Cong. Thompson’s public meeting in support of a Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument was simply staged political theater choreographed down to the detail of bussing in supporters from remote locations to small children reading letters to the Secretary of the Interior about their wonderful outdoor activities in the region. As cute as the kids were, their comments were irrelevant to the issue of a National Monument since their experiences would not change in the future. They were visiting completely protected areas that would continue to exist whether part of an NCA/National Monument or not. Valid scientific arguments were made about the uniqueness of some of the plant ecology in the area. But most of those biological “hot spots” are already protected as part of federal land. Private land would not be included in a National Monument so protecting those “hot spots” on private land would require negotiation with property owners. This is already an ongoing project that is part of the agenda of Blue Ridge Berryessa Partnership and UC Davis. At times the meeting reached heights of political satire worthy of a Saturday Night Live skit. But fundamental issues were never addressed. What about Lake Berryessa itself? Many of us have proposed that Lake Berryessa be taken off the NCA/National Monument map. The day before yesterday’s meeting, the proponent of the original failed Lake Berryressa NCA proposal, Bob Schneider of Tuleyome, wrote in the Napa Register: “Rep. Thompson and national monument proponents are advocating that Lake Berryessa itself should not be included in a national monument and there be no impact on lake management and operations or recreational use. We are also advocating that existing federal public lands surrounding the lake that have important values should be protected as part of a national monument.” The same day an Associated Press article in the New York Times stated: “Lake Berryessa, already popular with water skiers, anglers and house boaters, would not be included in the national monument designation because it is not of historic or scientific value, an aide to Thompson said.” What does this double talk really mean? This subject was not addressed at the meeting. Is Lake Berryessa really off the map? Does that mean the water surface only? All the land bordering the lake to a certain distance from the shoreline is owned by the federal government and administered by the Bureau of Reclamation. Does this land have “important values” to be protected by limiting access to the lake around the shoreline? Any federal land put into a National Monument would automatically be given to the Bureau of Land Management. How would this potentially affect the contracts for the redevelopment of the old resort areas under the new bid prospectus being released by the Bureau of Reclamation in a few months? Most opponents of this proposal agree with Yolo County Supervisor Matt Rexroad, who voted against a resolution endorsing a national monument designation. He was quoted in the New York Times article: “He said the federal government already administers all the land, which makes it easy to stop any unwanted commercial development. He said he has never seen proof the designation is necessary.” The Boards of Supervisors of Glen and Colusa Counties strongly oppose this designation, which is apparently why Cong. Thompson excluded parts of the Snow Mountain Wilderness Area and half of the Mendocino National Forest from his proposal since they are geographically part of the two opposing counties. Political theater without any substance is not is not a way to run a democracy, especially when it can potentially negatively affect so many people.
Posted on: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 17:05:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015