 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| FWA's letter of oposition to the Blue Ridge Berryessa Natural Area. December 5, 2007 The Honorable Mike Thompson Re: Blue Ridge Berryessa National Conservation Area Dear Congressman Thompson: The Family Water Alliance (FWA) is a grassroots, nonprofit corporation, whose mission is education and public outreach in an effort to preserve private property rights, water rights, and the rural agricultural communities of Northern California, of which you have represented in the past On behalf of the FWA Board of Directors, I would like to voice our opposition to the Blue Ridge Berryessa National Conservation Area (BRBNCA) designation. After meeting with Bob Schneider of Tuleyome and talking with your district staff, it is our understanding that you would be willing to author the legislation that would create the BRBNCA. The designation would include land within in five California counties: Colusa, Lake, Solano, Napa and Yolo. The goal of a National Conservation Area (NCA) is federal land use control. Land within this region has been preserved by farmers and ranches for over a hundred years, and those private landowners are the caretakers of the area, not the Bureau of Land Management, or any other state or federal agency. Protecting private property rights should be paramount. The NCA designation will only negatively impact ranchers and farmers in the designation. The NCA designation has a boundary, and those boundaries have consequences from those unfortunate enough to own land within them. Proponents of such designations say that there are no effects on private lands, but by definition National Conservation Area’s restrict land use in the name of “conservation”. Any land use not in accordance with the management plan will not be permissible within the conservation area. While many special interests groups, whether environmental or developers, may want to plan the future of this region that is the role of landowners and each local county, not the federal or state government. Counties should have land use authority, through zoning and General Plans, and an NCA designation takes that authority away. An NCA designation would create a top down approach to federal zoning. There are many instances across the nation where federal agencies responsible for managing public lands have been hostile to private landowners and this will most likely not change. The negative impacts of NCA designations to our rural communities are unacceptable. Protecting agricultural is key and this can be done through county zoning and investing in programs, such as the Williamson Act, that help keep farming viable. Additional environmental regulation will only hurt local farmers and ranchers and put them out of business. Over half of the 800,000 acres within the proposed boundary are privately owned. That being said, I respectfully urge you to ask all the landowners of the region who are going to be effected by an NCA designation, be able to opt-in to such a proposal, and if all private landowners do not opt in, then the map only reflect federal land. Without an opt-in component this legislation it should not be authored. The NCA designation will only empower environmental groups and erode private property rights. Sincerely, Ashley Indrieri Cc: |
|
|