I'd much rather see the government pay for eradication of these non-native plants than to see that same money dumped in some welfare sinkhole.
If I'm reading this correctly, this could give government agencies permission to trespass on private land on the pretext of looking for listed no no's. Fruit trees and pets? Forget about how much money this will cost CA taxpayers, this has some extremely bad implications for every property owner.
Did you find anything about them taking over the water supply?
Your initial post stated: ".....state total control over water and private property." How is this threatening private water?
as well as a statewide strategy for addressing terrestrial, aquatic, and marine invasive species.
You know how it is, they always sneak it in.
The same way the ESA does. Why am I having to explain this to you? If you do not already understand the implications of this bill then you have not been paying attention and I don't have the time or energy to get you up to speed.
We already gave up on the Peoples' Republic of CA
Hey, I have an idea. Close the freaking borders! Deport illegals! Maybe then American citizens wouldn't have to run for the hills.
If you people really are that concerned about the 23 out of 24 impaired watersheds, just fix them and shut up. God knows we already have agencies to do that. We don't need another one.
Ok, I've left messages for the people I thought would make great speakers both on the radio and at public forums. Hopefully they will get back to me either today or tomorrow.
Fixing the problem is not the issue and never has been. Land and water control is and always will be the issue. Controling commons is the best way to promote a socialist agenda and we are well on our way.
Whoa!! A bit over the top there, ff. It seems that Spotted and I simply didn't "get" your RED ALERT regarding some links to some government gibberish!
Yeah, I DO understand, but your presentation here tends to make me start looking for my tinfoil hat.
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.