 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Press Releases
THE PROBLEM? A NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA It’s hard for me to understand how certain special interest groups get to plan the vision for the Blue Ridge Berryessa region. The big fear of development can be viewed as a threat, but who get to make the decisions on whether or not a particular region gets to grow? Those that we elect to represent our local counties and cities should remain in control of local land use decisions. While I may not be a resident of Lake County, I am a resident of Colusa County and the National Conservation Area (NCA) designation would not only affect Lake County, but Colusa, Solano, Napa and Yolo Counties as well. But herein lies the problem, of the 800,000 acres in the Blue Ridge Berryessa region, over 400,000 is privately owned. Arbitrary layers of conservation on privately owned land can affect property values, and many of those landowners have no idea that there is a proposed conservation area that they may be forced to deal with. Environmental groups are not elected by the people and their vision for the region may differ from others who live there. But regardless of their vision, they have no authority to plan for the future of privately owned land. Private landowners should be able to opt-in to such a designation. While proponents of an NCA designation proclaim that it will protect the region from growth, it creates a mechanism by which local government is bypassed, thus giving the federal government land use authority. Therefore, c nation was built on private property rights and these rights are the cornerstone of liberty and wealth in our nation. Private property rights are included in the fifth amendment of the constitution because our forefathers understood the basic principles of private property and their role in creating the American dream in a capitalistic society. Over the years the environmental movement has stripped many landowners of these rights through government intrusion and the Endangered Species Act. The acquisition of private property for “public good” under the guise of protecting the environment is only a scare tactic. Landowners, farmers and ranchers have been good stewards of their land for many decades and the government and environmental groups have no right to impose regulations on private landowners that have the potential to put them out of businesses. It is critical that the public understands that private property rights need to be protected and that programs that undermined those rights need to be exposed. In our nation and right in our backyard, a deceptive land grab is being pursued to further the environmental agenda, and agricultural and our rural economies are the innocent victims that are caught in the crossfire. So why the use of scare tactics? What is the big unknown fear that we need to be protected from? Development? The fear that landowners will sell out to the highest bidder is a real threat, but it is also someone’s right to sell if farming or ranching is no longer economically viable for them. Investing in programs that help keep farming and ranching viable is the way to prevent development not additional environmental and government regulations and fees. Public awareness and knowledge of the issue is the only way to protect our community. We are a nation that was built on the “land of free and home of the brave” and private property rights are one of the founding principles that make our county so great. Therefore, creating a top down approach to zoning and taking away local control over local issues. Congress will get to draw a circle on a map, but that circle has consequences for those unfortunate to enough to have property within the boundary. Also, it’s not surprising that environmental groups are supporting such a concept. The NCA designation will create an influx of money to the region, and that means that local environmental groups will be able receive grants to “preserve” the region and further their agenda. The goal of an NCA designation is land acquisition and federal land use authority. This region has been protected by private landowners for over one hundred years, and who is to say that the federal government can do a better job managing the region. It seems disingenuous for the proponents of such a designation, who claim to want to preserve the region for future generations, to want to put those future generations deeper and deeper into debt. And while there may be a growing number of organizations that want to support this designation, there are a growing number of landowner, elected officials, non profit organizations, ranchers and farmers that are opposed to such an egregious violation of private property rights. Private property rights are included the constitution because our forefathers understood the basic principles of private property and their role in creating the American dream in a capitalistic society. Over the years, the environmental movement has stripped many landowners of these rights through government intrusion and the Endangered Species Act. The acquisition of private property for “public good” under the guise of protecting the environment is only a scare tactic. Landowners, farmers and ranchers have been good stewards of their land for many decades and the government and environmental groups have no right to impose regulations on private landowners that have the potential to put them out of business. It is critical that the public understands that private property rights need to be protected and that programs that undermined those rights need to be exposed. In our nation and right in our backyard, a deceptive land grab is being pursued to further the environmental agenda, and agricultural and our rural economies are the innocent victims that are caught in the crossfire. Public awareness and knowledge of the issue is the only way to protect our communities. We are a nation that was built on the “land of free and home of the brave” and private property rights are one of the founding principles that make our county so great. By Ashley Indrieri, Executive Director, Family Water Alliance A local environmental group has proposed that Congress create a National Conservation Area (NCA) for the Blue Ridge Berryessa Natural Area(BRBNA). Click here for more information on the BRBNA. This designation would include 800,000 acres of land in Colusa, Lake, Solano, Napa and Yolo Counties. Over 400,000 acres within the NCA designation boundaries is private land, which is cause for great concern about the impacts to those landowners and our local counties. While the legislation has not been authored; it is expected to be proposed within a few months. 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. The NCA designation will only negatively impact ranchers and farmers in the designation. The NCA designation has a boundary, and those boundaries have consequences for 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 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. Landowners within the region, who are going to be affected by an NCA designation, should be able to opt-in to such a proposal, and if all private landowners do not opt-in, then the map only reflects federal land. The NCA designation will only empower environmental groups and erode private property rights. ### By Ashley Indrieri, Executive Director, Family Water Alliance As I see private property rights violated all over our nation through eminent domain abuse, land acquisition and easement programs, I am reminded of the importance of our fundamental rights. Our nation was built on private property rights and these rights are the cornerstone of liberty and wealth in our nation. Private property rights are included in the fifth amendment of the constitution because our forefathers understood the basic principles of private property and their role in creating the American dream in a capitalistic society. Over the years the environmental movement has stripped many landowners of these rights through government intrusion and the Endangered Species Act. The acquisition of private property for “public good” under the guise of protecting the environment is only a scare tactic. Landowners, farmers and ranchers have been good stewards of their land for many decades and the government and environmental groups have no right to impose regulations on private landowners that have the potential to put them out of businesses. It is critical that the public understands that private property rights need to be protected and that programs that undermined those rights need to be exposed. In our nation and right in our backyard, a deceptive land grab is being persued to further the environmental agenda, and agricultural and our rural economies are the innocent victims that are caught in the crossfire. So why the use of scare tactics? What is the big unknown fear that we need to be protected from? Development? The fear that landowners will sell out to the highest bidder is a real threat, but it is also someone’s right to sell if farming or ranching is no longer economically viable for them. Investing in programs that help keep farming and ranching viable is the way to prevent development not additional environmental and government regulations and fees. Public awareness and knowledge of the issue is the only way to protect our community. We are a nation that was built on the “land of free and home of the brave” and private property rights are one of the founding principles that make our county so great. ### By Ashley Indrieri, Executive Director, Family Water Alliance It is very evident that we may have a dry winter even though weather forecasters have predicted otherwise. Most of our reservoirs are only a quarter full and the looming water crisis in our state might be inevitable. While the Governors and legislators talk about investing in addition water storage, no agreements have been made. Neither side is willing to compromise, and the sticking point is additional reservoirs and dams for our state. Environmental groups are scurrying to fight any more additional water storage in an attempt to control growth. Many environmentalists feel that if you build it they will come and consequently if you don’t build they will not come, but this is not the case. California has not invested in water infrastructure in decades and we will be paying the price. Conservation is touted to be the answer, but when there is no water you can’t conserve it. We need real water storage, real money to build it and real policies that protect our water rights. One or even two of those pieces are an acceptable compromise for Northern California, we must be kept whole and protect the interests of the north state and our communities. If the legislature does not come to an agreement the water needed to water lawns in Southern California will come from the farmers. A crisis will force people to conserve and perhaps even landscape their yards with plants that do not require much water, but the “kink your hose” mentality will not fix the problem. Our Governor is on the right tract advocating for water storage, and frankly if we can’t get Sites Reservoir with the Governor behind it perhaps there is no hope of ever getting it. Schwarzenegger is determined to solve California’s water crisis, but time is ticking away and we still don’t have a water bond for the 2008 ballot. ### By Ashley Indrieri, Executive Director, Family Water Alliance For year Family Water Alliance has been reporting on the Sacramento River Conservation Area Forum (SRCAF) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC). With news that they have planned a public flood control meeting in Colusa for next week, we felt it imperative to address their claims to be proponents of flood control. As stated in the SCRAF handbook, the overall goals of SB 1086, the legislation that created the SRCAF, is to preserve remaining habitat and reestablish a continuous riparian ecosystem along the Sacramento River between Red Bluff and Verona. This area, the SRCA, is an approximate 213,000 acres along a 222 mile stretch of the Sacramento River. This program was established in 1986 by legislation authored by then Senator Jim Neilson. TNC, is a partner and integral part of the SRCAF and focuses on riparian protection, restoration on sites along the Sacramento River. TNC has been actively involved in land acquisition since the 1980’s with the goal of restoring these lands to create contiguous blocks of riparian forest. Furthermore, TNC has become the largest nationally recognized and funded environmental organization. Currently most of the land with in the SRCA is prime farmland due to the rich river soils. The goal of TNC and the SRCAF has been to work together to acquire this productive farmland along the Sacramento River for establishing continuous riparian forest. So, we must question how they are going establish this riparian forest along the river. In the SRCA handbook, a focus in recent years is to allow flooding, and river channel migration, so the river can reconnect with its floodplain. They have advocated setback levees where river meander is not feasible, but in all scenarios massive amounts of prime farmland are taken out of production causing economic loss to our rural community. Their handbook states, that hard points along the river, such as agricultural operations, buildings, pumping plants, bridges and levees may change the rate and pattern of channel movement. Scattered throughout their handbook is their philosophy on flood control. However it is best summed up on page 2-9 where it states “a levee may block floodwaters from a portion of the floodplain, preventing the succession necessary for the natural establishment of riparian habitat.” In other words levees and current land uses prevent the reestablishment of the riparian corridor thus their eagerness for land acquisition. It is ironic that SRCAF, DWR and TNC are co-hosting a flood control meeting in Colusa to inform the public about the flood control system from Princeton to Colusa. The meeting will focus on how the floodway was designed to function and how it works today. In the public information notice they state they will be discussing recent improvements to the Tisdale Bypass. The victory of getting the Tisdale Bypass cleaned was due to the handwork of many local citizens, farmers, Family Water Alliance, local government officials, and our north state legislators. During the years that these locals were advocating for the cleaning of Tisdale the SRCAF and TNC was nowhere to be found. For them to report at this late stage in the game is hypocrisy at its best. It was envirmomental regulation, such as those supported and created by TNC and other environmental groups, which prohibited the maintenance of the Tisdale Bypass for over thirty years. Not surprisingly, TNC was readily available to assist in the mitigation efforts required after Tisdale was cleaned out. Tax payers have been hit twice, first having to pay the 4.5 million dollars to clean out the bypass and also having to pay millions of dollars for the mitigation for the loss of habitat within bypass. This mitigation should have never had to be done if the bypass had been maintained like it historically was intended. In 2005, the County of Colusa of adopted a resolution recommending the cessation of funding to the Sacramento River Conservation Area Forum and directing county representatives to exercise veto power over all Colusa County sited restoration projects coming before the SRCAF for approval. The resolution states “the Colusa County Board of Supervisors has become increasingly frustrated by the lack of responsiveness to legitimate concerns of the landowners within the SRCAF jurisdiction”. Additionally, the redirected negative impacts cause by land acquisition and habitat restoration projects have negatively impacted Colusa and our flood control system. Colusa County and many others worked for years to craft policies with the SRCAF to mitigate and minimize these negative impacts. All this hard work became a victim of environmental bureaucracy and the lack of will of the SRCAF to truly address these concerns. The Good Neighbor Policy that was provided failed to provide tangible landowner assurances farmers within the SCRA. The policy is full of loopholes that render it meaningless. It is disingenuous for DWR, TNC, and the SRCAF to hold a public meeting in Colusa on flood control and not do it in coordination with local government. It takes away a county sovereignty when state and federal agencies bypass local government and partner with environmental organizations. When many members of our local community, the County of Colusa and Colusa County Farm Bureau have all walked away from the SRCAF, why should citizens of Colusa attend a flood forum put on by a group that have regularly put the protection of the environment and the financing of their own programs before the wellbeing of our community? ### By Ashley Indrieri, Executive Director, Family Water Alliance An absolute egregious violation of private property rights is being perpetuated by a group called the Blue Ridge Berryessa Natural Area Partnership (the Partnership). The group has mapped public and private lands in Napa, Solano, Yolo and Colusa counties and identified that this region is sparsely populated, abundant in natural resources, and has witnessed relatively little or no change within the last century. While I agree this statement to be true, private landowners do not need an “advisory group” to map and maintain private land because they feel that ranchers may sell their land to developers when it no longer is economically viable. Counties and cities have the authority to dictate land use, not non-profit environmental groups and state and federal agencies who sit on an “advisory group”. Many ranches have existed for over a hundred years without being designated a “natural area”. Landowners, ranchers and farmers have chosen not to sell their property to developers and if they chose otherwise that is their right. Furthermore, the Partnership says that the respect private property rights and considers all positions on an issue but support those when the Partnership has reached consensus. Unfortunately, this sounds all too similar to what the Sacramento River Conservation Area Forum (SRCAF) has claimed all these years and what FWA has witnessed not to be the case. Family Water Alliance is dedicated to protecting private property rights and when we see that groups are eroding those rights, we act. For more information and to see what land has been mapped please visit www.familywaterallince.com. ### By Ashley Emery, Executive Director, Family Water Alliance First in Series It has been very busy in the State legislature recently with a flurry of “flood control” bills. Numerous bills were signed by Governor Schwarzenegger last week that will have huge negative impacts on rural communities and agriculture. The bills that were signed were Assembly Bill 5 (Wolk), Assembly Bill 930 (Jones), Senate Bill 5 (Machado), and Senate Bill 17 (Florez). While these bills may be different in some aspects in others they are identical and will snow ball the negative effects to rural communities. First I will start with AB 5 and SB 5. These particular bills were identical and accomplished the same goal. The legislation requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) write a new plan for flood control for California. This plan will dictate local land use and will require cities and counties to amend their general plans according to DWR’s wishes. The plan also gives complete control of flood control to DWR and ignores local control. While there are many unanswered questions at this point about what the new plan will include, there is still reason to be concerned. The redesign of the flood control system will have wide impacts on current land uses, absorb massive tracts of farmland and other private lands into an expanded bypass system, and prevent development in areas in need of economic development. Also DWR all ready had the power to use eminent domain and can use it to increase any bypass facility. Our current flood control system has been in place for a hundred years but is in a state of disrepair. If our current system was functioning at design capacity the threat of catastrophic flooding would be greatly reduced. But just like many other projects, California invests money in infrastructure and capital improvements but the money for maintenance is never appropriated. It would not have cost $4.7 million dollars to clean out the Tisdale Bypass if it was maintained in the first place. Why spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to expand the flood control system and acquire private property and the most productive agricultural land, when we cannot maintain the system we currently have? Not only does this legislation redesign the system but it includes counterproductive environmental objectives. These additional objectives include promotion of river meander and increased wildlife habitat. Planting habitat in our flood control system only reduces carrying capacity and jeopardizes the flood control system. Proven methods of increased flood control such as new or higher dams and maintaining the river channel will be completely ignored in the plan, because they are not environmentally friendly. The new plan follows the “path of lease resistance” which makes the plan a step in the wrong direction for in achieving the flood protection residents of California deserve. ### VICTORY IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE By Ashley Emery, Executive Director, Family Water Alliance Many have called Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8 “flawed” and “worse than doing nothing at all”. This eminent domain bill was full of loopholes that rendered it meaningless and it failed to get a two-thirds vote in the State Assembly this week. ACA 8, sponsored by the League of California Cities, did not protect businesses, family farms, places of worship and provided only limited protection for primary residences. Family Water Alliance wrote numerous letters in opposition of the legislation and testified in front of the State Legislature to assure protections of all private property. The failure of this legislation is a victory for all California’s. Eminent domain reform is a bipartisan issue, and many are seeking reform after witnessing appalling abuses and the taking of private property for non-public uses in our State. The California Farm Bureau Federation, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights have sponsored the California Property Owners Farmland Protection Act (CPOFOA) which will appear on the June ballot. This Act will assure that legitimate uses of eminent domain are preserved but that abuses to private property rights are no longer allowed in our state. The CPOFOA won the support of the California Republican Party. Senator Tom McClintock introduced that Act to the party and said “the Republican Party has reaffirmed its commitment to the American Dream of home ownership and the security of private property rights. In addition to sponsoring ACA 8, the League of Cities is circulating an additional flawed initiative also designed to prevent real reform of eminent domain abuse. The Leagues initiative does not provide the necessary protection to assure that private property and farmland can not be seized for non-public uses. The initiative also includes a “poison pil”l that is intended to undermine the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act. With the defeat of AC8, the taxpayer financed League of California Cities will have to spend millions of dollars to qualify their ballot measure through collecting signatures. John Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association had to say about the League’s ballot initiative, “the only constituency that would have any interest in financing the League’s measure are those who benefit from existing practices of eminent domain abuse. Simply put, the League’s ballot measure was drafted by redevelopment interests for those who profit from the status quo.” Family Water Alliance is dedicated to protecting private property rights and farmland in our rural communities. It is important that the voters of California understand the fundamental differences between the ballot initiatives. For more information visit www.familywateralliance.com. ### Earlier this year, the US Army Corps of Engineers released levee maintenance standards that would require all vegetation to be removed from Central Valley levees. For decades, vegetation has been allowed to grow on levees, but in light of Hurricane Katrina the Corps has determined that vegetation must be removed in order to protect the integrity of the Central Valley levee system. The decision by the Corps has been discussed in numerous meetings in recent months. For years FWA, local residents, legislators, reclamation board member and farmers that farm along the Sacramento River have warned of the potential danger of habitat restoration and vegetation in our flood ways. To date, vegetation still remains on levees and many feel that setback levees are the solution. Residents of the Central Valley need to make it clear that setback levees are not the answer to solving the flood control crisis in our state. Setback levees take valuable productive farmland out of production, causing negative impacts to farmers and our local economies. Furthermore, the incredible expense associated with setback levees and the acquisition of privately owned agricultural land makes it fiscally irresponsible. It is wiser for our state to conduct the maintaiance historically undertaken to preserve our existing flood control system, prohibit vegetation plantings within the levee’s and bypasses that reduce the conveyance capacity, reestablish dredging and renew the focus on public safely. In conclusion, the elementary idea of increase surface water storage comes to mind. Addition reservoirs in our state would create increased water supply and additional flood protection. But maybe it just makes too much sense. ### BUDGET STALLED OVER ENVIRONMENT As the state budget makes headlines in California, Republicans that are holding out for a balanced budget deserve to be applauded. One issue within Senate budget negotiations is the landmark legislation, Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. This legislation requires California to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by the year 2020. A “scientific consensus” has determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions contribute to global warming. This legislation comes at the same time that voters have passed numerous bond measures to rebuild California’s aging infrastructure. But here’s the catch, counties and cities are at risk of being sued by Attorney General Jerry Brown if they fail to address global warming in their general and transportation plans. San Bernardino County has a lawsuit pending against them for failing to address how the county plans to construct highways without increasing greenhouse-gas emissions. With billions of dollars being available for roads, levee improvements and other desperately needed infrastructure, many Republicans at the State Capitol are worried that the money will end up being used to fight lawsuits, not build infrastructure, and rightfully so. Senate Republicans are demanding a provision that would prevent cities, counties, businesses and private developers for being sued for failing to address global warming. The provision is necessary in order not to stall over 40 billion dollars in public works projects. Within the legislation it states that California must reduce greenhouse gas emissions but it does not address the devastating economic impact to our state and local communities.### By Ashley Emery, Executive Director, Family Water Alliance The Constitution states “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”. Eminent domain has been the tool used by cities to condemn private property and transfer it to private developers to increase tax revenue. This abuse of eminent domain as created two very different approaches to reform. Last week, the Assembly Judiciary committee passed ACA 8, on a party line vote. This bill, authored by De La Torre, only addresses a limited number of abuses and still allows cities to take private property and give it to developers. This legislation is backed by the League of California Cities, who is known to be an enemy of private property rights. In contrast ACA 2, authored by Walter and co-authored by LaMalfa, actually addresses the real problem in eminent domain abuse and denies condemnation of land for non-public use. There is the potential that two eminent domain reform bills will appear on the ballot, if ACA 8 is successful in getting a two-thirds vote in needs. Currently the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Farm Bureau and California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights have joined together to qualify the “California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act” for the 2008 ballot. Cities and the redevelopment association are fearful of real reform, and are attempting to fool voters with ACA 8 and the appearance of reform. Both measures are in response to the highly controversial Kelo vs. New London Supreme Court case decision which held that local governments have the power to take privately owned homes and property by employing eminent domain powers to make way for more lucrative private real estate proposals that will result in increased tax revenues. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who has since retired from the bench, wrote her dissenting opinion on behalf of the Justices who opposed the decision. Justice O’Connor expressed her sentiments in no uncertain terms: "Today the Court abandons this long held, basic limitation on governmental power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded – i.e. given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public – in the process." She stated that the majority holding effectively deleted the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory." Eminent domain reform is desperately needed in our state; both Democratic and Republican voters are seeking reform of this policy that allows governmental abuses of eminent domain, not just the appearance of reform. Californians deserve protection of their homes, churches, businesses, family farms, investment properties and vacant lands. ### By Ashley Emery, Executive Director, Family Water Alliance A concept has been put forth by Sacramento Congresswomen Doris Matsui, that farmland should be flooded in order to protect urban Sacramento from catastrophic flooding. While farming has been a great partner to flood control for many decades, Matsui’s idea for additional flood control has some serious ramifications on rural communities. Our flood control system is just that, a system, and needs to function as designed. For the past thirty years, the system had not been maintained and now is in a state of disrepair. The Sacramento River as well as our by-passes and weirs are filled with woody debris, silt and sediment, which have greatly reduced our flood control system’s ability to function. Why spend millions of dollars to acquire farmland when the threat of flooding can be reduced by rehabilitating the current system? This plan would make rural north state communities a sacrifice zone for Sacramento. The idea that rural communities must suffer great economic loss because we only have crops behind our levees is simply unacceptable. With over twenty five percent of the worlds food supply being produced in the Central Valley of California it seems that protecting farmland should be the goal. While Matsui says “the best flood protection is more farming” the legislation she is proposing does not. Her plan calls for use of agricultural easements for better “water management” and conservation programs, not flood control. Matsui is expected to try to amend the Farm Bill to implement this program. At this point the program is very vague and it is unknown how successful her efforts will be. For more information on this legislation please visit www.familywateralliance.com. ### By Sue Sutton, Director, Family Water Alliance Letter to the Editor, Capitol Press, July 16, 2007 Recently the Sacramento Bee published an article regarding the use of farmland as expanded flood bypasses. The Bee’s article, July 8, 2007 re: Matsui wants to use farms as flood buffer, indicates that the Congresswoman has no idea what happens to valuable farmland when it is flooded. Her contemplation of allowing farmland to become part of a new or expanded flood bypass will cause real consternation not conservation for farmers. As a small family farmer, I know first hand what impacts floodwater can have on the land. Over 10 years ago Funks slough, a small creek in Colusa County, broke over our property, flooding 180 acres. The floodwaters dropped over 140,000 cubic yards of sandy silt, large woody debris, vegetative trash, and an insurmountable amount of weed seeds. It took two years to recover the soil, re-level the land, eliminate weeds, and three years until we got a productive crop off the land. The estimated cost to repair the damage: $80,000 plus the loss of crop value. We have a great flood control system, and although not perfect, if maintained as designed, could handle many flood events. The key is to maintain what we have. For example, the Sutter bypass is so full of vegetation it can’t possibly function as designed. Locals contribute the levee break at Meridian to the inability of the bypass to carry the floodwater. Vegetation was so thick that it backed up the water two feet and put extra pressure on the levees; the net result, a break in the levee and major flooding. If we keep placing vegetation in our bypasses, which has become common place over the last 30 years due to the environmental movement, the bypasses will be filled up with vegetation and have no room for carrying overflow flood waters, which is their intended purpose…our safety valves. A fully functioning system would include expanding storage facilities, and maintaining the design capacity of the current flood system to include the levees, bypasses, weirs, and that horrible “d” word, dredging. If Matsui wants to use farmland as bypasses, she should push to restore the original system first, including the existing bypasses and leave farmland alone. ### Editorial, Colusa-Sun Herald, July 6, 2007 The recent Angora wildfire in the Tahoe Basin was a disaster waiting to happen. Forestry officials and fire officials had predicated this fire years ago. The Basin, which is residence to many, has became overgrown, disease ridden and a tinder-box due to a lack of forest thinning in recent years. The fire should be a wake up call, just as Hurricane Katrina was a wake up call to those of us in California whose homes and property are protected by deteriorating levees. But all too soon politics take there course and the disaster is behind us, many will have soon forgotten about the danger we are in, in California. Whether is be earthquakes, floods, wildfires, or landslides we are all at risk. As the fire in the Tahoe Basin destroyed over 200 homes, residents became angered at the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), which controls building and development in the area. Many who had lost their homes blamed the TRPA for strict best management practices which did not allow residents to create adequate defensible space around their properties. This argument is very familiar, it is same that Central Valley residents have about the flood prone region that we live in. Strict environmental standards have prohibited desperately needed maintenance and repairs to our flood control system. Vegetation and silt have been allowed to build in the river and in our weirs and bypasses, which are designed to protect our communities. These strict environmental standards have added to the deterioration of our flood control system. Northern California is threatened by flooding every year, just as Tahoe is at risk of forest fires. This is why Family Water Alliance tirelessly advocates for flood control in our state. After Hurricane Katrina a fury of legislation was passed in order to protect north state residents and many emergency levee repairs were completed but it is simply not enough to only do emergency repair work; routine maintained needs to be done. As we continue to educate the community and our elected officials about the danger we face, we are encouraged by the foresight of our north state legislators. They routinely advocate for flood control and they are actively engaged in the dialogue needed to move our state forward. Soon Tahoe residents will rebuild just as the people of New Orleans are, but is it too soon? If our state continues with business as usual these kinds of disasters will become common place in our states history. State officials need to learn from the Angora fire and support what needs to be done, to prevent this from happening again. ### Editorial, Colusa-Sun Herald, June 22, 2007 In 1982, the peripheral canal was one of the most wildly opposed pieces of legislation and twenty-five years it is a hot topic again. Last week, during a Bakersfield “town hall” meeting, our Governor endorsed the most controversial approach to the delta, the peripheral canal. Stating that, “we have studied this subject to death”, he demanded that we must take action, saying we must “build more conveyance and ….more water storage”. Schwarzenegger’s aides confirmed that by “conveyance” he meant the peripheral canal. The canal would carry water from the Sacramento River, around the fragile Delta, to the California Aqueduct. In 1982, the canal was denounced at a catastrophe waiting to happen by many environmentalists and a Southern California water grab by those in the north state. Governor Schwarzenegger is not afraid of controversy and definitely takes the issues head on. But, a quarter of a century later, with 12 million more people in the state of California, the canal is back on the agenda, along with much needed water storage. Not only did the Governor endorse the canal, but he also pushed additional water storage. The two reservoirs supported by the Governor will be tied to the peripheral canal debate and will continue to be debated throughout the state. It is time that we start looking for a possible solution to California’s water crisis. We cannot ignore that we have a problem and that it has been looming for decades. All the pieces of the puzzle need to fit together. We need to strengthen our flood control system, build more water storage, and find a solution to fix the delta. A piecemeal approach will not help us prepare for the future. Our state needs to plan ahead instead of trying to play catch up later. Family Water Alliance in a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission is to educate to the public about rural issues. For more information on FWA visit, www.familywateralliance.com. ### Editorial, Colusa- Sun Herald, June 15, 2007 As headlines have been made across the state about the shutting down of the delta pumps Family Water Alliance is reminded of the most powerful legislation signed in to law. This law is the Endangered Species Act (ESA) which was enacted by Richard Nixon in 1973. The Department of Water Resources voluntarily shut down the Delta pumps, which supplies 25 million California’s and 750,000 acres of farmland with water, to protect the delta smelt, a small translucent fish that is currently listed as threatened under ESA law. In light of this shut down mandatory water conservation and reductions have been made by water agencies in the region. Farmers in the region need water today to irrigate their crops or risk devastating losses. Many have described the situation as a “ticking time bomb” and “not logical”. This shut down and loss of water has left farmers very uncertain about this year’s irrigation season. Even farmers who divert their own water from the river have been asked to reduce the amount of water they divert to protect the fish population. The ESA takes precedence over everything, even our food and water supply and private property rights. This law has been wielded by environmental groups as a sword against private property rights, the agricultural community, economic growth and desperately needed infrastructure in our state. The ESA was signed into law as a well intentioned piece of legislation but has been misused, malfunctioning and an example of ineffective public policy. The need to reform the ESA is imperative. The law was intended to help recover species in jeopardy of becoming extinct but the law has failed in too many instances. Amendments must be made in order to protect private property rights and the agricultural community. ### LEVEE MAINTENANCE TAKES CENTER STAGE Other Voices, Colusa-Sun Herald, April 18, 2007 “Let the battle begin” is the saying that comes to mind in light of the recent fury around levee repairs and maintenance in California. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) has given national directive for levee maintenance standards forcing the removal of all vegetation on the Central Valley’s levee system. These new standards have made headlines across the state and raised the issue of the environment vs. flood control, once again. Family Water Alliance (FWA) does not, and never has, wanted to see barren levees and historic trees stripped off all of our levee’s but has always voiced concern over habitat restoration and planting of vegetation on our levee’s. The environmental movement has taken center stage in American politics over the past 30 years and consequently has changed the focus of state and federal resource agencies from flood control to habitat restoration. FWA has witnessed over the past 15 years state and federal agencies acquiescing to the environmental agenda and closing their eyes to their own flood control standards. This has been done through lack of maintenance, lack of money for proper operation of the system, and by allowing and promoting the planting of vegetation on our levees, and in our bypasses and weirs. Unfortunately, it took the Hurricane Katrina disaster, and a lawsuit (the Paterno Decision) which deemed the state liable for flood damage, to make flood control a priority for our state. Family Water Alliance long ago predicted the eventual conflict between federal and state officials who have for years fore fronted restoration over flood control and public safety. Most of the restoration projects that have allowed the planting of vegetation on our levees and in our bypasses have been environmental mitigation. Recently with Governor Schwarzenegger’s emergency Critical Levee repairs, over 50% of the budget for levee repairs went to environmental mitigation on the repaired sites. By the agencies not following their own standards they have now created a quagmire and with the ACOE new mandated levee maintenance standards, recently made public, the mitigation efforts for all the recent emergency levee repairs may now need to be removed. Couple this with the removal of all natural overgrowth that has occurred and we now have created huge conflicts for the agencies and the environmental community, not to mention the tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars this has caused. FWA, local residents, our north state legislators, current Reclamation Board members and farmers that farm along the Sacramento River have warned of the potential dangers of habitat restoration in our floodways. Ironically, even with the new Corps mandate, FWA, along with levee districts and local residents, is currently fighting to protect our flood control system against a local environmental group that wants to plant 1500 elderberry shrubs in the Butte Basin over-flow area. We all strongly feel that this will impede flood waters. This all comes down to flood control, and the need to balance habitat restoration with flood protection. Over a hundred years ago our flood control system was created and was maintained through effective maintenance practices. The voters of California agreed that we need to repair our flood control system and the environmental agenda has, and is, undermining that cause. For more information on flood control please visit the Family Water Alliance website at www.familywateralliance.com and view our 12-minute video, “California Waterways; Our Legacy at Risk”. ### |
|
|