CA: Fighting against the tide - State senator worries about water rights

The Union ^ | August 17, 2004 | Dave Moller

[calcowgirl]

State Sen. Sam Aanestad, R-Grass Valley, said he fears water rights in the Sierra could be jeopardized by a conservancy aimed at protecting the mountain range's resources, such as the South Yuba River, shown here off of North Bloomfield Road.

State Sen. Sam Aanestad on Monday attacked the idea of a Sierra Nevada Conservancy, fearing it will infringe on property and water rights.

Despite Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's endorsement of the plan, the Republican legislator last week voted against a compromised version of the bill, which would create an organization aimed at gathering grants and other funds to protect and improve the mountain range.

"It's a huge land grab by the state of California," said Aanestad, R-Grass Valley. "The most onerous part of it is the board will have control over all water rights. It's a huge invasion on water rights."

Assemblyman Tim Leslie, R-Tahoe City, is reluctantly sponsoring the legislation with the blessing of Assemblyman John Laird, D-Santa Cruz. Leslie and Laird hammered out the compromise last week out of a couple of versions they individually introduced earlier this year.

Leslie's Chief of Staff Jedd Medefind said he did not understand Aanestad's fears because there is language in the compromise bill to protect water and property rights. Aanestad may fear what will happen to the bill before its finalized or be afraid the conservancy will allow water rights purchases, Medefind said.

Leslie recently told The Union he was not in favor of the conservancy but realized it was going to become a reality when Schwarzenegger threw his political clout behind it. At that point, Leslie said, it was better to mold the legislation than allow Democrats to control it.

Aanestad voted against the compromise along party lines last week in a Senate Appropriations Committee vote, which broke down to seven Democrats for and five Republicans against it.

The conservancy bill, AB 2600, is now headed to the Senate floor for debate and, if approved, will have to get the State Assembly's nod and Schwarzenegger's signature to become a reality.

"There's not going to be a lot of Republicans supporting it," Medefind said. "They understand what Tim is doing, but they are opposed to it in principal."

The compromise includes a 13-member board with six seats for regional county supervisors to ensure land grabs do not occur, Medefind said. Leslie also got language put in the compromise that allows local governments to veto land acquisitions not supported by area residents.

Laird's idea for the conservancy's borders to go from the Pit River watershed in Modoc County to the southern tip of the Sierra and the Tehachapi Mountains was also part of the compromise.

In Leslie's earlier version, there was a smaller area lined out for the conservancy that did not reach to the Cascades or Tehachapis. Laird's original bill called for a smaller conservancy board that did not include county supervisors.

Supervisors from Sierra, Plumas and Lassen counties "are aghast at what the governor is doing," Aanestad said. "It creates another agency with a board and staff that will cost millions of dollars."

According to state legislature staff comments on the compromise bill, start-up costs for the conservancy could be $1 million with six positions in the office. Given the amount of land and work the conservancy would face, it would likely grow to the size of the State Coastal Conservancy with its 70 positions and annual budget of $7 million, the staff said.

Conservancies already are in place for the Lake Tahoe area and the western coast of California.

[calcowgirl]

See also:

Sierra Sun

Conservancy bill likely to move forward
Laird-Leslie bill seeks to funnel money into the Sierra Nevada's natural and human resources

David Bunker, dbunker@sierrasun.com
August 11, 2004

[Dog Gone]

pingie

[calcowgirl]

Ping to above!

and some Good News... I heard the following from a friend who heard him discussing this briefly last night:

This issue will be discussed on KABC Radio tonite (or tomorrow morning) at 1:00 AM by Doug McIntyre.

Listen Live! Pass the word.

Doug McIntyre - RedEyeRadio
KABC Radio - Listen Live on the Internet
www.kabc.com

[sergeantdave]

FYI -

Three years ago, Judge John Paul Wiese of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled that the government owed the 275 farmers for their water losses. And this past New Year's Eve, he set the amount of damages at $14 million plus interest (a momentous judgment that received little notice until a few weeks ago).

The precedent-setting case involved San Joaquin Valley, California farmers whose water was taken from them by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service a decade ago to accommodate two fish on the federal endangered species list – the chinook salmon and the delta smelt.

Indeed, no longer can government regulators take private property – be it water or, presumably, land – to protect this snail darter or that spotted owl with no consideration whatsoever for the economic loss that may be suffered by private property owners.

If the government feels that a species is so endangered that it needs to take a farmer's water, that it needs to deprive a landowner of full economic use of his or her land, then the government ought to pay the landowner for the loss.

It didn’t rate a mention on the evening newscasts. But it could, ultimately, have the same impact on property rights in America that, say, Brown v. Board of Education had on school desegregation.

[calcowgirl]

The takings is certainly a huge issue... but what about the willing parties? In the case of these conservancies, voters have approved whopping bond measures to pay for the land and maintenance... all paid for by future taxes. Other maintenance costs are assessed on property tax bills... at the local level.

While the landowner should not go uncompensated, any compensation is at the expense of the taxpayer.

They need to just stop this conservancy nonsense and leave the land in private hands, IMO.

[hedgetrimmer]

Thank goodness someone understands what they are trying to do up there.

Thanks for posting this!

[SierraWasp]

Well... Dog Gone, my fine feathered friend... There's not much more can be said that ain't too little, way too late!!!

Besides, I already vented my ample spleen over on the other thread about this today and really out-did myself. I've finally come to the realization that to me... Success is the best revenge!!!

I've gotta quit thinkin and carin and make so damn much money with what time I have left that one would call it "Skrew all-of-you Bastards, MONEY!!!" You know... The stuff crooks and politicians call "RESOURCES!"

This crappola in CA is just too depressing to think about without laughin, instead of cryin about it! As "they say," Don't complain and don't explain because nobody will believe you anyway and besides, nobody wants to hear it!!!

I've wasted the past decade fightin these damned fools, payin my dues and they'll never give up their full court press... Then I get uninformed people on here that I just don't have the patience to explain it to, anymore. May their ignorance be blissful. I'm gonna have fun with the rest of my life... period!!!

[farmfriend]

I should right a letter to the editor of the Union and also contact some senitor's offices again. It's not just the conservancy but the conjunction between it and that invasive species bill.

[farmfriend]

Sacramento Area ping and
Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!!

[farmfriend]

I just checked the status of AB2600 (Sierra Nevada Conservancy bill) and it is now moving to the third reading file. This means a vote by the full Senate. Time grows very short. Hit em again, hit em hard and spread the word.

[Seadog Bytes]

RE: "Given the amount of land and work the conservancy would face, it would likely grow to the size of the State Coastal Conservancy with its 70 positions and annual budget of $7 million, the staff said."

Yeah. Like you folks over in the Valley and in the Sierras really *NEED* another coastal conservancy or coastal commission-looking cabal to "help" you with your private property matters...

CABAL: Definition:
1. [n] a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)
2. [n] a clique that seeks power usually through intrigue
3. [v] engage in plotting or enter into a conspiracy, swear together; "They conspired to overthrow the government"

Stories of the abuses of property owners by the coastal commission are ubiquitous. This (below) is from Isla Vista. More recently, they're up to the same sort of mischief near Capitola. Stories of other intances abound, INCLUDING those in which the commission has illegally inflicted its "authority" upon those *outside* its authorized (coastal zone) actual jurisdiction.
(see: http://www.pacificlegal.org/home_CH.asp or http://www.marinehabitat.org/zumbrun.html or http://www.libertymatters.org/newsservice/2003/faxback/1.29.03ccc.htm for examples.)

[SierraWasp]

Well... Seadog... It's not only that... It's nothing but Welfare for Wildlife and Affirmative Action for Fish and Plants! It got a big foothold on the foothills with the infamous "Public Trust Doctrine" decision in the 80's about Mono Lake. The embattled El Dorado County Superior Court Judge was caught between the bird-brained Audubon Society litigators and the mighty LA Metropolitan Water Authority and didn't exactly have the wisdom of Solomon.

A research lawfirm named "Legislative Intent" tried to help the judge, but couldn't find anything in American, or even English Common Law to give him a basis for cutting the baby in half.

So they went back before England was ever invented, back through the dark ages before Newton discovered gravity... All the way back to Pagan Rome to the Code of Justinian and discovered that "No one can own the air and no one can own the water." The "Public Trust Doctrine" was thus born in CA.

The next time this litigative brain-lock occurs, you can be certain that they'll then find a codicile to add that will say "...and no one can own the land, either!"

Needless to say, I was gratified to see that the lead lawyer of that firm was recently uncerimoniously dumped from his seat on the Yolo County Board of Supervisors by a FARM IMPLEMENT DEALER!!!

Power to the Tractor Guys!!! Long live Caterpiller and John Deere!!! HooRah!!! (oh... and PEE on the SNC!!!)(hay! That rhymes!!!)

[farmfriend]

bttt

[SierraWasp]

You an me, babe! I think we're about the only one's out'cheer tanite bunpin wunanother's threds. Yew put up tew many fer me ta bump'em all, ya rascal!!!

[farmfriend]

there was about 3 or 4 more I wanted to put up but got tired. Some good ones on the opinion page. I didn't read em but the titles looked good.

[farmfriend]

I miss Carry's posts. He is just too busy living what he preaches.

[SierraWasp]

Yeah, me too! He's been out driving his JOHN DEERE moving DIRT!!! The dirt worshippers would NEVER approve!!!

By the way, since this thread is titled "Fighting against the tide..." I just caught a little of Mark Williams on KFBK talking to a guy that's going to revive the Sacramento Union! He's going to make it a state-wide news paper betting on the fact that AS is such a "newsmaker" attraction that he can sell ads statewide. He's a past Editor in Chief of the Orange County Register.

I didn't catch his name and was wondering if it was the publisher of World Net Daily who used to work for the old defunct conservative Sacramenna Union that was ironically destroyed by, what else... A UNION!!!

[farmfriend]

You mean the Western Journalism Center? Didn't WND separate and move out of CA?