[FairOpinion]

I am against this Conservancy in general.

But, wouldn't this:

"The Conservancy Cannot:

•Exercise any power of eminent domain
• Regulate land use
• Regulate activities on land owned by others
•Hold any authority over water rights held by others •Purchase land"

pretty much renders it toothless?

[SierraWasp]

I'll answer that. I can just hear the board of this CONservancy's conversation in a future "closed session" in discussions with their legal counsel... "Counsellor, what does the law say we can do with this resistant property owner?" CONservancy Lawyer: "Well... what do you want the law to say, Mr. Chairman?"

[hedgetrimmer]

To anwser your question with another question, if I may:

How can the conservancy "Protect, preserve, and restore the region’s … resources", and not regulate land use, and regulate activities on land owned by others?

How can the conservancy reflect the will of the electorate, if more than half the board is appointed? They will always have the majority so the deck is stacked against any constitutionally correct representation.

If you lived in Santa Cruz County, you would know that however many "public hearings" conservancies undertake, they do not run them by Roberts Rules of Order, they facilitate them guaranteeing the predetermined outcome they sought.

Then, you might also ask, how does a "conservancy" do this:
Provide increased opportunities for tourism and recreation." ?

[farmfriend]

"The Conservancy Cannot:
•Exercise any power of eminent domain
• Regulate land use
• Regulate activities on land owned by others
•Hold any authority over water rights held by others •Purchase land"

That is what they have AB 2631 for. Regulate under the invasive species bill, it also promotes native species, then when the land owner can no longer use his property the way he wants he will sell to the conservancy!