Pinging Arnie's Angels... ;-)
Posted on 06/20/2004 10:15:39 PM PDT by farmfriend
AB 2600 (Laird)
SUMMARY : Creates within the Resources Agency the Sierra Nevada Conservancy (Conservancy) to acquire and manage land for various specified public objectives, and to make grants for those purposes, in the Sierra Nevada-Cascade Mountain Region.
AB 1788 (Leslie)
SUMMARY : Creates within the Resources Agency the Sierra Nevada Conservancy (Conservancy) to acquire and manage land for various specified public objectives, and to make grants for those purposes, in the Sierra Nevada Region.
AB 2631 (Wolk)
SUMMARY : Establishes an interagency council (more government bureaucracy) to consider ways to coordinate state efforts to eradicate and control invasive species.
Analysis from the Assembly on AB 2600:
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis:
1.Moderate ongoing costs, about $300,000 annually starting in fiscal year (FY) 2005-06, to the Resources Agency to provide staff and other resources to the Conservancy, payable from the General Fund (GF), Environmental License Plate Fund, Proposition 50 bond proceeds, or some combination thereof.
2.Substantial cost pressures, in the range of $5 million to $10 million annually starting in FY 2005-06, to fund the acquisition of public lands with the Conservancy's jurisdiction, payable from the GF, Proposition 50 bond proceeds, or a future resources bond measure.
They will fund through General Fund support, statewide propositions and other sources.
This scary document outlines the enormous amount of money the conservancy will request, and some ideas about how to get it.
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." ,P>
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.
Analysis from the legislature itself on AB 2631:
FISCAL EFFECT : Establishes a new state agency with a number of duties and responsibilities to be carried out all over the state. This bill does not identify any source of funding, except what the Legislature may appropriate in the future. There will be a considerable cost to the state of carrying out all the activities and responsibilities addressed in this bill. Presumably, existing programs would be folded into the Council's program, so the funding for those programs could be transferred to the Council, but the scope of the Council's responsibilities as set forth in this bill exceeds the scope of the collective efforts of all the existing agencies and programs.
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.
An Analysis of Arnold Schwarzenegger's Environmental Policy
A Sierra umbrella? - Conservancy proposed to protect mountain range
CA freepers, RED ALERT RED ALERT!!!
CA freepers, RED ALERT Thread 2
CA: Sierra Conservancy bills seek funding for range
Socialist who are pushing this legislation.
Newsletter for the California Association of Business, Property and Resource Owners (CABPRO)
Volume 10, Number 3 - April, 2004
Page 5
Sierra Nevada ConservancyState legislation has been introduced to again attempt to create a Sierra Nevada Conservancy. Two bills are now pending in the State Assembly, with a hearing on both set for April 19 in Sacramento with the Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Assemblyman Tim Leslie (R-Tahoe City) introduced AB 1788 on January 5.
Assemblyman John Laird (DSanta Cruz) introduced AB 2600 on February 20. Both bills establish a new state agency known as the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, covering numerous counties but excluding the Lake Tahoe region (it already has a conservancy). The Conservancy would have powers to acquire private land or interests.
In AB 1788, the Conservancy’s operations would be funded either as part of the State Budget or as bond acts allocate monies. In AB 2600, $30 million from Prop 50 would be its funding source. Another notable difference between the two bills is that AB 1788 requires "a resolution in support of that acquisition and the land management plan applicable to the acquisition has been approved by the county or city that exercises general planning authority and jurisdiction over that parcel." (Section 33351 (c)) CABPRO asked for that when the first Sierra Nevada Conservancy bill was working its way through Sacramento in 2002! However, AB 2600 does not seek support from the local jurisdiction. There are other differences as well. These differences will be presented in the next issue of our newsletter.
Partly as a result of increasing acquisitions for open space and other preservation purposes, Field Director Pat Davison has written a discussion draft supporting property tax reimbursement back to the counties when these private parcels or development rights are taken off the tax rolls. The concept entails adding an additional amount onto the purchase price that represents a one-time lump sum to be given to the affected county.
Although the federal government has a program in place to "pay" counties an amount per acre of federal lands (i.e. PILT = Payment In Lieu of Taxes), the state has no such program. So when expansion of Donner State Park or South Yuba State Park occurs, the state pays the property owner for the land but there is no payment or consideration given to the county that had previously received property tax income from the land.
Some opposition to that concept has arisen, based on the potential that the neighboring property tax value increases because the adjacent property now abuts open space.
No quantification of that potential increase has been done in Nevada County. Also, the suggestion that increased tourism, and more tax revenue, will result from more open space has not been quantified at the local level either.
Your CABPRO Board will be discussing our position on both Conservancy bills and the "property tax reimbursement" concept at future meetings.
Contact the office if you want a copy of the "property tax reimbursement" discussion draft, or download it from our website.
Supes say no Nature Conservancy
Apr 19, 2004
By Ami Ridling, Staff Writer
Plumas County news on-line
Does the Sierra Nevada region need a state-mandated conservancy to direct the management of, and hold the power to conserve, public lands? The Plumas County Board of Supervisors does not think so, and they will do everything in their power to stop a conservancy from forming.Two controversial bills, AB1788, authored by Republican Assemblyman Tim Leslie, and AB 2600, authored by Democrat Assemblyman John Laird, are currently making their way through the legislature. If one or both are passed, the Sierra Nevada Conservancy will be born.
At their April 13 meeting, the supervisors voted in favor of writing a letter opposing the two bills to the state.
"These (conservancy) groups are our enemy," said Supervisor Bill Dennison. He said the bills would impose on private property owners' rights.
Supervisor Robert Meacher suggested that Dennison, who will write and send the letter of opposition, be careful with the words he uses in his message. He said that "tact" is necessary in this situation, especially since Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger himself has fueled the bills.
AB 1788 and AB 2600 are similar. The main differences in the two bills are that AB 2600 would not allow for local representation on the Sierra Nevada Conservancy governing board. AB1788, however, calls for two supervisors from each of the five Sierra Nevada subregions, to sit on the governing board.
For more on this story, along with other local stories and features, please see this week's printed newspaper. To subscribe, use the form on this Web site or call 530-283-0800.
Los Angeles Times
June 5, 2004
EDITORIAL: A Jewel Worth Protecting
When Arnold Schwarzenegger campaigned for governor last fall, he called the Sierra Nevada "one of the state's crown jewels" and said that if he was elected he would support establishment of a Sierra Nevada conservancy. The Sierra deserves all superlatives, but it is an asset under stress. The governor should fulfill his promise this year.The Assembly has passed AB 2600 by Assemblyman John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) to create a Sierra conservancy within the state Resources Agency. It would be similar to eight other such groups established by the Legislature since 1973, including the Santa Monica Mountains, the Coastal and the Lake Tahoe conservancies. These organizations identify and work to conserve wildlife habitat, watersheds, historic and cultural areas and open space. They may use state bond funds or grants from nonprofit foundations to purchase prime private lands threatened by development.
(snip)
The natural resources that make the region so attractive to both new residents and new businesses need protection. Too many areas, including the Mammoth Lakes region, could succumb to the syndrome of "loving it to death," awaking too late to the need for regional planning and protection of resources.
Both the Laird and Leslie bills passed and went to the Senate, which should work out an acceptable compromise on the issue of local participation. Then the governor could sign the legislation in a ceremony beside a sparkling creek and meadow abutting lofty spires of Sierra granite. Everyone could proclaim victory.
Government land by state
All values are in thousands (000's) of acres except %'s.
California - Total area of the state 99,822.70
Total Area Owned by State and Federal Gov'ts 52,085.90
% of State's Total Area 52.1%
Owned by Federal Gov't. 49,842.30
% of State's Tot. Area 49.9%
Owned by State 2,243.60
% of State's Tot. Area 2.2%
The following information was taken from a new publication entitled "Managing Federal Forests in the 21st Century" and published by American Forest & Paper Association, Washington DC 20036. The following facts can be and should be shared with co-workers, your family and your neighbors. It's high time for us in the timber industry to educate people about the importance of our forests and how public policy is threatening our very livelihood.
How much land is forested in the U.S.?
About a third. The total U.S. land area is more than 2 billion acres. Forested acres in the U.S. total 747 million acres. 192 million of them are in the National Forest System.Who owns America's forests?
Federal, state and local government agencies own 37%. The forest product industry owns 9%. The remaining 54% of America's forests are owned by private citizens.Are all National Forest System lands available for timber harvesting?
No. 75% of our national forest system is intentionally set aside for non-commercial uses and is not managed for timber or other resource production.Is tree growth outpacing timber harvesting in the U.S.?
Yes. In 1996, the last year for which complete figures are available, net forest growth exceeded harvest in every region of the U.S.
What is the greatest threat to federal forests?
Disease, insect infestations and catatsrophic wildfire exacerbated by conflicting policies and mandates and frivolous lawsuits brought by several national environmental groups paralyzing federal land managers.
Who should be concerned about the forest health crisis on public lands?
Every American. It is not just people who live in and around national forests who are at risk. Recreational opportunities for all of us are threatened, wildlife habitat is threatened and whether they realize it or not, every American depends on the forests for clean drinking water and clean air.
My letter to the editor of the Sacramento Bee.
I read the article on the next round of the poisoning of Lake Davis (Lake Davis on hook again, May 31, 2004) dreading what it portends for the rest of the state. This will soon be the standard.
AB 2631 is an invasive species bill that has passed the Assembly and is now in the Senate. The intent is to go after mitten crabs and star thistle. The implications are much worse.
Are we going to go after barred owls that are displacing the spotted owl? How about the wild horses roaming the arid areas? Are we going to change our policy on coho salmon? Archeology shows these fish are not native to CA. What about all those eucalyptus trees? Shall we cut them all?
And the budget! How is the creation of a whole new bureaucracy going to effect that?
And to those who think that the ESA took their property rights away, wait until you can’t build that dream house or plow that field or graze those cattle because they want to promote some native grass, endangered or not.
Here is a short list of the issues with the sierra conservancy.
1. It puts all private property under control of an unelected body.
2.More than 90% of the land in some counties is owned by the state or federal government. More government control will restrict economic use of private property and likely bankrupt small counties.
3. The board members are appointed, and do not answer to the public and cannot be voted out of office if they harm individual property owners.
4. The conservancy effective merges 20 counties which is unconstitutional-- only the legislature and a vote by citizens can alter county lines.
5. Merging counties and putting control over private land under an unelected board is not only unconsitutional, it mimics the failed system of the soviet union-- this comment was made by an aide to Assemblyman Leslie.
6. The board would be able to redraw parcel boundaries and change property lines taking away constitutional protections for the landowner and changing our system of government from a constitutional government to one by fiat.
7. The conservancy can buy and sell property like a real estate agent. They can buy property and give it to other conservancies, whether or not the public agrees with the policies of that conservancy or their politics-- the public has no say.
8. The conservancy will control economic use of private property through their "working lands" program.
9. The land owner only has 45 days to respond to the conservancy, if the conservancy has indicate that their property is desired for the conservancy.
10. The conservancy will set up a duplicate water quality management program wasting tax money and making the government unnavigatable by the average citizen. If you have a problem or complaint, which bureacracy do you go to? Why is another bureacracy necessary?
11. The conservancy will require $30 million out of the genreral fund just to get started. This from a state that was insovlent a few months ago and requiered a $15 billion bond from a governor who promised "no new taxes".
12. The conservancy will have its own bank account and own portfolio, making it immune from budgeting and cost reduction strategies guaranteed by our constituion.
13. The government should not be able to use taxpayer money to fund a group that will take public lands away from the public by locking them up "for future generations". This again is a techinique of the failed soviet union to give powers to cronies. In fact the whole conservancy idea reeks of cronism.
You obviously haven't read either bill.
One bill puts the land entirely in the hands of the unelected and gives them legislative and punitive authority. The other says that 50% of the board is made up of elected supervisors, but even in that case there can be no majority of elected officials on the board. Read the bill and try to understand what it says please.
I did think that detail need specific mention.
If one entity of government sells land to another government organization it is like taking money from one pocket and putting it in the other and saying now I am richer.
I absolutely do not support this.
I will be making my opinion known to all of our conservative state representitives. It is up to them to see that this bill never reaches Arnold's desk. They did not make campagin promises to support this garbage. It is up to them to put a stop to it. If they let this thing get to Arnold's desk they don't deserve to be called conservatives.
Tommy? Are you listening?
Here you go -
“Soviet: Council that was the primary unit of government in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and that officially performed both legislative and executive functions at the all-union, republic, province, city, district, and village levels.”
In these soviets, unelected and unaccountable commissars and their useful idiots, without help from citizens or the messy give and take of democratic meetings or popular voting, developed utopian plans for the peasants. With the master blueprint in hand, the commissars clanged the meeting bell for all peasants to gather to form a “consensus.” Those who agreed with the plan would be in the “consensus.” Those who disagreed were ignored. This is how a soviet operates.
The Russian people had a name for this kind of people control. They called it soviet socialism.
Good post.
Jeff Gordon, do you see the relationship between the consensus built Sierra Nevada Conservancy and a soviet council? Because if you don't , I will be happy to explain further.
Give me a break. I will do the right things.
The only reason I am in this debate is because some people want to lay the total responsibility for this trash in the lap of Arnold.
Don't bother. You are preaching to the choir.
He backed down on the spending cap, a vital necessity.
Backing down on this would be a more appropriate move for an (R).
At what point do you say enough?
Excellent Post!
He IS responsible. I can't help it if these things were ignored before he was elected. I'm just doing what I always do, FIGHTING FOR OUR RIGHTS. That is what I did as Legislative Director for the Grange and that is what I still do as a member of the Conservation Committee.
The eight are:
This thread has been pulled from the "activism" topic.
Why?
This thread is all about activism... and we need some quick!
If this isn't appropriate for the activism category, what is?
Can you direct me to guidelines that define this category, 'cause I must be missin' something!
(I looked for guidelines, but couldn't find them).
The Conservancy is happening with the support of a Republican governor. If it flies, the precedents will be quickly applied to urban voters too. The only good thing is that, after ten years or so and countless regulatory takings against landowners (primarily conservative Repblicans), it will in all likelihood be thrown out as unconstitutional.
Thanks for the PING.
Bingo!!!!!
Once the land is under government control, political bosses will disperse mineral and land usage rights to their own special interests, and for monetary gain. These rights were once owned by individuals, but both major parties find it difficult to conform with the rigid boundaries of morality and responsibility individuals set. It's much easier to use the government to steal the land and direct it to political cronies that can be held accountable to make political donations.
Remember back to the days when labor unions were chided for the control they exerted over our politicians? Well, now it's corporations pulling the strings of the puppets in government. Welfare and entitlements to individuals have seen few reductions, and corporations have been added to the list of beneficiaries.
The country is ripe for a renewed government model that is beholden to local communities, as it was when our country was first founded. Special interests of all sorts must be restored to their proper role in society. I don't expect either major political party to introduce change that damages their cash cow.
Indeed. When this country was founded corporations could not own land. The founders, after witnessing the behavior of the corporations of European royalty, rightly feared the principal of limited liability.
You might enjoy this post. It provides a perfect example of what this is about and some history to boot.
Pinging Arnie's Angels... ;-)
Arizona is 83% non-deedable land. Between National Forests, Indian reservations, and military ranges, most of the state is off limits. Does that equal a complete state? Arizona is the fifth largest state in the country.
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.