Posted on 06/17/2004 10:47:03 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
DATE: JUNE 16, 2004
TO: ALL GRASSROOTS AND CONCERNED CITIZENS
FROM: ROSE COMSTOCK, ALLIANCE FOR AMERICA www.allianceforamerica.org
PLEASE SHARE WITH YOUR LIST AND ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO RESPOND. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE!
WHAT: WILD LANDS PROJECT AT WORK - JUNE 29, 2004 - HEARINGS ARE SCHEDULED FOR TWO BILLS - AB1788 & AB2600 -EACH AUTHORIZE ESTABLISHING A SIERRA NEVADA CONSERVANCY IN CALIFORNIA TO ACQUIRE, AND DIRECT THE MANAGEMENT, OF PUBLIC LANDS LOCATED PRIMARILY WITHIN THE CORE SIERRA NEVADA REGION.
STATUS: BOTH BILLS ARE CURRENTLY IN THE CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WILDLIFE. THIS COMMITTEE IS CHAIRED BY ONE OF THE MOST LIBERAL OF CA. ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES!
And so it goes... what do I know, that I should be so adamant, anyway, right? (I use too many commas in the first place!) I'm justa ignorant agitator, anaways!!!
Not hardly. It's just that I don't have the audience to make a splash on this yet while at the same time I could easily preclude doing anything about it if and when I did by stupidly shooting off at my keyboard.
Funny, a group of us just had that same conversation with our county commissioners in PA. Someone (including the state's DCNR) is trying to establish a 'core biosphere reserve' in north-central PA. We were asking the commissioners to just make a statement about opposing more land purchases by government because of the tax impacts. Unfortunately our county government is in much better shape financially than California is, so there's little sense of the urgent need to stop this stuff in its tracks.
Funny, a group of us just had that same conversation with our county commissioners in PA. Someone (including the state's DCNR) is trying to establish a 'core biosphere reserve' in north-central PA. We were asking the commissioners to just make a statement about opposing more land purchases by government because of the tax impacts. Unfortunately our county government is in much better shape financially than California is, so there's little sense of the urgent need to stop this stuff in its tracks.
bookmark for later reading...
It's just that so much evil happens when good men and women sit around and don't do anything but ponder the imponderable while the activists and enthusiasts show up and run the state into the ground for all of us... That's all. The apathy, on this site, regarding this controversial conservancy abomination is abnormal!!! This will end up being 10,000 times worse than Klamath Falls!!!
This is bizzarre... I can count those FReepers with any degree of concern on my fingers!!! (I don't even have to take off my danged shoes and socks to count any higher!!!)
is this the Friday before the july 4th weekend? Cute... no accident there.
And to this newer thread (same subject):
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
Pure "Central Government" commonism and collectivism!!!
This entire nation was structured on LOCAL CONTROL IN LOCAL HANDS!!! We don't need no stinkin GovernMental Dictators from other regions of the state foisting this FARCE on Conservative Eastern CA!!!
Why are they doing this to us... BECAUSE THEY CAN!!! (Just exactly like Clinton's immoral justification for sickening behavior in office!)
Oh... Now we know what Shakespear meant by "the insolence of office!"
This whole thing has been the wet dream of a small, militant, scheming GANG-GREEN band of extremist NGO's who wish to convert CA chunk by chunk into the "Worker's Paradise" of a monopoly of Eco-Tourism to the exclusion of ANY other enterprise... as a model for the UN's Agenda 21.
It is disgusting that a sort of a Republican Governor has legitimized their efforts, even after the only Recalled Governor in history vetoed the same scam, only months ago!!!
There ISN'T a justification! These people are delusional!
No... They're drunk with POWER, now that they have the Terminator on their team!!!
Talk about putting a cloud over the Sierra & Cascade mountain ranges!!! These people have their heads in the clouds, along with our Governor, unfortunately.
Study page two of the linked site, above and see how the public employee unions think they'll get more membership out of expanding government jobs with workers leaning on their rakes and shovels like CalTrans workers, controlling erosion in the giant Sierran Sponge!!! Worker's Paradise!!! Phooey!!!
P.S. Google this "Sierra-Nevada+Conservancy" and see what comes up... Interesting!!!
Unbelievable.
bttt
Whereas: Anyone Google searching on the World Wide Web for "Sierra-Nevada+Conservancy" will find this thread as the top item, and
Whereas: A few brief quotes from the late great Governor are in order to draw a strong distinction, and
Whereas: We all enjoyed a week long salute to the rightfully righteous Governor who governed best, by governing least...
I hereby present a couple of quotes on the subject of this thread from his excellency, Governor Emeritus, Ronald Reagan.
"There seems to be an organized, well-financed lobby determined to preserve the natural habitat and comfort of every species except man. Well, it is time to remember that we are ecology too."
"Now, I can see that there are people so imbued with the desire to protect the environment that they would restrict and take away that right of individual ownership. What good does it do for you to hold the deed to your property if government can tell you everything you can do with that property? I think we have to guard against that."
"California produces 40 percent of America's fresh fruits, vegetables and nuts -- the kind you eat. We have had a bumper crop of the other variety too... the kind who would have us turn back the clock, forget about developing and maintaining the water supply we need for crops, for people and other industries."
"We must consider the adverse environmental impact of every major activity in our society and find reasonable, workable ways to minimize that impact, but without at the same time bringing economic development to a sudden and catastrophic halt."
"Fifty-two percent of California is government owned land. If you build on every foot of California that is in private ownership, you would still have over half the state in its natural state because it is government owned... the natural forests, parks, deserts and so forth."
"Too many people, especially in government feel that the nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program."
Therefore: Be it resolved... That another redundant governmental conservancy, stretching from Oregon to Death Valley, is an irresponsible imposition of squandered tax monies, attempting to create welfare for wildlife and affirmative action for fish and plants, to cloud the titles of private landowners in an area of California larger that many of these United States.
SierraWasp!!!
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.