Katherine's Somewhat Random Amador Thoughts

A few words about local forests

2011-11-20T16:09:00.000-08:00

I haven't been writing much here lately. Too much else to do. But I did write a recent blog about the local SPI clearcutting that turned into an op-ed published in the Bee on Sunday, November 20. To read more about the clearcutting, see Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch's website.

As SPI massacres local forests, other people are working together to find ways to make the forests more resilient, reduce fire danger and create local value-added products and jobs. To read about that, see the blog of the Amador-Calaveras Consensus Group.

Dr. Malcolm North's presentation there last week was especially informative.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.

Amador supervisors' funding for economic development

2011-08-16T15:55:00.001-07:00

In case you missed the news, the Amador Business Council has approached the Amador County Board of Supervisors about contributing funds to a new economic development corporation. Never mind there's already an EDC in the county. The supervisors have asked the groups to try to resolve their differences and come back to discuss the funding request.

Meanwhile, I decided to weigh in on the subject with the supervisors, for what little my opinion is worth. We'll see how many of them respond to me or even acknowledge receiving my note. Want to make bets?

Here's what I e-mailed them yesterday:

Dear Chairman Plasse and Members of the Board:

I am writing as a private citizen and a county taxpayer, not as a representative of any group.

I strongly support community and government investment in local economic development. However, I do not support the County of Amador simply giving money to groups that come and ask for it without an objective, criteria-based look at their accomplishments and qualifications. The process should be open to any organization or economic development firm that is interested and able to provide the needed service so that the public is assured its money will be well spent.

Consequently, I would suggest that rather than give money to the Amador Business Council for a new economic development corporation, the county should take the more usual, professional governmental approach: Issue a Request for Proposals or Request for Qualifications and see who applies. The ABC, if interested, can then compete with others who may be as well or better qualified to spend taxpayer dollars in a productive, accountable way.

Before you issue the RFP or RFQ, CAO Chuck Iley, who I gather has extensive experience in contracting, could then work with the appropriate committee and then the full board to develop a set of criteria that would be used to review the submittals and choose the most qualified applicant with the best proposal. I would suggest that those criteria include a demonstrated record of success in economic development, as measured by jobs created, taxable sales increased, increased value of commodities produced, increased value of nonresidential construction, decreased unemployment, wages increased, percentage of new businesses surviving more than two years, poverty levels declining, percentage of employees in family wage jobs increasing, and other objective measures. The proposal should clearly lay out the expected results from the funding, using similar benchmarks so that you can hold the recipient accountable for the funds invested.

If you use an RFP rather than an RFQ, one of the scoring criteria should be the demonstrated success of the applicant.

Using a process of this type, you can select the most qualified applicant and best proposal, and the public can be better assured of getting results for our tax dollars. If the recipient doesn't perform, you can choose not to fund them in the future.

You might also consider setting up an economic development ad hoc committee that includes members of the public to assist with this process. If you do, I recommend that you include people from the full range of local economic sectors to ensure a balanced view. The committee could also benefit from the perspective of agencies like A-TCAA and Job Connection.

If local business owners want to contribute money toward economic development, they would still be free to pledge their funds as they have done with the ABC proposal.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

Best regards,
Katherine K. Evatt
Volcano

Protecting water and property rights

2011-06-14T07:24:00.000-07:00

The Amador County Board of Supervisors routinely takes positions to protect the county's water rights and individual property rights, including landowners' right to use water from streams running through or along their property ("riparian rights"). The supervisors generally oppose anything they believe could adversely affect water or property rights, even if that belief is misguided (as in their position on the proposed National Wild and Scenic designation for the Mokelumne River).

So I am wondering whether they will take a position on HR 1837. That pending federal legislation will subvert California's water rights system and allow junior water rights holders (Westlands Water District and Kern County interests) to jump the line for water ahead of senior water rights holders, including farmers and ranchers with riparian rights to the Sacramento River and Delta. The bill is the worst kind of federal intrusion into state affairs, the kind our supervisors generally decry with great vehemence -- at least when they deal with it in theory. (Note to the board: This time it's for real.)

The bill will also effectively eliminate the county of origin priorities that are a critical part of California's water system. That county of origin doctrine is intended to ensure that no one can take north state water from the places it originates (the Siskyous, Sierra and Sierra foothills) to the detriment of those areas.

So will the supervisors stand up for county of origin water rights and private property? I hope so, but that remains to be seen. You see, HR 1837 is sponsored by a Central Valley Republican, Devin Nunes. Nunes has picked up the highly effective but grossly inaccurate publicity from Westlands Water District that blamed environmentalists and the Endangered Species Act for high levels of unemployment and poverty in the Valley that are actually a long-standing problem made much worse by the Great Recession building bust. Westland farmers actually did fine last year. (The economic truths are detailed in a recently released study.) But Nunes's "save agriculture from the enviros and the ESA" trope fits very nicely with some of our supervisors' political ideology and personal beliefs.

So who's fighting to protect the counties of origin and property rights against this water grab? Democratic Congressmen John Garamendi and George Miller and Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer have expressed strong concerns about HR 1837. They've recently been joined by conservative Northern California Republican Rep. Wally Herger.

Here's a quote from our senators' joint letter on HR 1837:

Another troubling aspect of this bill is its attack on states’ rights and state control of its water resources. The bill’s explicit preemption of California law runs contrary to the long established tradition of Congressional and court deference to states on water resource decisions. Consequently, this bill sets a very dangerous precedent of Congressional intervention into state water rights, which could have far reaching consequences not only for California, but for other states as well.

This is a bill our county should strongly oppose, in no uncertain terms. It will destroy county of origin rights for foothill counties. It will violate private property rights and take riparian water rights away from their rightful owners. And it is a terrible federal intrusion into states' rights.

What will the supervisors do? Stand with Nunes, or join the bipartisan defenders of the state's water system and mountain county water rights?

Will the general plan focus on our common ground?

2011-05-23T08:45:00.000-07:00

The Amador County supervisors and planning commissioners are going to discuss the latest draft of the county general plan this week. The courts have called the state-required general plan the "constitution" of a county, so it's an important document.

The plan shapes how and where the county will grow over the next 20 years. It also defines which resources will be protected and lays out programs to implement land development and resource protection.

Back when the county started on this plan update in 2005, the county board of supervisors talked about developing a "consensus" plan that most people in the county could live with. The idea was to avoid the kind of conflict that often leads to costly and time-consuming litigation, which El Dorado County faced when it last updated its plan.

The supervisors established a General Plan Advisory Committee made up of diverse interests to help develop the plan. The GPAC met 27 times in public meetings, from July 2006 to April 2008. Then the supervisors and planning commissioners took a scalpel, or maybe a hatchet, to what they had done (depending on your point of view). Over the last year or so, county staff and hired consultant EDAW have been revising the plan so that it is consistent with the county officials' direction.

So now, we find ourselves with yet another draft to review, and an apparent move by Motherlode Tea Party members and friends to rewrite the plan entirely. With that background and this latest twist, I thought it might be instructive to look back to the supervisors' original intention and ask, "What would a consensus plan look like?"

So this morning I took a look at two different surveys I have handy, a telephone survey done by a professional polling company for the Amador Association of Realtors in June 2010 and an online survey conducted by the Foothill Conservancy and some co-sponsors in April 2008. Considering that the "Great Recession" intervened during the gap between the two surveys, any consistency in the results is probably pretty telling. I also tried to find the results of a electronic-voting workshop conducted by the county in September 2008, but didn't find its new location until after I had started this post.

The two surveys reviewed had some similar questions and also some different areas of focus. For purposes of this exercise, I had to focus on the similarities. With that in mind, what do the results show about Amador County residents' common ground regarding growth and development? They show that local residents want to:

Focus new development in already developed areas rather than promote sprawl
Protect working landscapes (forests, ranches and farms)
Protect the natural environment
Protect cultural and historical resources
Promote economic development that will create more jobs
Make parks and recreation sites part of the county mix

Both surveys also show that local residents think the county has been growing at about the right rate in recent years (that is, rather slowly). And locals value good planning as well as personal property rights.

So what should that mean for the general plan? If the county wants to develop a plan most people can support, it needs to address all of these things. There should be reasonable assurances that the areas of community common ground will be promoted and protected by good planning rather than left to luck or the vagaries of the real estate market and twists and turns of the economy. There should be assurance that the county will be taking positive steps to promote real local economic development. And of course, the plan should protect private property rights, but the fact is, the county can't approve a plan that violates anyone's property rights and expect it to hold up to legal challenge.

Will the plan embody and protect our community common ground? Or will the supervisors cave to those who want the plan to be as weak as possible?

It's too soon to say, but if you want to help shape the plan, you can attend the meeting on May 25 and later, comment in the related EIR and plan review process.

It's your county, after all, and unless you speak up, you may not like what happens to it over the next 20 years.

A new look at county government

2011-04-23T07:43:00.000-07:00

Former county employee Art McClellan has a new blog, Amador County Government Issues. Art's taking on some of the interesting goings-on in county government, asking hard questions, and shining light on actions that might otherwise go unnoticed.

His recent posts include one on the public health doctor controversy and another on the county's hiring of a new community development director. Earlier posts address micromanagement by the board of supervisors and public employee unions.

As a former county insider, Art understands the arcana of county budgeting, fund transfers, and all the myriad ways our county spends taxpayer money on what the public needs, and maybe what they don't. And since he's a former independent businessman, Art has a valuable outsider perspective, too.

Take a look at Art's blog. In taking time to write it, he's performing a valuable public service.

Want a little tea with your conspiracy?

2011-03-27T08:35:00.000-07:00

I recently learned that I am part of a vast, left-wing conspiracy. That came as surprise to me. But it appears that smart growth and sustainable development are the new face of socialism in America.

According to Tea Party groups across the country, land use planning and zoning -- and especially smart growth -- are part of a huge conspiracy to rob people of their property rights, driven by something called UN Agenda 21. Last November, Mother Jones magazine published an excellent article about this aspect of the Tea Party movement.

Our own local Tea Party focused on Agenda 21 at its last meeting and now has a related action group. That group's next meeting will tell people what to expect at the April 4 meeting on the Amador County General Plan general plan update. People who attended last week's board of supervisors meeting got a little preview of that, as Tea Partiers pointed to "trick" words to watch out for in the general plan language.

Considering that our general plan update isn't yet very smart or sustainable, I'm not sure what these folks have to worry about. After all, their very own supervisor, Brian Oneto, had the words "sustainable" and "sustain" removed from nearly all of the plan's draft policies a good while back. (Speaking of Oneto and the UN, I can't recall whether it was Brian or one of his brothers who brought up the UN in the 1990s during a Jackson presentation on the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project report.)

What the Tea Party folks have in mind nationally, it appears, is the destruction of modern zoning and land use planning as we know it. They might take a look at Oregon to see just how well that works.

Back in 2004, Oregon voters rebelled against the state's land use laws and passed Measure 37, which was sold as a way to restore Oregonians' lost property rights. Things went so wrong, however, that a mere three years later voters approved another initiative that stopped the wholesale development of farming, forest and groundwater-limited lands that loomed following Measure 37's passage.

Apparently, zoning and planning start to look pretty good when your ranch is threatened by a big subdivision down the road or your next-door neighbor plans to open a gravel mine.

Tea Partiers who care about land use planning would do well to read Republican real estate and economic development consultant Donovan Rypkema's excellent 2008 speech, "Property Rights and Public Values." Here's one of its concluding quotes (emphasis added):

"Land use controls are, in fact, a capitalist plot to optimize the property values of the majority of owners, not some communist conspiracy to deprive individuals of some imaginary 'property rights.'”

Maybe I'm part of a conspiracy after all. A capitalist one. I think I can live with that.

Looking back and looking forward

2011-02-24T07:55:00.000-08:00

I recently read an opinion piece on the Amador Community News website that yearned for the good old days when our local economy was based on mining, timber, and dam building. While a sentimental look back at what used to be doesn’t really hurt, trying to build our future local economy to simply mimic the past may not be the best idea. Maybe it’s time to look forward, instead. After all, a few things have changed in the last 60 years.

And if we’re going to look as the past, we ought to do it with a critical eye. The author of the ACN piece glossed over some important details in his vision of a thriving future based on the resource extraction industries of the past. For example, he brought up the Devil’s Nose Dam project, which he supported back in the early 1990s and I fought to stop. That dam was never built, largely because it didn’t pencil out. But even if it had been financially feasible, there were plenty of other problems with the proposal.

For one, it would have relied on the county securing new water rights from the state. Because of the water deal our county board of supervisors cut with East Bay MUD in 1958, any new water rights on the Mokelumne are “junior” to EBMUD’s Pardee and Camanche rights. That means in a dry year, EBMUD would get water first. It’s not an especially good idea to base future water supply on junior water rights. That’s one reason that the Amador Water Agency never had any role in the Devil’s Nose proposal (it was a county project, on which the county blew millions with nothing to show for it in the end).

In addition, the Devil’s Nose Dam would have flooded 9.5 miles of wild North Fork Mokelumne River canyon above Tiger Creek Powerhouse, including valuable archaeological sites and critical wildlife habitat. Doing that sort of thing in this day and age is incredibly difficult. This is not the 1920s, when dam-builders could stick a dam wherever they could get the water rights without regard to the collateral damage (they also took the best dam sites). We have new laws to protect the environment and cultural resources, reflecting changes in society and values since the dam-building heyday of the early 20th century.

There were other reasons the Devil’s Nose Project wasn’t built, but like anything someone thinks is a good idea, it lives on in the fantasy world of “what if we had just done this” where some folks like to dwell.

As far as a return to the days of big timber goes, you only have to know that our local timber industry closely followed housing starts to see how unsustainable that can be. Instead of returning to the days of yore, forward-thinking folks are working to build a new, more-sustainable forest economy based on reducing fire danger in our communities and forests, thinning overgrown plantations, restoring streams and meadows, and repairing poorly built and maintained forest roads that threaten water quality.

I just helped a team of people write a sizeable funding request to get some of this off the ground. It’s investment in our natural, social and economic infrastructure.

Even if the forest project isn’t funded this year, it’s a good start on what needs to “come next” to provide decent paying forest-based jobs, build new forest-based businesses, and create products local people need and use. It also takes into account the reality of natural resources: you have to use them at a sustainable rate or you will, in fact, use them up.

That brings to mind another problem with traditional resource extraction: It relies almost entirely on external markets. Housing starts drop, sawmills close. Price of gold drops, mines close. That makes a traditional extraction economy incredibly vulnerable to forces way beyond local control. Can you say “boom and bust?”

As we move toward a more-sustainable local economy, we would do well to develop our own internal, local markets as much as possible. We do need to sell products outside the county, too, but if we hitch our horse to one, big externally driven market again – whether in housing, minerals or whatever – we’ll be in for more wild rides. Building a strong, diversified local economy is better for all of us in the long run.

Recovering optimism

2011-01-14T10:23:00.000-08:00

Beginning in the mid-1990s, I volunteered to write a monthly "Community Viewpoint" column for the Amador Ledger Dispatch. I tried to write columns that were interesting, well-reasoned and thought-provoking, even as they expressed a clear point of view.

Since my photo was published with the columns, people would sometimes come up to me in the grocery store and say things like, "I don't always agree with you, but your column made me think." That was pretty satisfying. It kept me writing.

About a month ago, someone actually recognized me in a restaurant based on his memory of those old columns. That pleased me for a couple of reasons. It meant that something I had done was memorable, at least to someone. And maybe it also meant that all these years later, I don't look that much older (highly doubtful).

Of course, there were people who hated what I wrote, too. I often thought it was more about what they thought I represented or who they thought I was than the actual column content. Sometimes that was borne out in their comments, and I'd wonder "Did you actually read the words?"

After more than five years, I stopped writing the columns. I was super busy. And I was so upset by local politics that every time I sat down to write, I found myself producing columns that were more along the lines of angry diatribe than thought-provoking pieces that included at least some solutions and options. I was finding it difficult to say anything positive or hopeful. So I stopped.

That's where I've been lately, too. I have been so disheartened by the actions of some local politicians, the newspaper, certain "journalists," and some people in the community that I've found it really hard to write much that wasn't just an angry or cynical rant. When there's so much hate and vitriol floating around, it's hard not to be poisoned by it. At times, I've even found myself wondering, "Is it worth living in a community where people don't want to work together, where elected officials seem to be motivated by hate and anger, not a positive vision?" So that's one reason I haven't been posting very much in this space.

But lately, I have started to regain a little of my hope. I represent the Foothill Conservancy in a collaboration called the Amador-Calaveras Consensus Group. It includes federal, state and local agencies; nonprofit conservation and community groups; folks from the MiWuk community; forest-based business owners; and interested individuals. They're dedicated to reducing fire risk in the area while restoring landscapes, putting people to work, creating new jobs and businesses, and creating sustainable economic activity.

The group received an award from the US Forest Service Regional Forester late last year. Recently, it has been working to secure more funding that could lay the groundwork for self-sustaining private efforts later. When crunch time comes, the people in this group really work hard to get things done.

The other day, I watched an online video of a remarkable woman, Marjora Carter. In it, she talks of locally based, grassroots economic development as providing "hometown security." She said, "We are the key to our own recovery," in describing the many efforts underway to build small, sustainable local businesses in cities and rural areas alike. It's a perfect fit with the ACCG's work.

And last night, I was over in West Point, where the amazing Blue Mountain Coalition for Youth and Families has created a vibrant, active going youth center in a very economically depressed place. I can't wait to see their new literary journal.

It's easy to get buried in the things that are wrong in Amador County. But in 2011, I'm going to do my best to spend more time focusing on positive efforts like those of the ACCG and others who are truly working to do good things for people, the community, and the environment. Today, at least, I'm feeling a little more optimistic.

Taking the long view to save the Moke

2010-11-07T09:11:00.001-08:00

The other day, a friend of mine said, "I hope we live long enough to see positive results from your efforts." He was talking about the fight to save the Mokelumne River from new dams and diversions. That effort is led by the Foothill Conservancy, and in my role with that organization, I spend a lot of time on it (quick disclaimer -- this is my personal blog and I'm not speaking for the FC in it).

Recently the Amador County Board of Supervisors voted not to support the designation and to meet with stakeholders to discuss legislative options. While some see that as total defeat for the Wild and Scenic campaign, I take a longer view. A negative person might focus on the "not support" side of the vote. Instead, I'm optimistic that the "meet with stakeholders" part of the decision could lead to a positive result.

Why? After working on Mokelumne conservation for 21 years, I believe that most people in Amador County really do want to keep the river like it is today. Those who dream of new dams for local water are usually brought back to earth once they really understand how much water's in the river, how much is already spoken for, how much dams cost, how the water rights work, and how much water we already have (enough to nearly triple the county's population).

So the question becomes, How do we keep the river the way it is today? The only way I know of is through National Wild and Scenic River designation.

Decisions about dams aren't made in Jackson or San Andreas or even Sacramento -- they're made by appointed bureaucrats at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in D.C. To stop new or larger dams, you have to take away their power. The one tried and true way to do it is with National Wild and Scenic River designation.

Those of us dedicated to protecting the river aren't giving up because of one vote. We know that thousands of local residents and more than 100 small businesses support the designation. We know that city council members, Calaveras County supervisors, Amador Water Agency directors, landowners along the river, and many other individuals are among the supporters. We know that local support has doubled in the last year since East Bay MUD proposed its latest Pardee expansion (the fifth effort to dam the Middle Bar and/or Electra run in the last 35 years).

So we'll slog on, and eventually, we will save this river. If you haven't signed on to support saving the Mokelumne for future generations, please do it today. And if you'd like to share your support with local and regional elected officials, you can use this easy e-mail form.

Oh, the irony

2010-07-20T15:02:00.000-07:00

I recently sat in a public meeting where a local elected official was complaining about how rural counties are treated by certain state agencies. He said something like, "We did comment, but they ignored us."

I really wanted to say, "Welcome to my world," since I've come to believe that most of my own public testimony before certain local officials, including the body on which this particular gentleman sits, is about as futile as holding my breath until pigs fly. It's not usually what I say, mind you. It's who I am, and more important -- what they think I am, or represent -- that colors their reaction. And I have to tell you, it's pretty frustrating.

My guess is that the state agency in question probably deals with the Regional Council of Rural Counties in much the same way. They think the group's concerns are predictable. They think its solutions aren't practical. They think they've heard it all before. So they don't listen.

Maybe this official and his colleagues could learn from that. Instead of judging and dismissing people or groups who appear before them, they ought to take the time to listen and fairly consider what everyone has to say.

A little respect and listening goes a long way in this world.

Placing faith in growth

2010-07-18T17:01:00.000-07:00

The Placer County city of Lincoln had just over 11,000 residents in 2000. By 2010, its population had boomed to more than 41,000. Now the town is struggling to make ends meet.

As discussed in recent article in the Sacramento Bee, Lincoln residents will be voting this November on a utility tax to help prevent more layoffs in their police department. It seems that as property values – and property tax and sales tax revenue – went down during the recession, Lincoln has found itself unable to support its police force.

Here’s a priceless quote from the Bee, “After years of being a largely rural small town, the city decided to ride the housing boom. But after the boom went bust, Lincoln finds itself stuck in the middle, having given up its volunteer fire department and smallish police force.”

It appears that the majority of the city residents support the tax, because they understand the importance of having a functional police department. At the same time, one can’t help but wonder: If Lincoln hadn’t grown so rapidly, would it be calling on local residents to pay more taxes? Or would the city be in better fiscal shape?

It’s an important question to consider. Here in Amador County, some folks are loudly beating the drum for population and housing growth as a panacea to all that ails us. But they rarely present any facts or examples to back up their theory. They simply believe that more houses and people create a more affluent community with adequate tax revenue. It’s a faith-based approach to economic development: "In Growth We Trust."

But does it always work that way? Let’s compare Amador and Calaveras counties. Calaveras had more rapid population growth than Amador over the last decade (13.1 percent vs. 8.3 percent).

Who has the higher unemployment rate right now? Calaveras.

Which had the higher sales tax revenue for the last available recorded year (2008-09)? Amador.

Who has more private sector employees? Amador.

Who has the higher median household income? Amador.

Calaveras does have higher property values, so we’ll give them that. But on several measures of economic well-being, it’s not doing as well as its slower-growing neighbor to the north.

Maybe fast growth is not all its cracked up to be, especially if you have no other real strategy for a strong, sustainable and resilient economy.

Some observations post-Measure N

2010-06-26T08:25:00.000-07:00

When times are tough, or something threatens to shake up the local power structure, the nasty dogs come out in force. Just look at how people are reacting to the narrow election margin on Measure N, the Gold Rush referendum.

The final vote count put the Yes folks up 16 votes. The No folks, the No on Measure N committee of Preserve Historic Sutter Creek, have requested a recount.

This should not be a big deal. Recounts are pretty normal for close elections, and just part of the process. Remember that certain presidential election a few years ago?

But some of the pro-Gold Rush folks have gone ballistic (see the comments on the Amador Ledger-Dispatch website.) They’re attacking PHSC, individual PHSC members, and anyone else they consider to be an opponent of the type of sprawling super-sized subdivision Gold Rush represents.

They’re also dredging up history – and getting their facts wrong in the process. They’re attacking me for the actions of a family to which I’m not related (apparently spelling is not their strong suit). They’re attacking the Foothill Conservancy for being the same as Protect Historic Amador Waterways, which if it weren’t so wrong would be sorta funny, considering that PHAW actually sued the Conservancy at one point.

You’d think the narrow vote on Measure N would give people pause. After all, it does show that a substantial number of Sutter Creek voters are opposed to the Gold Rush project as approved. Remember, we’re talking 16 votes. The Sutter Creek City Council and pro-GR folks should be thinking long and hard about that. If anything, they represent only the barest of majorities on this issue.

To their credit, the Gold Rush developers’ response has been rather subdued. They’re not out celebrating in the streets, gloating, or attacking the Sutter Creek residents who voted No. Instead, they’re inviting them to talk. It’s a nice gesture, and ought to be a sign to their attack dogs to back off. But it’s also relatively meaningless, since they’ve never before responded to the concerns of that strong near-majority (or maybe an actual majority) who oppose Gold Rush.

And of course, the developers spent about $140,000 on the election, compared to the approximately $5,000 PHSC spent. Plus, they’ve been knocking on doors and selling their project to locals for what, eight years? I think the close margin was a surprise to them. If I were them, I’d be sober, too.

It amazes, but does not surprise me to see PHSC accused of “dividing Sutter Creek.” If anyone has divided the town, it’s the developers and council members who ignored the sincere concerns of a substantial number of local residents over the last few years. They could have listened and made an effort to work out a project everyone could live with. But they chose the path of conflict, instead.

Time will tell what lessons, if any, are learned from this referendum election, and what the long-term effects will be in Sutter Creek and the county at large. Stay tuned.

Voices for civility

2010-02-05T19:30:00.000-08:00

Last week, Amador Ledger Dispatch Publisher Jack Mitchell published an opinion piece that was anything but civil. Mitchell fell back into an ugly, old habit I keep hoping he will outgrow: calling people names and demonizing individuals and groups with whom he disagrees.

In this week's paper, the defamed citizens -- and several others -- responded. But not in kind. They called Mitchell on his bad behavior. But they also called out for respectful, civil discourse.

One letter-writer even pointed out that Mitchell had engaged in exactly that on his front porch when she knocked on his door to ask him to sign the referendum petition challenging the Gold Rush Ranch approval.

Good people can disagree without being disagreeable, juvenile, disrespectful, and hateful. They can, in the words of the famed negotiating book Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, "Be hard on the problem and soft on the people."

That's important everywhere. In small communities like ours, it's critical. No matter what happens with an issue that causes us to disagree today, tomorrow there will still be neighbors to help, causes to support, and community needs to address. We must build and nurture the relationships that allow us to work together, not allow our differences to tear us apart.

I'm so proud of the good people in this county who realize that and put it into practice every day. They -- not the folks who resort to personal attack when they don't get their way -- are our true local leaders. And they are the ones who will help us find a path to a prosperous and sustainable future while preserving the small town and rural values we all hold dear.

Some old but still good random thoughts

2010-02-03T09:04:00.000-08:00

This morning, I was looking for an old op-ed piece I'd written in response to one of Amador Ledger Dispatch Publisher Jack Mitchell's attack pieces (Jack's been stuck in attack mode for as long as I can remember). I couldn't find what I was looking for, but did find another commentary I never finished. It seems relevant today, so I thought I'd share an edited excerpt:

Elected officials ignore new ways of thinking at our county’s expense. If they only listen to the people who think like them, they’ll never be challenged to broaden their thinking, find creative solutions, or move beyond the ordinary to the exceptional. They’ll also motivate those who opposed them in the last election to organize for the next one. Power politics begets more power politics—it’s self-perpetuating.

So it’ll be interesting to see whether our elected officials actually work to represent everyone or only their supporters. It’ll say a lot about them as people. And it will give us some sense of where our county is headed: to a positive future focused on problem-solving and common ground, or one bogged down in infighting and dysfunction.

Sierra foothill Christmas Day

2009-12-27T08:49:00.000-08:00

Sunny, clear and crisp. Light frost in the morning.

Later we headed out to drive, walk and observe ...

Very little traffic.

Sheep and goats grazed where llamas stood guard. Calves are growing. The deer dressed now for winter's cold.

Turkeys loitered on new grass under a broad, bare-limbed oak.

Acorns abound.

A lone angler at the Middle Bar Bridge found refuge from the chaos of Christmas cooking and the temptation of food on every countertop. Fish weren't biting, but that mattered little.

The Mokelumne flowed clear and cold. A lone bald eagle soared overhead. Willows wore warm winter gray.

The trail's grass and leaves were slick from recent rains. Lichen, moss and fungi flourished. Lovely oak woodland. Gnarly old manzanita. Black slate here, white quartz there. Goldfinches.

Quiet now, except for geese. (Geese are not often quiet.) Not a duck in sight.

Returned on Gwin Mine Road. Patch on patch, but not a single car or truck. Dry remains of last year's flowers -- moth mullein, dudleya.

Red-tail hunted above the hills.

Jackson was quiet as people cooked and dined. First responders had no holiday. CHP, sheriff and police cruised; Jackson Fire and CalFire responded. A vehicle fire? Volunteers' dinners had to wait.

Clerks at Safeway wore Santa hats. Young men bought beer. Lots of it. One woman bought seasoning -- the missing ingredient?

Where do gossip magazines fit on Christmas?

Home to nap, then Sally's gift of Virginia ham.

Season's greetings to you, whatever your belief or holiday tradition. Enjoy the beauty and peace of this wonderful place we live.

A few random thoughts for early November

2009-11-05T08:03:00.000-08:00

I haven't fallen off the planet, folks -- I've just been really busy with the big EBMUD fight. It was a good reminder that until we get the Mokelumne River protected with National Wild and Scenic River designation, we will be fighting these battles over and over.

Now I'm trying to catch up on everything I let go over the last few months -- my house, the Conservancy newsletter, visiting family and friends, etc.

The other day I did get-out-the-vote work for (new Congressman!) John Garamendi in Antioch. My GOTV partner and I worked in a nicely maintained suburban-style subdivision of the kind many people leave to move to the foothills. It had wide streets, well-kept homes, and absolutely no sign of human life during the workday (there were dogs at home, lots of dogs, mostly of the small yippy type).

To many people, this kind of subdivision represents the American dream: a nice home in a decent neighborhood with a good school nearby. There's certainly nothing wrong with that.

And it gave me some insight into why people may support this kind of project when it's proposed for our own local towns (as at Gold Rush Ranch). They may have lived in a place just like that before they came to our little county, or know people who do. Those subdivisions define so much of California living today.

To build that kind of subdivision, builders bulldoze the trees, mass-grade the land, and turn the site into a sort of generic California subdivision blank slate. Then they build homes that look an awful lot alike, and people quickly plant trees, lawns, and other landscaping to try to get some semblance of nature to return to their otherwise paved-over neighborhood. And they try to customize the homes -- at least to the extent allowed by the community's rules.

This neighborhood was a decent, clean and relatively safe place to live. But when you compare it to the older neighborhoods in small towns like Sutter Creek and Jackson, it was a place without character or soul. And I think that character, that soul, that unique sense of place, is part of what makes our small towns so special.

As local officials consider the large subdivisions being sold to them now in the guise of progress or economic salvation, they really need to think about that. Do we want to turn special places like Sutter Creek into anytown California?

Protected rivers are an economic resource

2009-08-30T10:13:00.000-07:00

Earlier this month, we took a vacation and went to Idaho to raft the Middle Fork of the Salmon River. It's one of the country's original National Wild and Scenic Rivers.

Right before we left, we heard that some members of the Amador County Board of Supervisors were worried about the economic impacts of designating the Mokelumne a National Wild and Scenic River. I was happy to send them some studies about the local economic benefits of Wild and Scenic Rivers.

I also pointed out that on our trip to visit the Middle Fork Salmon the following week, we would be spending money in the Idaho local economy on meals, lodging, car rental, a car shuttle, gasoline, and supplies for our trip.

At the same time, the outfitter with whom we took the trip, OARS of Angels Camp, pays salaries to guides, charters small planes to take people to the river and buses to return them to town, buys huge quantities of food and supplies, and makes a major contribution to the local economy. And OARS is just one of the many outfitters that run the Middle Fork and other Idaho rivers.

The little towns we visited seemed to appreciate the river recreation business that helps keep them alive.

The Mokelumne is considerably smaller than the Middle Fork Salmon, of course. It won't ever be as big an economic engine as that river, but protecting the Mokelumne as it is today would ensure that money our community already receives from river recreation continues. People already visit our river to kayak, swim, innertube, fish, rock climb, camp, hike, hunt, view wildflowers and enjoy the scenic beauty. Everyone who visits the Mokelumne loves it, and most come back.

In addition, if East Bay MUD will ever cooperate and allow commercial rafting on the Electra-Middle Bar run (which OARS wants to do), or an outfitter starts to run the wilder sections of the river upstream, even more money will come into our local businesses from people who travel and spend money to visit the nation's special rivers. Our Middle Fork trip included river-lovers from Texas, Illinois, Ohio, New Jersey and California, all of whom were willing to fork out some serious cash to spend six wonderful days floating a river in the middle of the largest contiguous wilderness area in the lower 48 states.

On our way home, we had supper with a friend who works for Idaho Rivers United, a conservation organization. He talked about how his group has worked with Republican Senator Mike Crapo to protect the state's rivers.

The folks in Idaho need water every bit as much as Californians do. It's a very dry state, and a very politically conservative one. It's also a place where people really enjoy the outdoors for hunting, fishing and more. And they obviously understand that keeping some of their rivers flowing free benefits Idahoans and local communities in many ways.

Amador County residents understand the importance of our Mokelumne River, as shown by the huge opposition to the proposed expansion of Pardee Dam. And more and more of them are supporting National Wild and Scenic River designation for the Mokelumne, since it's the only way to ensure we have a river in our future.

Maybe our county supervisors will join them one day.

Responding to the taxpayers

2009-08-15T20:15:00.001-07:00

When I send a letter or e-mail to an elected official, I nearly always receive a response of some sort. That's true whether I'm writing for myself or on behalf of an organization. And it's true whether I write to our state senator or assemblywoman, U.S. Congressional rep or senator, a local city councilmember, or even the East Bay Municipal Utility District directors.

Sometimes it takes a while to get a reply. And sometimes the replies are obvious boilerplate. But still, the officials nearly always respond in some way.

Not so with the Amador County Board of Supervisors. When I send them information or ask questions by e-mail or snail mail, they seldom even acknowledge having received the communication. And it's exceptionally rare for a supervisor to respond in a substantive way.

It's puzzling. Our supervisors like to say that decisions should be made locally, where government is closest to and most responsive to the taxpayer. But just whom are they responsive to?

I've been a county taxpayer for more than 30 years. I've done a thing or do to contribute to our county. The organization I most often represent is made up primarily of Amador County residents. But the supervisors can't even find time to say, "Thanks for your comments. I'll think about them."?

I worked in government for nearly 25 years, most of it in state service. Both state agencies I worked for had a communication policy regarding response to public comments or questions. They both required acknowledging all communication within a certain amount of time, and a full response by a specific deadline. The policies applied to everyone, from the executive director on down. And no way would the elected officials on the boards of those agencies ever consider ignoring a comment from a taxpayer, regardless of its nature or what they might think of the individual or group. Even totally crazy, off-the-wall comments received a response.

One of those agencies even required everyone -- including the executive management -- to take customer service training. While taxpayers are not customers in the conventional sense (you don't get to pick your tax agency), that did lead to a better focus on the taxpayer. Responding to correspondence is just one example of what government agencies do to serve the public.

Our elected officials, including county supervisors, work for us. All of us. They don't just work for the people they know or like or agree with -- or those who helped them get elected.

So why is it that our supervisors cannot bring themselves to even acknowledge contacts from a local taxpayer?

I'd really like to know.

Working on the river

2009-08-09T10:55:00.000-07:00

I've been so busy working to protect the Mokelumne River from the proposed Pardee expansion that I've been neglecting my blog of late. The work I've done on the river this year has been both frustrating and gratifying.

Frustrating, because despite the huge local opposition to the Pardee expansion, East Bay MUD may not listen. We'll know more about that after Tuesday morning's workshop in Oakland.

It's also frustrating because a few people are still spreading lies and disinformation about National Wild and Scenic River designation for the Mokelumne. What's even more frustrating is when people believe them. Wild and Scenic designation is the true long-term solution for Mokelumne river conservation, and it will only benefit our counties.

It's been gratifying because I've gotten to talk and work with so many local people and visitors who love the river and support keeping it a river forever. I've seen local businesses, especially OARS of Angels Camp, step up to help with its conservation. I've met dedicated river conservationists like angler-videographer Mikey Wier, who grew up in Plymouth. I've learned from native people who have ties to the river reaching back for thousands of years.

I've seen 350 people show up for local hearings. I've watched people work their networks and groups to help save the river.

I've also seen our community unite around an issue in a way we seldom experience. When was the last time you saw ranchers, native MiWuk people, local governments, environmentalists, businesspeople, anglers, young people, older people, anglers, and paddlers all agree on something? It's pretty rare. (We should try it more often.)

I've also spent more time on the river myself. I've rafted the Electra-Middle Bar run three times. I've seen people playing in and around the river from Salt Springs to Middle Bar. I've seen rafters come off the river absolutely enraptured. I've seen anglers cleaning hooks and debris from the Middle Bar Bridge. And I've taken many, many photos of the river, including some of the Foothill Conservancy benefit raft trips OARS put on this summer.

It's good to know that so many people love the Mokelumne River and want to protect it. We will save this river.

Mokelumne trips bring joy

2009-07-02T07:55:00.000-07:00

Last Sunday, Foothill Conservancy held three raft trips down the Mokelumne River's Electra-Middle Bar run, thanks to rafting outfitter OARS. I was involved all day, from helping set up at 7:30 a.m. until the guides and rafts left just before 7 pm. It was a great day.

The 72 rafters were mostly local people who wanted to see the river from raft level. Some had floated the Electra run, but few, if any, had ever ventured below the Highway 49 bridge down to Middle Bar. They ranged in age from about 9 to somewhere around 80 (hard to tell).

Some folks were a little standoffish as they signed in. Others were a bit nervous, having never before floated a river. But once they got on the Mokelumne and began to paddle and float, you could see their expressions begin to change.

After the first riffles, the rafters were smiling and laughing. By the time they hit the Chute, they'd settled in to their buoyant yellow craft and learned to paddle as a team. And they were listening to and trusting their OARS guides, Tessa, Thomas, KZ and Kyland. Everyone was having a blast.

As fun as the rapids may be, the Electra-Middle Bar run isn't all about thrills. Beauty is its real attraction. Willows and alders line the river's edge. Valley oaks, live oaks, and cottonwood shade the water. The river itself is crystal clear, rippling and shifting from deepest blues to gleaming golden green.

Punk-feathered mergansers swim in the river margins and dive for fish near the rafts. Songbirds serenade from the willows. And there's the sound of the river itself, lapping the shore and rocks, roaring over rocks, splashing when fish jump.

Below the last big rapid, the river slows, and rafters slow down, too, moving in river time to better observe and appreciate the river, its wildlife, and the foothill scenery.

When the rafters reached the takeout at the 1912 Middle Bar Bridge, they were all in love with the Mokelumne. Everyone was smiling and laughing. Seeing all those happy people was more than adequate reward for those of us who put the day together.

The trips helped fund a worthy cause, too -- Foothill Conservancy's efforts to restore and protect the Mokelumne. All is not well on our local river. The entire Middle Bar reach of the river below Highway 49 and a mile of the Electra run are threatened by East Bay MUD's plan to expand Pardee Reservoir. If you haven't yet signed on to oppose that misguided plan, please do it today.

And be sure to tell your friends and family in the East Bay to contact their EBMUD director and urge the EBMUD board to protect what remains of our Mokelumne River. East Bay residents need to step up and say, "Don't destroy this river in our name." If you want to help in the East Bay, send an e-mail to Tim to volunteer.

It's time for East Bay MUD to solve its water issues locally, not by drowning more of a river that sustains such abundant life and brings such joy to those who have a chance to see it first hand.

Mighty Mokelumne's worth the visit

2009-05-24T08:44:00.000-07:00

With a decent snowfall and early May rains, the Mokelumne River's really flowing this spring. Salt Springs Dam may spill soon. If it doesn't, that will only be because PG&E is releasing a huge amount of water into the river to keep the flow high and temperature cold (which has to do with foothill yellow-legged frogs, but I'll spare you the details).

If you've never seen the North Fork running high, now's a good time to do it. Ellis Road, Panther Creek and Tiger Creek Road are all open (see maps).

Downstream at Highway 49, the Mokelumne's Electra-Middle Bar run is also flowing fast and high. Normally the run is a forgiving, friendly river, a nice float trip with some fun rapids, plus a challenging, bouncy Class III rapid below the Highway 49 Bridge. People come from all over to learn to kayak there. In high flows, it's another river entirely -- definitely not a place for beginners.

We ran Electra-Middle Bar yesterday in a flotilla of four large rafts captained by experienced guides. It was a great trip, if a short one: It only took us 40 minutes to get from the put-in to the Middle Bar takeout. Normally the trip is close to two hours long.

During the safety talk before we headed downstream, our lead guide, David "Chicken" Nesmith, charged us with one main task: "stay in the boat." With the high flows, cold snow-melt water, and many "strainers" along the river's edges, the river's no place for a swim right now. Visualize trees and shrubs as a colander and rafters as spaghetti and you'll understand what strainers are all about.

Before we headed out, we had to rig boats, send vehicles to the Middle Bar takeout, and have lunch. As we went through these steps, we talked to other folks coming down to the river. I met one threesome of local men who are very familiar with and love the Mokelumne. They recognized that their skills were no match for the river at this flow.

And then there was another group. These folks had three rafts, none of which was really appropriate for whitewater river use. Two were little more than pool toys. BLM river ranger Scott was there, and took time to warn the would-be rafters about the dangers of the river at this high flow, especially considering their obvious lack of expertise and appropriate gear.

But these "we know the river" folks headed downstream anyway. All three boats flipped at the first little rapid. Scott was following them on land and went down to help, but a good Samaritan visiting the river reached them first. Everyone was OK, but we spotted one of the boats a good ways downstream, stuck in the trees. Truth is, they were very lucky to crash and burn early on before things got sticky.

We had a great trip, and a more successful one. It was quick, and pretty exciting at times (especially for the two people who briefly poured out of the rafts and into the Devil's Toilet Bowl rapid). We paddled hard. But we also had time to enjoy this beautiful river right here in our backyard.

The entire Middle Bar reach and nearly a mile of the Electra run would be drowned if East Bay MUD were to expand Pardee Reservoir as proposed. Let's hope that all of the foothill outcry, and continued good work by Foothill Conservancy and others, keeps that from ever coming to pass.

It's time to secure National Wild and Scenic River designation for the Mokelumne so that in the future, other folks like those in our group can experience the river first-hand, and in doing so, better understand our nation's history and culture as well as its environment.

Wonderful new Mokelumne video

2009-05-10T18:30:00.000-07:00

Visiting the Mokelumne River from its upper watershed to the Delta takes a lot of time and some concerted effort. But now you can now get a quick tour online, thanks to a new video by Mike E. "Mikey" Wier.

Mikey grew up in Plymouth and has a sincere love of our local river and a good understanding of its ecology. His Mokelumne video shows not only the river's beautiful landscapes, but helps viewers understand some of the real threats facing the river today.

Be sure to check it out and share it with your friends! Then go online to endorse National Wild and Scenic River designation for the Mokelumne -- the only long-term solution that can ensure we have a river in our future.

Mokelumne River - Wild and Scenic from Mikey Wier on Vimeo.

Neo-town

2009-05-04T17:48:00.001-07:00

We went over to El Dorado Hills on Sunday afternoon to see a movie, The Soloist, which is unlikely to ever play in our teen-centered Jackson Cinemas.

The movie was in the multiplex crowning the hill at the top of the El Dorado Hills "Town Center," an attempt to create a town-like central shopping district in a community of commuter subdivisions and strip centers. It's got the requisite parts: retail shops at ground level, offices (and maybe even apartments) above, sidewalks, some civic spaces (amphitheatre, places for people to sit and talk), some quasi-natural open space.

But it seems oddly cold and artificial, and not just because the shops are so shi-shi and everything is so obviously new.

The architecture's sort of Cal-Tuscan -- at least that's what I think it's supposed to be -- stucco, awnings, ironwork, tile, fake stone. The buildings look very much the same, as if someone took a limited palette of architectural elements and combined them in different ways over a few blocks.

Contrast that with a town like Sutter Creek, Murphys or Ione, which grew organically over 150 years. Even though there's a cohesiveness to the architecture on their main streets, it's not as if everything looks alike. Buildings are made of a variety of materials and have different scales and textures. They look, well -- authentic -- in a way the Town Center just doesn't manage.

An urban critic like James Kunstler could quickly describe why our old towns "work" for pedestrians and this new one doesn't. It would be interesting to have him do a walk-through.

But you don't have to be an expert on public spaces to understand the importance of maintaining the authenticity of our Amador communities, not only in our vernacular architecture, but in our culture and our landscape and our people with long ties to the land. It's awfully hard to create from scratch, and a good part of what makes living here truly special.

A momentous day

2009-04-29T07:21:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was a remarkable day.

In Amador County, the Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 to oppose the proposed expansion of Pardee Reservoir. They even said they'd oppose any other variation on a Pardee expansion if it had the same impacts as East Bay MUD's current proposal.

I think it's the first time in the nearly 30 years I've lived here that our board of supervisors has actually voted in favor of protecting the Mokelumne River. I may be wrong, but I can't think of any other examples.

In making their decision, the supervisors resisted a full-court press from EBMUD, whose senior staff and board vice-president came to town last week to convince our local agencies to support their project.

At the same time yesterday, over in San Andreas, the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors passed a motion that should lead to rejection of the proposed Trinitas project.

If you live in Amador, you may not have heard of Trinitas, but it's something else. The developer built a golf course illegally on Williamson Act ag land, destroying important habitat in the process. Then he came back with a request to operate the course commercially and add houses and other development.

Trinitas has been hugely controversial. And the proponents have done everything possible to win, from threatening lawsuits to hiring a PR firm to round up local supporters to using Christian graphics to give their project some sort of righteous air. Their law firm, by the way, is the same one representing the Gold Rush Ranch developers.

What do these votes have in common? First, they demonstrate that our supervisors can make good decisions that break with their history. Second, they show what people can do to help bring those good decisions about. Had there not been huge public outcry and organization around both of these bad projects -- Pardee expansion and Trinitas -- the outcome might well have been different.

So stand up and be proud, Amador and Calaveras citizens! Because you stood up, made an impassioned case based on strong facts, and didn't quit, we're just a bit closer to truly protecting our special natural places, communities, and quality of life.

Of course the Pardee fight's not over yet. EBMUD's board still has the final say. But step by step, we're getting there. And finally, the story's made the Bay Area press. Stay tuned!

Electric Electra flowers

2009-04-12T20:23:00.000-07:00

Today we went walking on Electra Road. The flowers are fantastic this year, and nearly at peak right now. Some things have yet to bloom, but the poppies and various kinds of lupine are fantastic.

We also saw blooming:

Phacelia (scorpion flower), lots and lots of phacelia
Popcorn flower (isn't it fabulous this year?)
Moth mullein, just starting
Dudleya
Globe lillies
Purple owl's clover
White owl's clover
Chinese houses
Jewel flower (streptanthus)
A couple of different pinks
A yellow composite
Fringe pod -- great year for that, too
Blue dicks
Two different onions, one blue, one white
Native clover

Plus others I now can't recall. Photos soon, but get out there and see it for yourself. Photos don't begin to do the riverside experience justice. You also need to hear the birds, the bugs, and of course, the river.

Meanwhile, here are some great photos by Dave Skinner of the Electra flowers and nearby poppies on Highway 49, which are now a bit past peak.

Wishful thinking on Gold Rush Ranch

2009-04-07T08:26:00.000-07:00

It's hard to believe that local realtors and others really think approving the Gold Rush Ranch project will somehow boost our local economy in the short run (there are questions about the long run, too, but I'll ignore those for now).

Amador County isn't an economic island. We can't ignore state and national trends, including these:

-- Housing starts nationally in January and February were the lowest since before 1959, according to the Department of Commerce. Demand for new homes is way down.

-- The people who fueled our local housing bubble (and ensured home prices rose beyond what local working families could afford) were folks with large amounts of equity in their homes in urban parts of California. Now that the state real estate bubble has burst, there's no longer a big pool of equity-amenity refugees able to quickly cash out a home and move to the foothills.

-- Last year's gas prices (and increasing awareness of carbon footprints) caused commuters to think hard about how far they live from work. Long-distance commutes of the type common in the past will be less acceptable to homebuyers in the future. Homes in rural subdivisions built on a commuter-resident model are going to be less desirable than homes closer to jobs.

-- The stock market decline and resulting crash of 401(k) values, combined with declines in home equity, have led many people to delay their retirement by 3-5 years, or more. We won't be seeing as many people retiring in the next few years as once anticipated.

While people may once again start moving to the valley and foothills, it's going to take a while, according to the Sacramento Bee.

And in any case, a project approved now won't be built for some time. There are even approved subdivisions for sale locally.

We need to build our local economy, not more houses for people who don't already live here.

A bright light out in the Range

2009-04-02T10:06:00.000-07:00

It should be raining in the Sierra, for the Range of Light has lost one of its finest friends. Andrea Mead Lawrence of Mammoth Lakes passed away at home with family on Monday.

For those of us who knew and loved Andrea, the news is beyond sad. We knew her not only as someone of incredible achievement, but as a person of remarkable resilience, perseverance, and love of life. She was a big-picture thinker who could inspire others to join in her vision -- whether of a healthy, restored Sierra Nevada or a saved Bodie or a restored Mono Lake or sustainable communities or a regional organization to bring together everyone working for the Sierra.

Her passing is a time to reflect on all she brought to the region and to our lives. I don't know whether to work even harder on my conservation efforts today or go take a walk on the river with the wildflowers. I'll likely do both.

Ad Astra, Andrea!

People love our river

2009-03-21T09:36:00.000-07:00

I've been actively working to conserve and restore the Mokelumne River for nearly 20 years. I know people love our river and use it.

That's been made manifest in the last couple of weeks since word got out that East Bay MUD, having years ago abandoned plans to expand Pardee Reservoir, has included a Pardee expansion in its draft 2040 water plan.

We "may not" do it, EBMUD says. "It's just an option." But the risk of losing miles of free-flowing river has locals and visitors alike up in arms.

Last weekend, nearly 50 kayakers converged on the river in a "Paddle for the Moke" organized by Theresa Simsiman of Sacramento. They ranged in age from 10 to 60-ish. Paddlers came from all over Northern California, including the East Bay. It was a great event!

The next night, nearly 150 people showed up for EBMUD's EIR hearing in Sutter Creek, overflowing a room designed to hold 40 people. Most were from Amador and Calaveras counties, although some folks came from farther away. The crowd included ranchers, farmers, kayakers, anglers, Miwok people, riverside landowners, conservationists, and more. It was a true cross-section of folks.

By the time the hearing began at 6:30, people were standing in the room, sitting on the floor, standing in the hall, and peering in the windows, straining to hear.

Only one person spoke in favor of the reservoir expansion, long-time local water manager/dam advocate Hank Willy. Everyone else spoke of their love for the river and their opposition to obliterating miles of it under a reservoir. They were respectful, but passionate.

EBMUD pushed the idea that all will be OK because they'll draw down the reservoir in summer to expose the lower end of the Electra run. But speakers familiar with New Melones pointed out what that means: a dead-zone bathtub ring devoid of vegetation. It's a far cry from what exists along the river today.

EBMUD is saying they'll hold another public hearing up here, in Calaveras County. Of course, this process has been in the works for more than two years, and last Monday's meeting was the first opportunity for foothill residents to testify to EBMUD directors (two came).

For more on Monday's meeting, read the Foothill Conservancy or Ledger-Dispatch article. The latter article includes great quotes from local officials Steve Wilensky and Keith Sweet.

For more about the issue, see the Foothill Conservancy's webpage on the subject and Chris Wright's op-ed in the Ledger Dispatch.

Mokelumne River threatened again

2009-03-03T21:20:00.000-08:00

Our local river is under threat once again. In its 2040 water plan, the East Bay Municipal Utility District is including a proposal to expand Pardee Reservoir. This larger version of Pardee would drown the entire Middle Bar reach of the Mokelumne -- and seasonally, nearly a mile of the Electra run above Highway 49.

The East Bay doesn't even need the water. EBMUD's directors chose to head down this path rather than impose stricter conservation standards. So there's less impact on Bay Area residents, but we lose miles of river people use every day, year 'round. The Mokelumne's Electra and Middle Bar reaches are the most accessible and family-friendly river segments in our area.

Everyone needs water. But we need our river, too.

For more information, some photos and video, and to send an e-mail to EBMUD and local officials -- some of whom are encouraging this misguided, destructive plan -- see the Foothill Conservancy's Pardee expansion webpage.

While you're there, sign on to support National Wild and Scenic River designation for the Mokelumne. It's the only way to ensure we have a river in our future.

Items of interest

2009-02-15T13:11:00.000-08:00

A couple of things have come up in the last few days that may be worth following ...

First, there's the departure of Larry Peterson as head of the Amador County Department of Public Works. Larry brought real professionalism and a true public service ethic to the county. Now he's gone, and no one's saying just why.

And this coming Tuesday, the Alpine County Board of Supervisors is going to hear a presentation from the county's District Attorney Will Richmond and a representative of the Department of Fish and Game regarding civil penalties collected from Kirkwood Mountain Resort to resolve "criminal action" against the resort.

It'll be really interesting to learn what that's all about. A few years ago Kirkwood was responsible for a great deal of silt flowing into streams feeding Kirkwood Creek, so that may be the issue.

Economic element to be discussed

2009-01-31T09:08:00.000-08:00

Last fall, the county supervisors decided to add an optional economic element to the update of the county general plan. Among other things, the element will address the role of agriculture in the local economy.

The first public meeting to discuss the draft policies in the element will be held on Tuesday, February 17, from 9:30 to noon.

Notice that the meeting will be held on a weekday, during the day. When the board of supervisors limited the economic element committee members to business and agriculture groups, the supervisors said the public can comment at the public meetings. But if you have a business to run during the day, or a job to go to, guess what? Apparently you are out of luck.

I guess you can submit written comments, but that's not the same as being in the room to hear the discussion.

I've asked the county planning staff three questions about the draft economic element:

When will the draft policies be available for public review?
If people have ideas for policies, to whom should they send them and by what date?
Will there be any review meetings held in the evening when working people can attend?

No response so far.

It still annoys me that the Amador County Business Council was asked to participate on the committee. This is a pay-to-play organization, whose board members have paid either $1,000 or $2,500 to belong. The group has no history in the county, no track record, and no regular members other than the ones who've paid the big bucks -- at least none that I know of. But apparently, forking out money to pay a consultant to represent your interest is all it takes for county recognition and a seat at the table, at least if you're among the county's business elite.

The timing of the meeting and shape of the committee send an interesting message to the public. Affluent business owners get a seat at the table while working people can't even get in the room.

Ain't democracy grand?

For background information on the county's economy, see the Meeting 15 information on this county planning department page.

A note to the supervisors

2009-01-21T09:15:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, the county board of supervisors held a workshop on ethics, governance, guidelines and procedures, etc. I didn't attend. But I did send them a note in advance. Here's what it said ...

Dear Chairman Novelli and Members of the Board:

I am going to skip your workshop Tuesday because it is a historic day and I plan to spend the morning celebrating our amazing country. However, I'd like to share a few thoughts for your discussion of ethics, responsible governance and leadership, county operating guidelines, etc -- things I might like to say if I did attend. These comments are based on my more than 20 years of interacting with county government, 24 years in public service at the county and state level, and nearly 30 years as a local resident.

I believe that county supervisors should try to:

Treat all taxpayers like customers, and build a customer-service driven local government with standards that apply across all agencies. In some state agencies, all staff, including the senior executives, are required to take customer-service training.
Train and require staff to do completed staff work before they bring an important issue to you for a decision. A full, written analysis that lays out facts, proposes a variety of alternatives for addressing the issue, analyzes those alternatives, and makes a recommendation can help the board do a better job and ensure that key issues are fully vetted.
Ensure the county is governed in a broadly inclusive way. Everyone who lives in this county pays taxes of one kind or another, and we all contribute. We all deserve to be heard and treated with respect, and our opinions considered, whether we are rich or poor, landowners or renters, old or young, from old families or new arrivals, conservative or progressive, Republican or Democrat, etc. We all have an interest in creating a strong, prosperous, sustainable county. Too many people in this county feel they have no say because they are not part of the "good old boy network." You can overcome that alienation by example and help our community move ahead.
Ensure that county committees and commissions include broad and balanced points of view and perspectives. That is not only fair -- it will produce better results. Committees about services or programs should include not only the people who provide services, but those who receive or are affected by them. The economic element committee you recently formed could have included representatives of the sizable nonprofit sector (big chunk of local economy, never quantified), the arts, business customers and agricultural product consumers, not only business people and agriculture group reps. If you staff committees and commissions with people who mostly think alike and share the same knowledge and experience, the county will not benefit from the good ideas, networks, energy and critical thinking and analysis that can emerge from a more diverse group.
Respect the triple bottom line in all things; economy, people, environment. If you favor any one at the expense of the other two, our county will suffer. Many businesses and institutions have embraced this triple-bottom line approach -- and some have added another element: equity.
Not prejudge people who come before the board. It's easy to think you know what someone is going to say, or what they mean, based on a preconceived idea of who they are or what they have done. Instead, supervisors should strive to give them a fair hearing.
Involve the public in meaningful, useful ways. Try more workshops and fewer public hearings. Promote conversation and respectful exchange instead of setting up situations where people can only stand up, make statements and sit down. Hold more meetings in the evening and on weekends when working people can attend. Hold more study sessions to learn about issues, inviting experts and the public to participate. Calaveras County has done that for years.
Employ innovative technology and broader techniques for public involvement. Many people will not or cannot bring themselves to stand up and speak at a public hearing, but they will answer an online or mail survey, vote confidentially using electronic keypads, or contribute their opinions and insights in other ways.
Recognize that you need to cooperate, not compete with the cities, and avoid duplication of services.

I hope these thoughts will help with your discussion.

Life in a civilized society

2009-01-17T17:53:00.000-08:00

A friend forwarded to me a "letter" that appears all over the Internet. A local elected official sent it out. It purports to be from a business owner, bemoaning high taxes, the stimulus checks given out last year, welfare mothers, and the like.

I thought about it for much of the day. Here's my response ...

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes called taxes, "the price we pay for living in a civilized society."

My extended family includes people who have started and run successful industrial and retail businesses as well as people like me who have spent their careers working for businesses or government. My husband has been self-employed most of his adult life.

I respect the hard work of businesspeople and their importance in our society. I also know that the taxes they pay can seem onerous at times. My taxes seem that way at times, too.

But those taxes do not come without benefit. Like the rest of us, businesspeople have benefited and continue to benefit from generations of public investment in public services and infrastructure made possible by taxes and other government funding.

Without roads, highways, airports, ports, railroads, police and fire protection, emergency medical services, correctional institutions, the Internet, public colleges and universities (and their innovations), teaching hospitals, public schools, landfills, water and wastewater systems, SBA loans, and more, it would be pretty tough to run a successful business in this country.

Developing countries look to our own to learn how to develop and implement tax systems because they know they need public investment in services and infrastructure to allow businesses and communities to flourish. Delegations come to California every year to learn how our tax system works (and doesn't, I imagine -- it's far from perfect).

I was also interested in the welfare reference in the letter.

People will always argue about what level of taxation is best or most fair and how that money should be used. But many of us do not mind having some of our taxes go to children who would who otherwise not have clothes, food, or housing. No child should suffer in our affluent country, even if their parents are less than perfect. Accountability for adults is one thing, but forcing innocent kids to suffer is quite another. Taking care of children is an American value consistent with all of our traditions.

I looked up the county budget to check out local social services expenditures. If I got the math right (always open to question), the social services part of the county budget is about 14.4 percent of the total. More than 97 percent of the revenue for that chunk of the budget comes from "intergovernmental transfers" -- the state and federal government. Among other things, the money goes to help:

Abused children and seniors. There are more of each here than most people realize.
Elderly people in nursing homes who have run out of money to pay for this expensive care themselves. These folks have always been a large percentage of the local and state Medi-Cal caseload.
Elderly people, blind people, and people with disabilities living at home who, without In-Home Supportive Services, would also be in nursing homes, costing us all a lot more.
People who would otherwise have no health coverage for themselves or their kids. Without assistance, they often turn to emergency rooms for their health care and seek care much later when conditions are more costly to treat. The costs get passed on to the rest of us in higher health care costs.
People who cannot feed their children without food stamps.
And yes, people on public assistance, which largely goes to families with children.

Long ago, I worked for the county Department of Social Services. There are people who use those services that shouldn't, sure. But there are plenty of good people leading hard-working lives who at some point find themselves needing Medi-Cal, or food stamps, or some other helping hand until they can get a job again, or get through some other rough financial spell. And many local middle-class families need help from Medi-Cal when they need to place a loved one in a nursing home. The stereotypical "welfare mother" is just that, a stereotype.

I agree that we need a system in our country, and in our county, that rewards hard work and understands that small business is the foundation of our economy. But I also think we need a system that cares for people when they need help. It's the compassionate, American thing to do.

Does that make me a bleeding heart? Maybe so. But if the alternative is turning a cold shoulder and a hard heart toward people in need, so be it.

Losing auto dealerships would be a big blow

2009-01-12T17:38:00.000-08:00

Some folks have wondered why I would work to keep the Prospect auto dealerships in business even though I have criticized the sales tax arrangement that helped them move to Martell.

It's pretty simple ...

More than 80 people have lost their jobs and their families are hurting. These folks are our neighbors.
We need good family-wage jobs in our community.
Our county, Jackson and Sutter Creek really do need the hundreds of thousands of dollars in sales tax revenue the dealerships provide. The dealers are the single largest source of sales tax for the cities and a huge contributor to county coffers as well.
The dealerships and their employees spend a lot of money in local businesses, supporting those businesses and their employees, and creating more local government revenue. It's called the "multiplier effect" -- every dollar spent locally recycles in the community many times.
According to one study, each job lost to a layoff leads to another 0.5 to 0.7 jobs lost in a community. It's a downward spiral -- a reverse multiplier effect.
Local residents are going to buy cars somewhere. Better that they buy them here and create local jobs and revenue than go to Lodi or Folsom.
Local residents, especially working people and the elderly, also need the convenient warranty and repair services provided by the dealerships. While independent repair shops may ramp up if the dealerships stay closed, many people will always prefer a dealer for their warranty service and repair.
Many local charitable causes benefit from the dealerships.

As we work to save the Prospect dealerships, we also need to work hard to keep other local businesses alive. You can do you part by shopping local, and patronizing locally owned small businesses instead of huge corporate chain stores. And local businesses can do their part by buying from each other.

We also need to be finding more ways to support other local people who have lost their jobs in this difficult time.

At the rally on Saturday, several people said to me, "We're all in this together."

Indeed we are. And that's what community is all about.

A trip to suburbia

2008-12-15T18:23:00.000-08:00

Yesterday Pete and I went to Roseville to meet a friend and help her daughter shop for drums in a busy retail center. It's good to drive to Roseville now and then. It helps me remember why I like real cities, small towns, and the country, but really dislike suburbs.

I'm sure the people who live in Roseville are perfectly nice. But the whole place is designed for cars. And cars there are -- lane after lane after lane of them.

Some of the roads are five or six lanes wide. If you happen to land in the wrong lane, God help you. You'd better know where you're going or hope you can find a way to turn around.

Forget walking. You'd never make it across all the lanes of traffic. And while there are bike lanes, I imagine that only the most intrepid cyclists dare to use them

It reminded me of a radio news story I heard recently about the Tyson's Corner area in Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C. Tyson's Corner is a sprawling "edge city" anchored by big malls. In the NPR story, (listen to the audio version) the reporter and his host tried to go in a straight line from point A to point B, but couldn't do it without circuitous routing and much driving. The host called it "traffic engineer hell."

Urban planners are trying to remake Tyson's Corner as a more pedestrian-friendly area, with housing, light rail service, green buildings and a gridded street layout.

I wonder if they'll ever try that in Roseville?

Here in Amador County, transportation officials are warning that if local growth proceeds in the locations and at the volumes predicted, we're going to need big, wide suburban streets of our own to avoid gridlock.

It's hard to imagine that Amador County residents really want Martell and Jackson to look like Roseville and Tyson's Corner, but that's where we're headed -- unless we find a better way, and soon. Rejecting the current batch of proposed subdivisions, or shrinking them to something less destructive, would be the best place to start.

Sacrificing rivers for growth

2008-12-07T09:06:00.001-08:00

I've walked along the Mokelumne River's Electra Run many times. It's a beautiful spot year-round. It's also the part of the Mokelumne used most by local residents. They come there to fish, picnic, and pan for gold. They come to teach their kids about rivers.

They are people of all ages, from all walks of life. What they have in common is a love of nature, and especially of rivers.

It's no secret that I love rivers and advocate for the Mokelumne. And it's no secret that I support keeping the portions of the Mokelumne that are still a river flowing for future generations. Because of that, I support National Wild and Scenic River designation for the Mokelumne. It's simply the only way to keep our river a river.

I've been distressed by some of the discussion in recent Amador County general plan hearings. There are people in our county who want to sacrifice our rivers on the altar of unlimited growth. They are willing to destroy the Electra run, and the other special river places in our county, to grow more subdivisions and fuel more gridlock. And they don't understand that conservation and efficiency is the cheapest source of additional water supply.

The general plan is about the future -- what we want our county to be. I, for one, want it to be a place where people can enjoy and learn about rivers just like they can today.

The general plan is far from done. But those of you who care about the Mokelumne need to speak up now.

There are two good ways to show your support for keeping the Mokelumne a river. One is to sign on to support National Wild and Scenic River designation for the Mokelumne.

The other is to let the Amador County Board of Supervisors know what you think. Call or write and tell them what the river means to you. If you use the river, tell them how. If you come here from somewhere else and spend money while you're here, let them know that as well.

To some folks and officials in Amador County, the river is simply an abstract source of water. To many of us, it is a powerful force of nature, a source of pleasure, challenge, inspiration or rejuvenation -- and it's up to us to keep it that way.

Planning is more than theory

2008-11-16T09:25:00.000-08:00

We took a salmon-watching trip on the Yuba River yesterday. To get there, we drove north through Amador, El Dorado, Placer and Nevada counties before heading west to Parks Bar, where the salmon spawn. It's a long trip.

The route's full of lessons relevant to the update of our county general plan, the "constitution" for future growth and development.

Amador still has a good number of working ranches along the northbound route. There are some ranches in southern El Dorado, but fewer and fewer as you head north.

Instead, as you drive through our neighboring foothill counties, you see suburban ranchettes that have chopped up the wildlife habitat, subdivisions in forests just waiting to burn, and ugly commercial strip development that looks like Anywhere, USA (hmm ... sorta like Martell). Highway 49 even turns into a freeway outside Grass Valley.

It's a vision of what our future will be if we don't take another course today. And it's a great reminder that land use planning is not an empty theoretical exercise. Planning actually determines what happens on the landscape, shapes communities, and directly affects everyone who lives in or visits a place.

Good planning can help working ranches stay in business, minimize commercial sprawl, and protect wildlife habitat, rivers and streams. It can focus development in towns so we don't need to expand our roads to freeways that no one can afford. It can minimize loss of life and property to wildland fire (and associated costs). And if it's clear on what's allowed where, it's more likely to attract economic investment (investors like certainty).

How can we make sure good planning happens here? For one thing, we need to convince our county's elected and appointed officials that planning actually matters. It's not about reviewing each project application as it comes along and deferring the hard decisions until then -- it's really about creating a clear plan.

Right now, the supervisors and planning commissioners are focused on this question as they review each part of the plan: "Will this limit property rights?"

Property rights matter, but they shouldn't be the only consideration. The officials should also be asking, "Will this keep our county a beautiful, safe, sustainable, and healthy place to live, work, visit and retire?"

In recent general plan hearings, some of the folks on the dais have seemed willing to sacrifice our community character and natural environment on the altar of property rights, without considering where that may lead.

I've seen where it leads. I was there just yesterday. And I don't think it's where most Amador County residents want to go.

It's time to get involved, folks

The supervisors and planning commissioners need to hear from those of you whose primary interest is not developing or subdividing your property. You deserve an equal say in our county's future. Tell them what matters to you and why, and remind them that they represent you, too.

Give your supervisor a call at 223-6470 or get involved in the general plan update hearings. For more information and meeting dates, see Amador County's general plan update website and the Foothill Conservancy's Amador County general plan update page.

Environment vs economy: a false choice?

2008-11-10T07:43:00.000-08:00

That's the title of a November 5 blog post in the Christian Science Monitor by Eoin O'Connor. In it, O'Connor documents how Americans support protecting the environment. The public understands that it's possible to do that and have a strong economy at the same time.

Here's a quote from the post:

"When asked directly, most Americans don’t say that the economy and the environment are inherently opposed. Here’s what a 2006 Los Angeles Times poll [PDF] of 1,478 adults found:

"The public is optimistic . . . that protecting the environment does not have to conflict with economic growth, long a contention of those who are looking to dismantle or weaken environmental protection laws. Almost three times as many said it does not have to conflict as said that it does (70% compared to 25%)."

O'Connor also says,

"As the conservative environmentalist John Bliese pointed out in 1999, US states with stricter environmental regulations outperform states with weaker regulations “on all the economic measures.” The same is true for countries – those with the most stringent environmental rules tend to show the best economic performance."

It's worth remembering.

Some of the local powers-that-be are trying to convince us that to have a sound local economy, we need to sacrifice our county's remaining rivers, oak woodlands, forests, scenic beauty, and ranches.

They are hoping that you don't care enough to make a fuss about it. I am hoping that you do.

The water shortage myth

2008-11-01T17:42:00.000-07:00

Update: I just found another excellent, detailed article on California water and the current situation, by Don Bacher, editor of The Fish Sniffer. You can read it here.

Second update: I just received a comment about a film that addresses global water problems. Please note that this blog focuses on one small, rural county in California's Sierra Nevada. This post is not intended to address larger world water issues.

++++

The rain is back. What a wonderful thing it is this time of year to hear the rain on the roof for hours and sleep in because it's too wet to head out to walk.

The rain led me to read an interesting item on California water today, and I wanted to share it with you.

In this article from Forbes magazine, economist David Zetland argues that charging the true price of water would cause people to use it much more efficiently, and reduce demand. It's a simple principle: People waste resources when they're cheap and conserve them if they cost more. Think about how people were changing their driving habits when the price of gas went earlier this year.

You may also have read the recent stories about how the California Department of Water Resources is predicting low water deliveries for next year. People who watch water on the conservation side of the world consider that a political ploy, intended to advocate for more dams and a peripheral canal around the Delta.

At the same time, some of the water purveyors are trying to convince us all that we're in the midst of a historic drought. But is it true?

Outdoor writer Tom Stienstra says no. See his brief article, "Drought, or water heist?"

A fall Sierra walk

2008-10-23T08:51:00.000-07:00

After such a dry spring and warm summer, I didn't expect much in the way of fall color this year. But in the last week or so, the trees have started coming on.

Early rain and some cold nights have given the leaves a shove into autumn. The color is especially vivid in the colder drainages, the creek and river canyons.

Yesterday, I went hiking with a friend on the Caples Creek trail, which starts near the creek's confluence with the Silver Fork of the American River, off Silver Fork Road. The heart-shaped black cottonwood leaves were a shimmering deep gold. The aspens were at peak color: light, not leaf. The willows flashed against the dark granite and water along the stream.

The black oaks, which I expected to be really disappointing this year, were a rich golden yellow trending to red, cascading down the slopes. Rose leaves clung to creek-side dogwoods. The creek itself was flowing clear and slow, transporting packs of leaves downstream. It was a clear, bright-blue Sierra day.

The Caples Creek trail is also noteworthy because of its big, old Jeffrey pines, cedars and firs; the big granite shoulders that intrude from each side of the canyon; lovely meadows with native plants; and a basalt postpile on the canyon's north side.

The trail has wonderful flowers in the spring. We could see their remnants yesterday: fascinating seedpods on the lilies, scarlet berries on the false Solomon seal, gnarled, desiccated, maroon snow plant. (I am waiting for the day when someone writes the Field Guide to Dead Flowers of the Sierra Nevada, but doubt it's at the top of any naturalist's list.)

We didn't see anyone on the trail yesterday, a Wednesday, but there was plenty of evidence of hikers and trail bikes (motorcycles). The lower part of the trail is open to motorcycles, which are deepening the ruts, widening the trail, and adding to the dust this time of year.

But on this weekday, at least, the Caples Creek trail was a beautiful, quiet place to hike. We listened to the birds, chickarees, and creek. We examined the abundant pine and fir cones. And most of all, we breathed the clear, clean air and rejoiced in a lovely fall Sierra day.

Note: All photos are from the Caples Creek trail, shot in October 2007.

Everyone should count

2008-10-16T22:10:00.000-07:00

I've lived in Amador County for 29 years, nearly all of my adult life. I have wonderful friends and colleagues here. Some are members of families who have lived here for generations. Many of them are not (in fact, I would guess that most people who live here are not from the old families).

My friends and colleagues take care of people when they're aging, sick and dying. They teach in our schools. They own businesses that employ local people and contribute to our economy. They create art and music that enriches our lives. They run local nonprofit groups. They spend money in local stores. They raise livestock and grow food. They design and build homes. They save lives and property by responding to fire and medical emergencies. They raise large sums of money to help local cancer patients. They bring in retirement dollars that support local businesses and jobs.

They contribute in more ways than I can begin to list here. They are an essential part of our community even if they do not own large amounts of land or adhere to conservative political principles.

Last week, the county board of supervisors and planning commission met to discuss the updating of the county general plan. That general plan will shape our county for decades. It will affect how each one of us lives, every day, by determining how, where, and how much development occurs in the county, as well as where development doesn't occur.

The general plan will influence everything that makes up our quality of life: small town identity, air quality, roads and traffic, wildlife, scenic vistas, schools, economic health, rivers and forests, agriculture, and more.

Many of the speakers at the three days of general plan meetings had a clear message for those of us who are not major landowners:

You do not count. What you think does not matter. You are not "representative" of the community. If you are a "liberal," or worse yet, went to UC Berkeley, you are especially suspect. Regardless of the contributions you make, only we -- the multi-generation landowners and the developers and pro-development interests who are using us to their own ends -- really matter.

This was not unexpected. It's the boiling up of a simmering community conflict that is seldom openly discussed. That conflict came to the fore during the District 5 supervisor race two years ago. Local rancher Brian Oneto ran as the archetypal representative of the old-family, landowner power base and those who agree with a "let us do what we want with our land regardless of what it does to you" philosophy. Mel Welsh, a registered nurse with an impressive record of community service, ran on her record and a comprehensive platform.

Oneto succeeded in portraying Welsh as a Nancy Pelosi-loving, "San Francisco liberal" whose goals was to take away landowner property rights. The message was clear and explicit: "She is not one of us." It worked and Oneto won.

Many of the folks involved in that campaign are now part of the current effort to derail two years of community work on the general plan update.

Events like last week's hearings make me worry about our county's future. If we cannot learn to appreciate and acknowledge the contributions of all of our county's residents, how in the world can we begin to deal with the challenges we face, especially in these increasingly difficult economic times? And what will we do as our communities become more ethnically and culturally diverse?

The way I see it, we can't afford to reject anyone or any idea. We need to embrace our neighbors, acknowledge their contributions, and use all of our collective knowledge and experience to build a stronger, resilient, more capable community. To do anything less is beyond foolish.

No one has all of the answers. But if we work together, we'll come a lot closer to success than we will ever get by discounting the ideas and contributions of people with whom we disagree.

Speaking up for civility

2008-10-07T15:10:00.000-07:00

Dismayed by the name-calling that is starting over Gold Rush Ranch, I thought I ought to weigh in on the side of civility and respect. Below is the text of an item I sent the Amador Ledger-Dispatch, shown as published online.

Recent letters to the editor and op-ed columns are a good reminder of how passionately people feel about the Gold Rush Ranch Resort proposal. Some think the project is too big, too destructive and too costly for Sutter Creek. Others think that Gold Rush is the best solution for a range of challenges facing the town and its businesses. I have friends in both camps.

The disagreement is a reminder that good people can and do come to very different conclusions about important local issues. That's normal and healthy provided it leads to civil and respectful debate. But when the disagreement turns into personal attacks, it's not good for Sutter Creek or the larger community. We are too small to allow issues like this to divide us so dramatically.

Everyone involved in this discussion has legitimate concerns. The individuals, groups and public agencies concerned about Gold Rush are worried about public safety, fiscal accountability, habitat destruction, overcrowded schools, sprawl, jammed intersections, air quality and more. Gold Rush supporters are concerned about downtown business, local recreation and city wastewater facilities. All of these issues matter. And we all want Sutter Creek and Amador County to stay a wonderful place to live, do business, work and retire.

If we remember that we share common goals and treat each other with civility and respect, we can move through and beyond Gold Rush Ranch to build a stronger community, one more capable of constructively addressing challenges and solving problems. But if the conflict deteriorates into stone throwing and name calling, all of us will lose, regardless of the ultimate outcome.

Instead, we can try to understand each others' points of view, focus on the facts about the project as determined by independent analysts and follow a key principle of win-win negotiating: Be hard on the problem and soft on the people. We may never agree on Gold Rush. But we can disagree in a way that preserves the sense of community that is the ultimate expression of our local quality of life. In my opinion, that's the true path to a successful and prosperous future for Sutter Creek.

Economic woes, and budding success

2008-09-29T05:56:00.000-07:00

I've been visiting family on the East Coast as the financial crisis unfolds. These are "interesting times" unlike anything my baby-boomer generation has ever seen. It's quite unsettling.

But having a little distance on Amador County is also a good reminder of this often-forgotten fact: Amador County's economy is tied to regional, state, national and global economies. We don't exist in an economic vacuum.

That's important to remember as people look to Gold Rush to "save" Sutter Creek and a new committee looks at revitalizing downtown Jackson. Things are tough all over, not only in our small towns.

I picked up some information in my home town that I plan to share with the Jackson committee. The downtown here, which was thriving when I was a child in the 1960s, started to die with the birth of malls in the 1970s. Efforts to make it more mall-like simply sped its demise.

Now, after years of decline, and subsequent years of effort to revitalize the historic business district, downtown is coming back to life. People are revamping the beautiful historic buildings. There are new small businesses, professional offices, a brewpub, ethnic restaurants, new housing, and night life for the first time in years. And the group heading the effort has just finished market studies intended to help determine which businesses are needed to make the downtown even more of a go-to (and live-in) destination for locals.

It didn't happen by accident, and it didn't happen without some missteps. But people have persevered, and it appears they're on the road to success. I don't see any reason we can't do the same in our small towns. But it may take a while, especially in these interesting times.

More on Gold Rush Ranch

2008-09-15T10:38:00.000-07:00

On September 2, the Amador Ledger-Dispatch published an op-ed I wrote for the Foothill Conservancy regarding how Gold Rush Ranch has sold itself to the public.

You can also see a rebuttal letter from Ben Klotz on the Ledger's website. Among other things, Mr. Klotz takes issue with my using "Fourteen thousand cars" instead of "car trips" to describe the traffic Gold Rush Ranch will bring to the Sutter Hill-Martell-Sutter Creek area. He's right: Car trip is the correct term and I should have used it (mea culpa). But whether it's 14,000 cars driving once a day or 1,400 cars taking 10 trips a day, Gold Rush will still create traffic jams and gridlock.

Mr. Klotz and I do agree about this: People should focus on the facts when discussing Gold Rush Ranch.

For more facts about Gold Rush-related traffic, just take a look at the traffic section in the draft EIR and judge for yourself. You can see the vehicle trip per unit data on page 5-17 (remember -- there are nearly 1,350 homes) and read more about what that means to road capacity and traffic flow.

You can also read the Amador County Transportation Commission and CalTrans comments on the traffic analysis in the DEIR. Both agencies take issue with that analysis. At the same time, they point out that Gold Rush will cause significant traffic problems.

I respect the local residents who support Gold Rush Ranch. They're entitled to their opinions.

I just don't believe a suburban-style golf-course subdivision that will use huge amounts of water, export wastewater rather than being a disposal solution, jam roads and highways, crowd local schools, not build a single sports field for more than 450 resident kids, and destroy more than 13,000 trees -- including nearly 2,000 heritage oaks -- is worth it.

I'm not alone. The Sutter Creek Planning Commission hasn't voted on the EIR or the project, but its members seem quite concerned. Local residents are speaking up, too. If you'd like to join the growing number of Sutter Creek residents who oppose Gold Rush Ranch as currently proposed, call Preserve Historic Sutter Creek at 209-559-3685.

Taxpayer dollars down the drain?

2008-08-18T16:35:00.000-07:00

As the Gold Rush project has evolved, several catch phrases have come to mind. “Lipstick on a pig” is one. “Pig in a poke” another. But lately, the most appropriate phrase seems to be “bait and switch.” Here’s why …

Back in 2001, Sutter Creek and the Amador Regional Sanitation Authority were planning for the day ARSA could no longer dispose of wastewater in Ione. The city and ARSA paid $750,000 for the right to spray 1,300 acre feet of wastewater a year on the Noble Ranch, a large parcel on the edge of town. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

The Noble Ranch is the site of the proposed Gold Rush Ranch subdivision. Here's how the Amador Ledger Dispatch described the deal, "In 2001, the city negotiated a public/private partnership to purchase the land, with developers of Gold Rush Golf Resort so that the city and ARSA kept disposal rights and rights to lines, reservoirs and easements on the property."

Ever since then, the public has been led to believe that Gold Rush's golf course and other irrigation needs would solve Sutter Creek's wastewater disposal problem. Just a few weeks ago, a Ledger reporter praised Gold Rush for this very reason.

Apparently the reporter hadn't read the draft EIR for Gold Rush, which was released not long ago. As it turns out, the development itself will keep the city from fully using its disposal easement on the Noble Ranch.

Here's what the pertinent section of the EIR says, "Increased treatment capacity at the WWTP, including that required to treat Project-generated wastewater, will also increase treated effluent disposal and storage requirements. The City retains a 1,300 afy treated effluent disposal spray easement on the 833-acre Noble Ranch portion of the Project site. The Project's use of recycled water from the WWTP will provide for utilization/disposal of approximately 347 afy of this amount (with the development of the golf course intended to facilitate the bulk of this disposal). The remaining 953 afy of the easement will not be available on the Project site as a result of development and other land uses that will be incompatible with use of the spray easement." (emphasis added)

What does it mean? The development of the Noble Ranch will keep ARSA and Gold Rush from using the full wastewater easement they paid for back in 2001.

Further, the development itself will eventually generate more wastewater than anyone plans to use on the site. If Gold Rush is built as proposed, the city will have to find another place for that excess wastewater--as well as all the wastewater from the rest of Sutter Creek! I doubt that’s what the city and ARSA had in mind back when they helped buy the property.

It makes me wonder how long the city has known. One clue should have come in 2006, when Gold Rush released a plan that didn’t acknowledge the wastewater easement. According to a Ledger Dispatch story, ARSA and Sutter Creek City Manager Rob Duke took exception at that time.

The Gold Rush draft EIR indicates that the city is aware of the problem now. It says, “The City’s primary objectives are to ensure that development within the City is in compliance with the City’s General Plan and the City’s implementing ordinances. The City’s objectives also include retaining the existing 1,300 AFY effluent disposal spray easement on the Noble Ranch or ensuring that any loss of the existing easement disposal capacity is replaced without financial impact to the City. Replacement of spray easement capacity may be achieved through a combination of acquisition of easements on alternative effluent disposal sites, additional effluent storage facilities and fees to provide funding for use by the City in securing replacement effluent disposal capacity.” (emphasis added)

Gold Rush is clearly not the solution for Sutter Creek’s future wastewater disposal. And the city knows it. You just have to wonder what else will come to light about the project in the coming weeks.

The public hearing for the EIR is on Monday, August 25.

Gold Rush Ranch - a matter of scale

2008-08-09T07:54:00.001-07:00

The Gold Rush Ranch Resort project is being reviewed this summer by the Sutter Creek Planning Commission and City Council. The developers have sold this project to many local residents in their multi-year PR campaign.

Many Sutter Creek residents even think the project has been scaled back from what was proposed years ago. But that's simply not true. Consider that Gold Rush will

Have than 1,300 homes, most of which are arranged on the landscape in a typical, large-lot suburban design
More than double the city's current population in as few as 10 years, per the EIR
Remove more than 13,000 trees over 400 acres, mostly oaks, including nearly 50 percent of the heritage oaks on the site
Add more than 13,000 car trips a day to local roads, in an area with some of the worst congestion in the county
Mass-grade more than 500 acres

Meetings and public hearings on the project are being held this summer, nearly every week. After years of slowly moving this project along, the developers apparently want to push it through before the November election.

The sheer size of this project in relation to the existing town should give everyone pause.

See a meeting schedule and links to Gold Rush documents here.

Local currencies build local economies

2008-08-04T06:55:00.000-07:00

To build a strong local economy, we need to support local small businesses and help them grow.

Using a local currency is a creative way to strengthen a community and help local businesses thrive in the face of competition from the Internet, big box stores, and chains. A local currency is like regular money, but can only be spent locally, and only with businesses that accept it -- which tend to be independent small businesses.

I first read about the use of local currency about 10 years ago, but had pretty much forgotten about the idea until a recent trip to Washington state.

At a coffee shop in Port Angeles, I noticed a sign advertising the town's "Downtown Dollars" program. The dollars can be spent like cash -- but only in the local businesses that accept them.

New England's Berkshire region has a similar local currency called BerkShares. People exchange U.S. dollars for BerkShares at participating banks. For every $90 in federal money, they get 100 BerkShares, which they can spend just like cash in any business that accepts them. That means consumers get a 10 percent discount -- $100 worth of goods or services for $90. Here's an illustration of how it works.

This isn't something new. According to the E.F. Schumacher Society, sponsor of the BerkShare program, "local currencies were widely used in the United States in the early 1900s."

There are many ways to help build a stronger local economy. This might be one of them.

More info

Learn more about the Berkshire and Ithaca, N.Y. programs on NPR
Business Week ran an article about the BerkShare program about a year ago.

Still no answer

2008-08-03T11:37:00.001-07:00

I still don't have an answer to the chicken-and-egg question I posed last month -- whether Jim Conklin of the Amador County Business Council came to local business people to organize them or whether they sought him out. Jack Mitchell never replied to my queries.

I did learn a little more, though. Conklin's Amador group will have a 10-member board. He's asking groups to pay $2,500 for a seat on it. The council will also have 25 general members, who must pay $1,000 to participate. Direction is set by the board but must be ratified by a 2/3 vote of the 35 members. Conklin gets all the money.

So Conklin, who already heads at least three other groups of this type in other counties, will be paid $50,000 by local people -- money that could be going to the Amador Council of Tourism, the Amador Economic Development Corporation, or other organizations already working on building a stronger local economy. Nice gig.

What's he going to do for that money? I guess you have to join the group, or watch the news, to find out. Since he's already been to the planning commission and supervisors on matters related to the general plan update, perhaps we'll see him at the Gold Rush hearings this summer.

Chicken and egg question

2008-07-19T08:28:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the new Amador (or Amador County) Business Council, a group that seems to be newly active in the general plan update.

As I noted in that post, the group is led by a gentleman named Jim Conklin, who's from Stockton. Best I can figure, he goes around to different counties setting up these "business councils." Local business people evidently pay him to represent them in the public arena.

A quick online search shows that Conklin has headed groups like this in Santa Cruz, San Benito, San Joaquin and most recently, Calaveras. And now he's here, too.

I nearly crashed a meeting of the group earlier this month, but decided to go upcountry that afternoon instead. Better to enjoy the mountains and flowers than show up where you're not expected and probably not too welcome.

But I'm still curious. Did the folks involved in Amador contact Conklin and ask for help, or did he approach them? And if they're really concerned about the big picture for our county's future, why not form a group like Sacramento's diverse Valley Vision instead of another "business" organization?

Twice now, I've sent e-mails to Amador Ledger Dispatch Publisher Jack Mitchell asking the Conklin chicken-and-egg question and mentioning Valley Vision.

He hasn't responded.

Dining out locally -- two recent experiences

2008-07-02T09:12:00.000-07:00

I've eaten out twice in Amador County in the last two weeks. One evening was very disappointing. But last night I had a delicious supper, with good service at a decent price. You can't ask for much more than that.

That meal was at Oko Sushi, a locally owned sushi bar and Japanese restaurant in the Martell Sales Tax Sacrifice Zone. It's an attractive restaurant with a diverse menu and good food.

Everyone gets a steaming bowl of miso soup shortly after arrival. I ate most, but not all of a huge bowl of chicken and egg donburi (chicken, egg and green onion cooked and served on rice -- homey Japanese fare). It was as good as any I've ever had, and served quickly enough that I easily made my 7 pm meeting. The vibe of the restaurant is friendly and welcoming. I'll be going back soon.

Two weekends ago was a different story. It was our wedding anniversary, so we went to a pricey, fancier restaurant in Sutter Creek for supper. The food was mediocre and the service was terrible. We waited more than 10 minutes for water and a record-setting 25 minutes for bread. And we paid quite a bit for the privilege. It was the first time we'd been to this incarnation of the restaurant -- and it's likely the last. So much for building local clientele.

If only someone could recreate the food and ambience of the old Caffe Via D'Oro, especially in its earlier years. Jerry and Deborah -- we miss you!

Of hawks and priuses

2008-06-30T21:44:00.000-07:00

I've been commuting to Sacramento at least a couple of days a week for 20 years, but will kick that bad habit soon. As my commuting days wind down, I've been thinking about the Amador-Sacramento drive.

I've recently noticed a decided increase in the number of Toyota Priuses (Prii?) on the road. There are many more in Amador than just a few months ago. Blue, dark red, white, gray, green, silver, black -- I think I've seen them all now. It's an interesting trend, considering that just a year ago they were still relatively rare.

I've also been thinking about the things I will miss about commuting. I will not miss much about driving to and from work in the dark.

But I will miss watching the spring bloom move from the valley to the foothills. I'll miss the wildlife, too -- not the crazy drivers who've run me off the road several times, but the herons, egrets and occasional belted kingfisher. And I'll miss the hawks that perch on Highway 16's power poles in the early morning hours.

Two weeks ago, I started intermittent commute counts of Priuses and hawks. On the first day, the Priuses scored 4, the hawks 6. Monday saw an 8-8 roundtrip tie, including Priuses spotted in a lunchtime outing in town.

Seeing eight Priuses in a single day is a sign of the times. Seeing eight hawks on any day is a gift.

New "business council" forming

2008-06-15T11:43:00.000-07:00

Word is there's a new organization forming in the county, the "Amador Business Council." There's not much publicly available on the group yet, but from what I've seen so far, the organizing personnel seem to have a great deal of overlap with the executive council of the Amador Citizens for Responsible Government, those fine folks who call smart growth advocates Fascists on their website and offended the General Plan Advisory Committee by using the term enviro-Nazi at the final GPAC meeting.

Maybe the businessmen associated with that group are trying to develop a more moderate, civil public face. After all, smart-growth people do spend money locally.

Rumor has it that the group is being "facilitated" by a consultant, Jim Conklin, who has done similar work in other counties. Here's what I found about him on the Internet:

Conklin lives (or at least used to live) in Stockton.
He's the former (or current?) executive director of the Santa Cruz Business Council. There are various posts about this group online. Widening Highway 1 seems to be one of their big causes.
He's started similar councils in a variety of places.

I truly wonder whether we really need another "business" organization in this county. I do think we could use a comprehensive, broad-based group like Valley Vision. That group's board of directors represents a community cross-section with an in-depth understanding of what the Sacramento region needs to thrive in the future. It even includes (gasp) environmentalists.

One thing I find interesting about groups that purport to organize "leaders" in our community is how they tend to exclude people who don't agree with them because they don't consider those people to be leaders. We'll see if this group follows that pattern or can reach beyond it.

Here's the only thing about the group posted on the Internet so far, in Rosalee Pryor-Escamilla's response to the campaign questions posed by the Ledger Dispatch.

Stay tuned for more.

Oneto conflicted on both casinos

2008-05-30T17:21:00.000-07:00

When Brian Oneto ran for District 5 supervisor two years ago, he promised to fight the two new casinos proposed for Amador County.

"As your Supervisor, I will continue to fight against new casinos in Amador County!"

That's a direct quote from Brian's campaign website.

Problem is -- Brian has conflicts of interest on both the Buena Vista and Plymouth casinos due to his and his family's ownership of adjoining properties. This issue was raised during the 2006 campaign, but as you can see on Brian's website, he pledged to fight the casinos -- and evidently, voters thought that's what he would do.

Amador Ledger-Dispatch Publisher Jack Mitchell brushed off the conflict concern when he endorsed Oneto that year (he and I had a rather spirited e-mail exchange about the subject).

This last year, Oneto stepped down during the Buena Vista process after participating in a number of closed sessions. And now, the Fair Political Practices Commission has opined that he has a conflict on Plymouth as well.

Here's what the HomeTown Radio website had to say about it:

Supervisor Oneto will not participate in Plymouth Casino talks due to conflict of interest

Due to a conflict of interest as determined by the Fair Political Practices Commission, FPPC, District 5 Supervisor Brian Oneto will not participate in the governmental decisions facing the Amador County Board of Supervisors related to the efforts of the Ione Band of Miwok Indians to take land into trust for the construction of a proposed casino. According to the Supervisors Office, Oneto has not and will not participate in closed session decisions and open session discussions. Oneto has been stepping out of meetings on this issue from the start.

And now the residents of District 5 find themselves without representation on this important issue. Oneto can't even be in the supervisors' chamber when the matter is discussed.

I can't help but wonder what Butch Cranford is thinking today. Cranford, an ardent casino opponent and another District 5 supervisor candidate, endorsed Oneto after the June primary. I wonder if he's rethinking that decision now.

Where's AWA's water conservation message?

2008-05-26T05:38:00.000-07:00

Update, June 10: I received a note from Amador Water Agency General Manager Jim Abercrombie today about -- as he put it -- my "complaining about him behind his back" for using this blog to suggest that the agency put water conservation information on its home page.

Apparently someone read this entry and mentioned it to Jim (maybe it's the AWA mystery daily visitor?) . So the agency has now added a Water Conservation link, buried in the small links on the left side of the home page. It's about time. One of the links on the conservation page was on the Foothill Conservancy home page for six months.

+ + + + +

Thanks to our unusually dry spring, it's a relatively dry year in the Mokelumne River watershed, from which the Amador Water Agency gets its water.

East Bay MUD, which supplies water to the East Bay, gets its water from the Mokelumne, too. That agency started a mandatory water rationing program this spring. According to its website,

"The District is seeking a 15 percent reduction in water use overall. Single-family residential customers are being asked to cut back 19 percent."

EBMUD's website also includes a link to water-saving tips on its home page.

So you'd think the Amador Water Agency would be urging its customers to conserve water -- especially since conservation and efficiency are now part of the agency's strategic plan.

Maybe the Water Agency is doing something along those lines, but you'd never know from looking at its website. There's not one new word about water conservation or efficiency on the AWA home page, and certainly nothing indicating that we might be in a drier-than-normal year.

The home page does include a link to information about AWA's demonstration water-saving garden, but that's been on the site for years. There's also some minimal information about water conservation in the site's FAQs, but it's truly that -- minimal.

Putting water conservation information on an Internet home page -- or a link to that information -- is really cheap. Excellent information is readily available (see the California Urban Water Conservation Council's H20 House site). Nearly everyone has Internet access these days. So why doesn't the Water Agency use its website to promote conservation and efficiency?

Surely an agency that is planning a $44 million dam project (raising Lower Bear Reservoir) can spend a few hundred bucks on a web link in a dry year.

Maybe the AWA employee who reads this blog nearly every day can comment and let me know what the agency is doing to encourage its customers to conserve this year.

How do newspapers endorse candidates?

2008-05-25T10:01:00.000-07:00

I'm confused. I've read Amador Ledger-Dispatch Publisher Jack Mitchell's explanation of his support and future newspaper endorsement of David Pincus. I've also read Raheem Hosseini's column saying that Jack's endorsement isn't an endorsement from the paper.

Jack says that Ledger parent corporation Main Street Media isn't involved in the endorsement other than giving him authority to make it. But Raheem says the paper is subsidizing Pincus's ads. Confusing.

No one would dispute Jack's right to support the candidate of his choice. But how the paper endorses is a legitimate subject for public discussion.

So I thought it was worth looking into how most newspapers make political endorsements. As I thought, it appears that most newspaper political endorsements aren't made by the publisher acting alone. The endorsement processes vary, but what they have in common is the involvement of an editorial board. And they often include interviews with the candidates. That's clearly not the case with our local paper. At least not this spring.

Here's what a few newspapers and others have to say about political endorsements ...

Times Union (Albany, NY) editor's blog excerpt

So how do we make endorsements? The editorial board has seven members — the publisher, editor, opinion pages editor, editorial page editor, chief editorial writer, editor-at-large and editorial cartoonist — whose views may vary widely. Endorsements (and other editorials) are the result of discussion and debate among us.

Connecticut Post editor's statement (excerpt)

The editorial page essentially represents the institutional voice of a newspaper. It's a voice that speaks to the communities which we serve and tries, through our opinions on a wide variety of issues, to better those communities and their civic life.

There are six members of the Post's editorial board and each member has an equal vote in deciding issues, although the newspaper's publisher, as it is with nearly all newspapers in the U.S., can have more than a one vote if he so desires.

Board members don't sit in ivory towers and pontificate and pronounce. We are all active in the news product and in our own communities and we are interactive with our readers.

When we gather weekly to discuss issues, there can be swift unanimity on the editorial positions we take or there can be lengthy and passionate split votes and disagreements. That holds for political endorsements as well.

Our endorsements are not made with political bias, but with what the board members perceive would be best for our communities and state. We talk to the candidates, we research their records and we examine their leadership abilities

Here are reasons why we endorse:

to fulfill our obligation and responsibility as a constitutionally-protected media enterprise to not only be a part of our communities but to also help improve those communities.
to offer information and perspective that voters can use in evaluating candidates.
to create dialogue with our readers.

Our endorsements are not made:

to tell readers who they should vote for.
to make a compact with any candidate.
to figure out who's most likely to win a contest.

Houston Chronicle blog

Be that as it may, the Editorial Board (KE note: the board in this case includes all of the editorial staff plus the publisher) looks at the endorsement process as a public service to our readers. The process works like this: Several weeks before each Election Day (Nov. 8 in this case), we invite candidates vying for the various elected offices to meet with us. The purpose being to ask them questions about where they stand on issues germane to the office they're seeking. Doing so, provides us with insight regarding which candidate best will represent the interests of their constituents.

We don't endorse on a whim. Screening candidates and vetting propositions and constitutional amendments is an arduous, time-consuming and democratic process. We debate candidates and issues vigorously. Votes to endorse any particular candidate or proposition are seldom unanimous. Oftentimes, they are decided by a slim margin.

Ultimately, Publisher Jack Sweeney and Editor Jeff Cohen, have the final say. Fortunately, they rarely exert their power and usually accept the sentiment of the board and Editorial Page Editor James Howard Gibbons.

Concord Monitor (N.H) editor's column excerpt

The editorial board consists of Publisher Geordie Wilson, Executive Editor Felice Belman, Managing Editor Ari Richter, Editorial Page Editor Ralph Jimenez and me.

After every editorial board interview, some or all of us gathered to trade impressions.

Individually or in groups, we all attended some campaign events. I was probably the most active in this regard and used some of what I saw as the basis for columns in the paper. But time spent on the campaign trail helped all of us gain a sense of who the candidates were and how they were connecting with voters and honing their messages.

... Still, we don't sign our editorials because they represent the opinion of the Monitor as an institution, not the view of the writer or any particular editorial board member.

Excerpt from item by Richard Mial, opinion page editor of the La Crosse Tribune (Wisconsin)

That's where the structure of the process becomes important. Endorsement interviews are always done before as many members of our editorial board as can make it. Our board includes the opinion page editor, publisher, editor, city editor, news editor, and a community member who serves a three-month term. Interviews are taped, so that board members who could not attend can listen.

The board has some shared values, and these values influence the decision-making process. It's important to be clear about what those values are. We have what we call an agenda for the community, which is more like a mission statement that runs daily on the Opinion pages. The five items on the agenda: Encourage regional cooperation; spotlight the region as a diverse economic hub; hold public officials accountable; celebrate the arts and heritage of the region; and promote positive achievements and the value of diversity.

Is going to UC Berkeley anti-Amador?

2008-05-22T06:24:00.000-07:00

The Amador Citizens for Responsible Government aren't too happy with Ledger-Dispatch Editor Raheem Hosseini. Raheem took the group to task for the questions they put to the county supervisor candidates in a forum last week (see my previous post).

The group's website contains the text of an op-ed scheduled for publication in the Ledger on Friday. Among other things, it says this:

So why was Mr. Hosseini so upset?

Is it because the issues shed light on the anti-property rights agenda of certain groups in Amador County who he tends to support?

Or could it be because we underlined the concerns of the silent majority of Amador’s citizens with whom Mr. Hosseini appears to be out of touch?

He’s a 2003 graduate of UC Berkeley. Maybe that explains his
sympathies.

I just had to laugh when I read that last statement. Perhaps the "citizens" don't know how many local folks are graduates of UC Berkeley, or how many Amador kids head there each year -- or at least try to. After all, it is considered one of the finest universities in the nation, if not the world.

My guess is that some of the group's own members -- and even some of their primary backers --- graduated from UC Berkeley.

But maybe the group has a point. Perhaps a quality college education helped Raheem become the sharp, analytical, articulate young man he is today.

Raheem challenges us to make our county a better place. That's something we ought to value, not attack.

The Ledger endorses, or does it?

2008-05-16T19:47:00.000-07:00

Update, May 25: Maybe it wasn't fair of me to imply that Jack Mitchell and the Ledger were being less than up-front about backing supervisor candidate David Pincus. That seems to have been a matter of timing.

However, it still troubles me that the paper is subsidizing Pincus's campaign with advertising space, according to Editor Raheem Hosseini. I don't think that's the normal practice for newspapers at all.

Update, May 20: Ledger Publisher Jack Mitchell has sent a clarifying e-mail to Amador Community News regarding the political support described in my post below. See what you think: Jack's note on Amador Community News website.

At most newspapers, an editorial board -- not the publisher alone -- determines the endorsements. That was the practice at the Ledger back when McClatchy owned the paper in the early 1990s. I know that in 1992, the editor, publisher and senior reporters voted on endorsements. Each had an equal voice.

Editorial board review helps ensure that a newspaper's endorsement is not simply the opinion of one individual who may put the profitability of the business above all other considerations. Can't say that's what Jack is doing here, but since his job is to keep the paper profitable, that's surely a risk.

My original post ...

In his excellent column in today's Amador Ledger Dispatch, Editor Raheem Hosseini revealed that the corporate owner of the paper, the Main Street Media Group, is "underwriting [David] Pincus' campaign and has helped pay for ads."

It was a shocking revelation -- or should have been.

Pincus, in case you don't know, is challenging incumbent Louis Boitano for the District 4 supervisor seat. Pincus is running for supervisor without a platform, without publicized positions on issues, and without revealing his campaign committee or supporters or contributors -- all the while beating up on Boitano. Retired District 3 Supervisor Richard Vinson, who served on the board with Boitano for years, recently wrote a letter to the Ledger decrying the negative campaign tactics employed in another letter by Pincus's campaign manager, Robert Mees.

You may recall that Ledger publisher Jack Mitchell briefly declared for the seat, then withdrew. Pincus then threw his hat into the ring. According to Hosseini, Mitchell will be writing an endorsement of Pincus soon.

Two years ago, when Mary Ellen "Mel" Welsh ran for county supervisor, Mitchell called the Foothill Conservancy "sneaky and shady" for doing something the group didn't actually do. Mitchell left the libelous editorial on the Ledger's website even after the Conservancy demonstrated that Mitchell's assertion was baseless. He never apologized to the group, its members, or its leaders -- including me -- and he never issued a correction (he did run the Conservancy response).

So I can't help but ask, "Just who's 'sneaky and shady,' Jack? People rely on your newspaper to be somewhat objective, and now we find out that the paper's Gilroy-based owners are actually funding a candidate for county supervisor?"

Hosseini was right when he called this "a breach of the public trust." It's appalling.

If you'd like to express your own opinion about this outside interference in our local politics, be sure to contact:

Jack Mitchell, Publisher, Amador Ledger Dispatch
jmitchell@ledger-dispatch.com
223-1767

or Jack's boss
Anthony A. Allegretti, President & CEO
Main St. Media Group
aaallegretti@mainstreetmg.com
408-842-0130

Scenery, clean water and wildlife habitat are valuable crops

2008-05-15T05:58:00.000-07:00

The rancher in the story below says, ""The most important crop on my land is scenery." If scenic beauty is an important "crop" locally -- and I believe it is -- those of us who enjoy that crop need to find better ways to pay for it.

Buying conservation easements is one solution, but I'd like to see us have a community conversation around ways we could compensate landowners (or create markets that would pay local landowners) for providing scenery, wildlife habitat, clean water and other valuable "crops" for which they receive no compensation today. That would help farmers, ranchers and timberland owners by creating a monetary value for crops they can't really "sell" and benefit the rest of us, too.

Background

The article below is about a 17,000 acre ranch in San Luis Obispo County. After attending an estate planning workshop, the rancher decided to put a conservation easement on the ranch. The easement is held by the California Rangeland Trust.

On the Farm: Rancher Plants for the Future
By Steven Knudsen
San Luis Obispo County Farm Bureau
Forward from California Oak Foundation

Just off the paved road outside Parkfield lives a man who is planning and planting for the future.

One tree at a time and one season after another, Jack Varian has developed a passion for sustainability. If all goes as planned, his actions today will grow for the next 400 years.

Varian is planting valley oak trees, native to the Parkfield region, and has collected a team of specialists and volunteers to assist him in his pursuit of transforming his rural landscape on the more than 16,500 acres of the V6 Ranch into what he calls "a more environmentally friendly approach" to ranching.

On a clear day in February, about 60 volunteers from the San Luis Obispo Native Tree Committee, Cal Poly and local 4 H Clubs plus agricultural and community groups joined Varian, UC Cooperative Extension natural resources specialist Bill Tietje and UC Cooperative Extension oak regeneration expert Doug McCreary to plant 1,000 oak trees.

Acorns for the saplings were collected from a small grove of valley oak trees that grows behind Parkfield Elementary School. The students there, who attend kindergarten through grade six in one of the last one room schoolhouses in the state, collected about 3,500 acorns for Varian.

In October 2006, Varian took the acorns to Growing Grounds Farm in San Luis Obispo for sprouting. Growing Grounds, a nonprofit wholesale nursery operated by Transitions Mental Health Association, employs adults with mental illness at a living wage to grow and care for the plants.

Last October, one year later, Varian was shocked to discover the magnitude of growth, with nearly 2,500 valley oak trees sprouted and grown. "We selected 1,000 of the oak trees and donated the remainder back to the nursery," he said.

Back on the V6 Ranch, the volunteers formed into groups of three to plant the native saplings. First educated by Varian on 11 tips for growing oak trees and then instructed on the best way to plant them by McCreary, the groups spread out over a predetermined four mile stretch of property running back toward Parkfield.

"The volunteers did a lion's share of the work, planting nearly 850 trees in a single day," Varian said.

Each of the year old seedlings, planted in groups of three in a triangle shape into the soft soil, were encased in wire baskets to protect them from gophers.

Soil was prepared with a shovel and covered with weed cloth to prevent grasses that would choke out the small seedlings. The cluster planting then was surrounded by three recycled iron fence posts, collected by Varian, and encircled with hog wire to keep pests and critters away.

All told, more than 330 planting sites were completed, all in a line with 60 feet separating each planting. Trees now run along the road and the foothills of the valley.

"The trees should grow about three feet per year, under perfect conditions," Varian said. "We are going to do everything we can to ensure that these trees get what they need to prosper."

Funding for "1,000 Oaks Day" came, in part, from a grant by the Wildlife Conservation Board's Oak Woodland Conservation Act of 2001 and from the Natural Resource Conservation Service cost share Quality Incentives Program.

Next in the strategic plan is irrigation. Each tree will receive water from a PVC irrigation line installed at the end of winter. Varian has allocated two wells in which he will use solar power to pump water into micro sprinklers that can sustain the small trees through the hot summer months.

Long term plan

The project has been a long time coming. In 1990, Varian realized that he was not satisfied with the way the ranch was being run and took over management of the cattle and husbandry of the land.

During the past 18 years, he has focused heavily on transitioning the land back to its natural state by encouraging the growth of native grasses, willow and oak trees and by evaluating and reevaluating the impact his herd has on the land.

Paramount to Varian's long term goal of preserving the land for future generations was entering into a conservation easement with the Trust for Public Lands.

In April 2001, Varian sold his development rights to the trust, now held by the California Rangeland Trust. That contract consolidated the number of legal parcels on the land to one, thus preserving the agriculture land in perpetuity. By entering into the contract, Varian is able to focus on his long term goals to improve quality of the rangeland and enhance biodiversity on the ranch.

In 2000, Varian was the first to receive the Native Tree Committee of San Luis Obispo County Stewardship Award. The committee works to promote voluntary planting and conservation of native trees through education, propagation and stewardship.

"The most important crop on my land is scenery," Varian said. "As development pressures force more agriculture land to disappear, we have chosen to preserve the beauty so that others may enjoy it in the future; as our lands' beauty survives, so do we."

Varian credits his success in range management to an education in "holistic management practices" that includes intensive rotational grazing, improved water management, proper fencing and a passion for the environment.

"We believe that the whole world should be thinking seriously about greater sustainability," he said. "Our agriculture businesses and livelihoods depend on it."

Developer protests

2008-05-13T20:58:00.000-07:00

Since I've lived in Amador County for 29 years, I know quite a few local people. Some of them are realtors. Two of those folks sent me the e-mail below, which was sent out to every realtor in Amador County. I thought I ought to share it with you.

But first, a little context ... Amador County is updating its general plan, which the courts have called the "Constitution" of a county. General plan updates take time. Three to five years is the norm, and they can take longer.

Amador County is in no way dragging its feet on the plan update. In fact, as a survivor of last year's "General Plan Death March," during which the General Plan Advisory Committee was meeting twice a month, I can attest to the fact that much of the work was being pushed too fast without adequate discussion. The county planning staff made clear that things were being rushed because of pressure from developers. Apparently they were unhappy with the county having placed a moratorium on general plan and zoning changes while the plan update is underway.

That general plan and zoning change moratorium applies only if a landowner wants to change the current designated use of a piece of property -- for example, to change land zoned for agriculture into a subdivision. The county put the moratorium in place so that it could establish a stable environmental baseline for the general plan update. It was not an unreasonable thing to do -- and it was initiated by the county, not by any "special interests."

The e-mail reminds me that local people often forget that Amador County is not isolated from the rest of the state, the country, and the world. In case they haven't noticed, housing is in a huge slump in much of California, including our region.

The economy is a mess. People are being thrown out of their homes at an alarming rate, in part because of unscrupulous lending practice like "NINA loans" -- mortgages written for people with no income and no assets. (I just heard on the radio that California has 9 out of 10 of the highest areas of foreclosure in the state.)

How could anyone think our local economy would not be affected by these larger forces?

As you read the message below, keep in mind that the author is a developer who is planning a project just outside Pine Grove.

Here's the e-mail ...

Amador Realtors:

Re: ECONOMIC STIMULUS concept #2 (General Plan Moritorium)

Just to expand on the subject of "Economic Stimulus", we currently have a moratorium affecting our economy here in our own County. It was intended to provide processing time for the revision and change of the General Plan. The moratorium effectively halts all development and construction on parcels that are not currently zoned in a manner that is compatible to a given desired and needed land use.

The moratorium results in significant negative economic consequences, irrespective of a given communitys need for a good project to come to fruition. If a parcel of land was not previously zoned in a manner that makes sense to current day needs, a great project will consequently be stuck in a rut while the property owner can only wait for the General Plan update process to grind its way through to the end. While it is a certain fact that our General Plan needed to be updated, it surely shouldnt take 3.5 years or more to complete the process. The moratorium wast passed and adopted on November 8, 2005 and was not supposed to last more than three years. Supervisor Richard Forster and Planning Director Susan Grijalva recently stated on TSPN on separate segments something to the effect that the moratorium will continue to the middle of next year. While Ms. Grijalva on the Lets Talk segment, said it could take as much as five years. There is currently nothing in place that puts any form of time limitation on the process.

I realize there are many people working diligently to complete the process. However, I believe there are some people with their own agenda to drag it out down a long agues path.

At last Tuesdays Board of Supervisors meeting we saw contractor and long term resident of Pine Grove Leroy Carlin show his abomination and outrage for the moratorium and how it has affected him and others. I find myself in this same situation with investors who are willing to invest in my own property along with the purchase of my listings, but only if and when the moratorium is over.

It is my belief that the moratorium in Amador County is causing a profound effect on our economy, even more so than the cost of permits and impact fees for the building of a home. I question why such a lengthy amount of time is being taken to update our General Plan? The process just should not take more than a couple of years especially given the current economic status. I remember that nearly three years ago, Supervisor Rich Escamilla voted against having the moratorium and he wanted to just review each project application on its own merits, while the General Plan was being revised in parallel.

Something needs to be done to streamline the remainder of the General Plan update process. I believe we need to call for a speedy end to the moratorium and get the Countys General Plan revised and in place. We need to go back to evaluating each proposed project application on it own merits. A timely end to the moratorium does not take any funds away from the County what-so-ever. In fact, it has already cost the County at least $750,000. Now, is a really bad time to have a moratorium and a timely end to it will promote economic stimulus while also saving the County money.

Sure would like to see standing room only again this Tuesday morn at about 9:20 AM at the Board of Supervisors Chambers, 810 Court Street, Jackson. We need to make our presence known and show our desire for prompt economic stimulus. Please show your support for the cause and bring yourself and a friend.

Below is a TSPN Press Release that shows that our brother and sister Realtors in Calaveras County are fed up with their sluggish economy caused in part by moratoriums and what is said to be an "unrelenting assault on property rights and personal freedoms".

Thats my two cents. Thanks for reading.

Marc Bowman

www.YourLandGuy.com

Marc@YourLandGuy.com

209-765-8539
TSPN Press Release

Controversy In Calaveras Supervisor Race

The constant battle between Hillary and Barack is not the only heated competition for election. Questions have been raised over the intentions of certain groups involved in the Calaveras County's District 2 Supervisors race. Incumbent Supervisor Steve Wilensky believes the Calaveras County Association of Realtors political action committee is trying to buy his district 2 seat after the committee donated $7,000 to opponent John Morse

Wildlife seen, heard, and heard about

2008-04-27T21:06:00.000-07:00

Last week I saw a bobcat crossing Charleston-Volcano Road. It was the first one I'd seen in nearly two years, and only the fourth one I've seen in nearly 29 years of living in Amador County.

Our saw-whet owl is back. And this morning, the dawn chorus of birds was nearly overwhelming. Spring is certainly here now, in spite of that strong freeze we had last weekend.

This evening, I heard from a neighbor that we have a mountain lion visiting the neighborhood. He heard it near his barn. Another neighbor saw and heard it, too.

We'll watch and listen for it now.

Tell the County What You Think

2008-04-18T18:41:00.000-07:00

Update, April 27: The results of the survey discussed below are now online.

Thursday night will mark the last meeting of the Amador County General Plan Advisory Committee. I serve on that committee as Foothill Conservancy's alternate member. For 18 months, we've been discussing numerous issues that are critical to the future of our county.

Before we had a break this winter, I characterized the process as the "General Plan Death March." With some exceptions, it has seemed that keeping to the schedule and moving things along was more important to the county than coming up with a quality plan.

I've also been very frustrated by the lack of effort to secure meaningful public participation in the general plan update. Most recently, the county put out a survey on the draft land use elements of the general plan and posted it on the county website. It was anything but user friendly.

There's an alternative survey out now -- the Citizens' Survey on Amador County Growth and Development . It was posted online today. The survey is cosponsored by individuals, Valleyoaks Vineyards, West Point Publishing, Amador Community News, and Foothill Conservancy.

The survey will be available online for a limited amount of time. If you want to weigh in and you haven't been able to attend those Thursday night GPAC meetings, now's your chance.

The general plan will move to the planning commission and supervisors next.

Some Thoughts on Green

2008-04-13T09:16:00.000-07:00

I attended the Green California Summit last week. It focused primarily on green building, but also on the business and economic opportunities that come with a move to sustainability. Here are a few thoughts based on something I sent off to Carol Harper at the Amador Community Network last week. More to follow soon ...

Business is going "green" -- not because business people are soft-headed do-gooders, but because it makes dollars and sense. Companies that have sustainability strategies are becoming more profitable than those that don't. They are wasting less, spending less on energy and becoming more much efficient. Large insurance companies and the finance industry are starting to be a big force in the push for sustainable business because those businesses have less associated risk.

"Green building" is here to stay. Again, it makes economic sense. It also creates better living and working spaces for people. Commercial real estate people are seeing real demand from tenants for green commercial space. People want greener homes. Kids do better in green schools. Some of the large California commercial builders are starting to do everything to green standards, including the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards.

"Green tech" may make our U.S. economy competitive again. We have the best innovators here, the best minds -- and they are creating new products, new ways of doing business, and "green-collar" jobs. Smart communities are focusing on green tech as part of their economic development strategies and making sure they have education and training available for the new generation of green-collar workers. A community college here -- long a dream of many locals -- could serve that function for us.

Planning has a big role to play in creating a sustainable future. It is not sustainable to have to drive a car for miles to do every last thing -- go to school, go to a job, go shopping, etc. Walkable communities like those we love in our small historic towns are our future. They are more environmentally sustainable than sprawl and healthier places to live, too. Advocates of smart growth have been saying this for some time. Now, the respected U.S Green Building Council is working on LEED standards for neighborhood design.

Even if we can afford gasoline, once supplies of oil start running out (which they may be already), we are going to have to wean ourselves off it, and fast. Fortunately, there is huge progress being made on alternative fuels, but not all alternatives are sustainable -- for example, cutting down the Amazon rain forest to grow corn for ethanol or destroying SE Asian rain forests to create palm oil plantations.

Saving energy community-wide can free up a lot of money in the local economy. If people are paying less to PG&E every month, they have more to spend in local businesses. See this tool, created several years ago.

People need to learn from nature. Nature buys local. Nature recycles its own waste. Nature often makes products very efficiently. Nature uses advanced technology. Defective products are, in the words of Green Summit keynote speaker Hunter Lovins, '"recalled by the manufacturer."

Green is mainstream. And as a couple of speakers said, "There is green in green." Those who think otherwise are likely to be left behind as companies and communities focus on finding new ways to do business, live, create jobs, and build wealth.

Elections around the corner

2008-04-07T21:32:00.000-07:00

The Amador County supervisor races are just starting to heat up. It'll be an interesting year, with four candidates running for the seat being vacated by Rich Escamilla and one challenger taking on Louis Boitano.

I saw a candidate on T SPN's website the other day. He seemed nice enough, but didn't even begin to discuss where he stands on the important issues facing our county today. I hope that's not a trend.

The public is not well-served when candidates speak only in vague generalities and refuse to tell us what they think about critical issues. It's not that I expect them to have fully formed positions on everything -- and one can only hope they'll remain open-minded enough to listen to their constituents. But I do think they ought to tell us what they plan to do, and how.

Of course, then the voters can hold them accountable later -- and it means they have to stand for something, too. But isn't that what elections are all about?

As April begins

2008-04-02T20:33:00.000-07:00

As April begins, there is good news. The flowers are starting to bloom on Electra Road. The poppies are lovely now, and the bush lupine should be fabulous in a week or two. A few phacelia are joining in, and the alders are leafing out in the green that simply shouts "Spring." It is a lovely place to drive, walk, or sit and watch the Mokelumne flow by. And the black phoebes that live at Electra year 'round will keep you company.

Then there is bad news. SPI is trying to abandon the local rail line -- the former home of the Amador Central Railroad. Once abandoned, rail lines do not come back -- ever. It would be a true tragedy for our community to lose that possible rail link to points west.

To make things worse, Amador County Transportation Commission staff say that part of the rail line should be abandoned to make way for a road through Martell! A road. Incredible. They say that if the Wicklow Way and Gold Rush projects are developed, building a new road through Martell on the rail line would save millions and help with local traffic. That might be true for a while -- but only until the next big project comes along and further clogs our roads.

Lousy subdivisions are one thing, but giving up a rail line for the traffic they will bring is the height of folly.

We need to join with the Amador Historical Society on this one and keep that rail line intact. Bad enough that SPI is clearcutting our forests. Now they want to strip us of our history, too.

Don't miss Tim Palmer in Jackson Thurs pm

2008-03-25T20:27:00.000-07:00

Nationally acclaimed author and photographer Tim Palmer will be giving his amazing Rivers of America presentation in Jackson this Thursday, March 27. You can see Tim's incredible slides and hear his tales of our nation's rivers at the Senior Center at 7 p.m.

Tim's photographs are beyond beautiful -- they are transporting. There's nothing like seeing these images in light. Ink on paper truly doesn't do them justice.

You can see some of Tim's photos and read more about Tim and his more than 19 books on his website.

This is Tim's first presentation in our county. Please come, make him welcome, enjoy the show, and buy a book, which he will be happy to autograph for you.

For more on the event and a sneak preview -- a shot of the North Fork Mokelumne -- see the Foothill Conservancy website.

Back soon...

2008-03-22T08:33:00.000-07:00

I've taken a bit of a break from bloggery of late, but will be back soon ... meanwhile, to see some wonderful river photos and read about special rivers, see Josh McCoy's 270rivers blog.

Rural sprawl's fire cost

2008-02-17T08:15:00.000-08:00

Last Sunday's Sacramento Bee featured a guest editorial from the retired forest supervisor of the San Bernardino National Forest, entitled "Fire Risk Needs To Be Factored Into Zoning."

It's important reading for anyone who cares about planning in Amador County or anywhere else in rural California. Fire is a fact of life in our state. It's part of the ecology. As long as counties continue to allow sprawl in high fire-risk areas, we will continue to incur huge costs in wildland firefighting -- and lives and property will continue to be lost.

Zimmerman estimates the cost of California wildland fire suppression to be about $1 billion a year. As he points out, most of that cost is borne by state and federal taxpayers, not local residents or county governments. It's a subsidy, pure and simple.

Zimmerman's op-ed follows on last year's Sierra Nevada Alliance report on growth in high fire-risk areas of the Sierra, Dangerous Development: Wildfire and Rural Sprawl in the Sierra Nevada. If you haven't read that yet, be sure to take a look.

I wrote a letter to the Bee regarding Zimmerman's op-ed, which they published today. You can read it here.

So Jack Mitchell's going to run after all...not

2008-02-13T06:57:00.000-08:00

Update February 22, 2008: In today's paper, Jack Mitchell declared that he's not going to run for supervisor. Apparently, he's had a change of heart.

+++++++++

A while back, Amador Ledger Dispatch publisher Jack Mitchell moved to Sutter Creek from the Pine Grove area. Word was he was planning to run for county supervisor against incumbent Louis Boitano. An article in yesterday's paper shows that rumor to be well founded.

In the story, Mitchell said, "If there's a viable second candidate, I will back out." Sure he will. I think he's been running for at least the last two years. If you don't believe me, re-read his editorials on the Ledger website with that in mind.

Tuesday's article on the various supervisor candidates may foreshadow things to come. Mitchell got nearly twice as much copy in the story as Boitano.

Missed opportunities

2008-02-12T19:16:00.001-08:00

I was sitting in the parking lot at the Amador Ridge center in Martell the other day, keeping the dog company while Pete picked up some groceries. It's a busy, growing place, Amador Ridge. It's also totally designed for commerce and cars.

There are sidewalks in front of the shops. But if you want to walk out to your car, or from shops out to the main drag that leads to Highway 49, you have to walk in the traffic, in the gutter or on the grass. It's anything but pedestrian friendly -- which is a real shame because things are located so close to one another that it should be easy to walk. A few sidewalks could have made a real difference.

Sitting in the truck, I was saddened by the missed opportunities there in Martell. The county could have insisted on mixed-use development at the former mill site, including housing above the shops. Imagine -- people could have walked to work!

There could have been a park in the SW corner of the property. Sidewalks. Walking and bike trails throughout the property and connecting to Jackson and Sutter Creek.

But we don't have any of that.

Why wasn't it done? Hard to say. Some of us tried. Representatives of Foothill Conservancy and the Amador Economic Development Corporation met and discussed the potential for a real, planned development on the former mill site. It was a most positive meeting -- lots of good ideas, and so much potential. But the county, and the developers, mainly wanted retail at Martell, with some other "light commercial." It was all about money, especially sales tax.

So look at what we do have -- retail that should be in our cities, now in the county. Increased traffic on Highway 49. Major county offices that were in Jackson, now moved to Martell (guess where those folks will shop now?). Meanwhile, our towns are struggling to survive, falling prey to subdivision developers that dangle the promise of taxes and other shiny bling while hoping to blind the city fathers and mothers to the resulting traffic gridlock and other impacts on local quality of life.

Planning matters. Not planning well has consequences. You only have to look at Martell to see why.

Surely we can do better than this.

Loving the land

2008-02-03T17:55:00.000-08:00

A friend and I were talking today about people who value land for more than its development potential.

It made me go back to the Saving the Sierra website to read again about Attilio Genasci. Attilio was a rancher in the Sierra Valley who led a movement to protect large areas of the Sierra Valley through the use of conservation easements. I learned last week that he had passed away at age 98. He lived his entire life on his land.

You can hear Attilio in his own words on the Saving the Sierra site. Here are some of them:

"The land does not belong to me. The land belongs to future generations, and the land also belongs to the general public. ... It’s one of the natural wonders. It’s there for humanity. And we dare not destroy it anymore than we’d cap the geysers in Yellowstone or put the Bridal Veil Falls of Yosemite in a pipe. I think we have a natural wonder here that I’ll do my best to preserve."

There's also a story about Attilio on the Stories from the Heart of the Land website. It'll be aired on National Public Radio's Weekend America show next Saturday, February 9.

Reading about Attilio, I am reminded of Stanley Cuneo, who was the first rancher in this area to put his land in conservation easements. He co-founded the local land trust and was a longtime Foothill Conservancy member and supporter.

Whenever I hear that only urban enviros want to preserve rural lands, I think of men like these, who clearly had a deep and abiding love for the land they called home.

General plan land use alternatives released

2008-01-19T17:18:00.000-08:00

Update January 24: Because of the bad weather, the next General Plan Advisory Committee meeting will be held on Thursday February 21, not tonight.

At Thursday’s General Plan Advisory Committee meeting, the committee and the public will get a chance to look at and perhaps discuss the three land use alternatives (with one “bonus” development) proposed for our new general plan. (There will definitely be discussion at future meetings.)

The county Planning Department recently published three alternative land use maps for the general plan update. The maps come with a workbook that explains the proposed alternatives, land use classifications, and so forth. As the county moves forward with the plan update, it may choose one of these alternatives, combine features from them, or come up with something entirely new.

The workbook begins with assumptions about future population growth that drive the alternative and refers to two sources: the California Department of Finance and the Amador Water Agency.

The Department of Finance expects the county's population to grow to 54,788 by 2030, an increase of 55 percent from 2000, or about 1.8 percent per year. The workbook says that at this rate – and if development trends continue as they have since 2000 -- about 7,000 of the new residents would live in the county's unincorporated area.

The Amador Water Agency’s high growth rate estimate is about 2.9 percent per year. That's a far cry from the Department of Finance 1.8 percent – and results in a projected difference of more than 8,000 additional residents in the unincorporated area by 2030 (7,000+ vs. 15,000+).

The Department of Finance employs professional demographers and is considered the state’s “single official source of demographic data for state planning and budgeting.” The Amador Water Agency is a public utility with no documented track record in estimating population growth.

For the general plan land use element, the county and its consultants picked a growth rate between the AWA and DOF figures. Then they mapped the county to accommodate that growth.

The result? Each of the three alternatives allows for about 11,850 new residents in the unincorporated area of the county. The difference between the alternatives is where most of the growth would occur – in rural areas or town centers.

There’s a variation on one alternative that includes development of the Howard Ranch outside Ione – now being called by its historic name, Rancho Arroyo Seco. The projected population of that one “planned community”? More than 32,000 people – nearly as many people as live in our entire county today. You can see the map of that land here.

If any of this concerns you, it’s time to get involved. The next General Plan Advisory Committee meeting, open to the public, is at the County Administrative Center on Thursday night, January 24, at 6 p.m.

General plans are required and governed by state law. To see what the state says ought to be in the general plan, check out the state General Plan Guidelines.

The Evening Drive

2008-01-15T19:30:00.001-08:00

I left work today before dark, a welcome change from recent habit.

In doing so, I saw

A great egret turn pink in evening light
A Little League sign-up sign in Sutter Creek
A herd of cattle on the hill at Darling Ranch, new calves with faces gleaming white
Greening hills nourished by recent rains
Hawks sailing to an evening perch

Beautiful creatures, warm light, signs of community, the promise of spring to come.

The Kirkwood 500

2008-01-13T17:50:00.000-08:00

This afternoon we took a nice walk on the Mokelumne River's Electra Run. Just before 5 p.m., we drove through Pine Grove and tried to turn left across the westbound traffic onto Pine Grove-Volcano Road.

After more than 100 cars passed us by, the traffic stopped. It had backed up all the way through town, from the stoplight at Ridge Road and Highway 88. Fortunately, a considerate driver left the intersection clear so we could make our turn.

I've never seen anything like it in Pine Grove. I hate to think of what would have happened if the fire department or ambulance needed to get through town.

Judging from the snowboards and ski racks on the SUVs and cars, at least one-third, if not one-half, of the traffic was coming from Kirkwood Mountain Resort.

Back when the county approved the expansion of Kirkwood, those of us involved in the process warned about what it would do to traffic in Pine Grove. I've seen people flying through town on the way to and from the resort, but I've never been stuck in traffic like this.

Kirkwood is touting its new online carpool forum as a solution for resort traffic and parking woes. Maybe some people are using it, but at least tonight, that system didn't seem to have much effect down here.

Perhaps it's time for Kirkwood to pay the CHP or sheriff for some traffic control in Pine Grove on Sunday evenings.

Valuing the night sky

2008-01-13T11:03:00.001-08:00

I've mentioned this before, but was reminded of it again last night as I dropped off to sleep with the Big Dipper's handle clearly in view: One of the things I treasure most about living in Amador County is the dark night sky.

We can still see the stars, planets, star clusters, constellations, meteor showers and the occasional comet. That night view is as valuable to me as anything I see during the day.

But in many parts of the country, people are losing their night sky because of the glare from homes and commercial development. It doesn't have to be that way. Planners need to learn that it's where and how lights are installed, not more of them, that makes people safe. And homeowners need to consider how many lights they really need, and think about how their lights affect the dark sky we all share.

The latest Sierra town to confront the issue of light pollution is Truckee. Several articles about how Truckee is proposing to preserve its dark night sky are found on the Skykeepers website. They're interesting reading. That website includes a great deal of related information, including a page on how you can help keep our night sky dark.

One basic thing you can do is speak up for the dark night sky when new projects are proposed. Lights can be strategically placed and properly shielded.

As Skykeeper Jack Sales says about losing the dark night sky, "The night sky is a cultural resource that transcends time and place."

For more, see the website of the International Dark-Sky Association.

And if you'd like to receive e-mail alerts about what's up in the sky at night, see the spaceweather.com website.

Around the county on New Year's Day

2008-01-01T19:57:00.000-08:00

We took time today to walk at Middle Bar on the Mokelumne River and along Gwin Mine Road on the Calaveras side of the river, about 40 minutes from home. Saw a few things worth noting there and on the way to and from ...

At Middle Bar: New picnic tables under the trees, overlooking the river. Gordon Miller would be so pleased. One man was fishing from the bridge, briefly. A couple on a motorcycle paused for a birthday portrait.

At Pardee Reservoir: Resident Canada geese, some ducks, two red-tailed hawks, and reservoir levels low enough you could wade (carefully) across the river upstream of the Middle Bar Bridge (in waders following all EBMUD rules, of course).

Above Gwin Mine Road: A new section of the Coast-to-Crest Trail under construction.

In Pine Grove, on the sign by the park: "Have a Joyous Kwanzaa" along with "Merry Christmas." First mention of Kwanzaa I've ever seen on anything official in Amador.

On Pine Grove-Volcano Road: A llama guarding a herd of sheep.

It was a lovely Amador County New Year's Day: Scenic beauty, history, nature, culture and agriculture, all in an outing of less than three hours. We are blessed, indeed.

A foggy day

2007-12-30T17:57:00.000-08:00

Today it was foggy all day long. Not the kind of overhead fog that can be confused with overcast, but ground-level, sitting-in-the-clouds mountain fog.

It was drizzly at times. It was mysterious at times. But mostly it was just damp, and gray.

Sometimes I could see across the meadow. Sometimes I could see only 50 feet.

We don't have many days like this. Fog is a more of an occasional and fleeting visitor. But not today.

I ditched my plans to take a good long walk with the dog. Too gray, too wet.

Maybe we'll get in that walk in tomorrow, celebrating a sunnier day, the end of the year, and longer days to come.

A gift that lasts

2007-12-23T15:05:00.000-08:00

We don't often have the opportunity to give a gift to future generations—something that will benefit people of all ages, abilities, ethnic backgrounds, and income levels. But when we work together to protect special natural places, that's exactly what we're doing.

You can help leave a lasting legacy by endorsing National Wild and Scenic River designation for our local Mokelumne River. Foothill Conservancy's website has a simple online form that takes less than a minute to complete.

By taking a few seconds to fill out that form, you can help ensure that the National Wild and Scenic River designation for the Mokelumne will come to pass. It's a gift that really lasts.

Local global warming naysayers at odds with world business leaders

2007-12-09T12:55:00.000-08:00

Our neighbors at the Amador Citizens for "Responsible Government" have been running ads in the BuynSell Press congratulating three Amador supervisors for voting against the Cool Counties initiative. The ads say that global warming concerns are based on "junk science."

That puts them at odds with 150 global business leaders including PG&E, Swiss Re (a huge insurance firm), Sun Microsystems, Shell Oil, DuPont, Hewlett Packard, Nokia, Johnson & Johnson, Volkswagen and others who recently signed the Bali Communique. That document asks the U.N. to adopt legally binding greenhouse gas emission limits.

Here's a quote from the communique:

The scientific evidence is now overwhelming. Climate change presents very serious global social, environmental and economic risks and it demands an urgent global response.

I may be wrong now, but I would guess that the combined scientific expertise of the 150 signatories to the document is probably a little greater than that of the local group.

Meanwhile, the California Attorney General's office has published a new website on global warming. It includes a nice section debunking the allegations of global warming naysayers. Check it out.

Calaveras Supervisors move to limit sprawl

2007-12-01T16:49:00.000-08:00

It used to be that land use planning in Calaveras County was anything but smart. The county has been one of the fastest-growing in the state, with no constraints on the conversion of ranches and oak woodlands to golf courses and subdivisions, complete with overtapped groundwater and leaky septic systems. But it looks like those days may be over.

A few weeks ago, the Calaveras Board of Supervisors held a visioning session to establish a policy framework for the county's general plan update. It was most promising, with all five supervisors -- even Libertarian Tom Tryon -- agreeing that new development should occur in existing communities rather than sprawling all over the countryside. They even talked about incorporating the Ahwahnee Principles or the Land Use and Development Principles adopted by several Calaveras communities.

Then last week, the supervisors lifted the year-old subdivision moratorium put in place at the beginning of the plan update. But they didn't return to the bad old days of virtually unfettered growth.

Instead, they unanimously adopted policies to shape new development. The policies aren't binding -- the board will still look at each subdivision proposal -- but the clear message is "if you want us to approve your project, this is what it needs to be." The resolution even suggests to staff that they bring noncompliant applications to the board for an early decision rather than putting everyone through the time and expense of California Environmental Quality Act review.

The policies are intended to focus development in existing communities and limit sprawl. They express a clear preference for projects that

Create new parcels only in areas where public water and sewer are available (except for single parcels and parcels over 40 acres)
Protect onsite open space and habitat
Provide roads built to county standards
Promote affordable housing

And in the resolution language adopting the policies, the supervisors made clear they expect similar policies to be part of their general plan:

WHEREAS, during the October 23, 2007 workshop, the Board unanimously stated that the General Plan update, and in particular the Land Use Element of the General Plan, should include goals, policies and implementation measures regarding criteria for future development within the unincorporated area of Calaveras County that limits the use of groundwater and onsite septic systems to serve that development and should instead encourage high density development served by public surface water and public sewer with preservation of onsite open space as well as other associated infrastructure to serve the development such as roads built to county road standards;

Meanwhile, despite a moratorium on general plan and zoning changes, every month new well-and septic-dependent parcels are being created in rural Amador County, many in high fire zones. How smart is that?

Putting the dam before the plans

2007-12-01T13:01:00.000-08:00

Amador Water Agency General Manager Jim Abercrombie has embarked on an early marketing effort to promote raising Lower Bear Reservoir. He's trying to sell the public on the idea by telling anyone who will listen that the county will need the additional water supply by 2030.

Abercrombie has come to this conclusion before the county or any of its cities have concluded their general plan updates -- and before the feasibility studies on Bear are even done. Last time I checked, the general plans -- not Water Agency estimates -- will determine our county's eventual population.

At the same time, Abercrombie is admitting that the Foothill Conservancy has been right about local water supply for more than 17 years: the county can more than double its population on existing water supply. And that doesn't even take into account growth in rural areas not served by the Water Agency, which includes vast parts of the county.

At last week's Regional Planning Committee meeting, AWA engineer Gene Mancebo said the Water Agency has enough water to supply another 16,000 Amador households.

Sixteen-thousand new homes is a lot. In comparison, the largest proposed new subdivision in Amador County is Gold Rush, outside Sutter Creek. It's a proposal for about 1,300 homes.

Sixteen-thousand homes would house a lot of people, too. Based on an average population of about 2.3 people per household, that's 36,800 more people than live in the county today.

Mancebo also said the agency hopes to provide 20 percent of total water supply from recycled water in the future. Since I wasn't in the room, I'm not sure whether he meant "add 20 percent to existing supply," but if he did -- or if an additional 20 percent could be developed through recycling plus efficiency -- that would free up enough potable water to add nearly 14,000 more people without building an expensive dam (15,0000 acre feet existing supply x 20% = 3,000 acre feet. 3,000 af x 2 HH per acre foot x 2.3 people per HH = 13,800 people).

Adding those two population figures results in a startling total: 50,600 people. So what the Water Agency is saying, in effect, is this: we expect Amador County to add more than 50,000 new residents by 2030. That's more people than live in fast-growing Calaveras County today.

Let's take a minute and think about that from a total planning perspective. If Amador County were to grow by more than 50,000 people, where would they live? How would we move them around our already gridlocked roads, many of which cannot be expanded due to lack of funds and the limits of topography or existing buildings?

How would we serve them with underfunded volunteer fire departments? Where would the children go to school, when the cost of new schools far exceeds developer fees? How many new libraries would we need? Would we need a new hospital? New parks and recreational facilities? How many new police officers and sheriff's deputies would have to be hired? Where will the adults work, considering that the price of oil is going to make commuting an increasingly uneconomic activity? They can't all be retired.

Not to mention this question -- the one that probably matters most of all to local residents: what would happen to our cherished rural character?

We need to plan our county based on what local people want to protect and what they want to change. I have yet to hear anyone say publicly that 50,600 additional county residents by 2030, or even nearly 37,000 new residents, is part of their vision for our county's future.

It's clear to me that Abercrombie has put the proverbial cart before the horse. While it is the Water Agency's job to supply water for the county, it's not their job to decide how fast or how much we're going to grow before our general plans are complete.

So when you hear and read those "we're going to need more water" stories, remember what that means -- more than doubling the county's population in the next 22 years. If you think that's a bad idea, be sure to let local officials know.

Why fund new dams before agencies push conservation?

2007-11-20T19:10:00.000-08:00

On Saturday, The (Stockton) Record published a story that tried to encapsulate the complex issues surrounding Mokelumne River watershed and river protection, water conservation, global warming and plans for more water supply. It's a subject worthy of a full series and far too complex to capture in one story, but reporter Dana Nichols did a pretty good job, considering.

It appears to me that except for a couple of notable exceptions, the water and government entities who use (or want) water from the Mokelumne have been slow to urge their own ratepayers and residents to use current supplies efficiently.

This morning I did a quick search of the various agencies' websites, looking for water conservation information. As I mentioned in an earlier post, putting information on a website is probably the cheapest way to get that information out to the public and in this electronic age, one of the most effective.

Two Mokelumne-related agencies have good water conservation information on their websites:

The rest of the Mokelumne-using (or wanna-be user) agencies -- San Joaquin County, Stockton East Water District, the cities of Stockton and Lodi, North San Joaquin Water Conservation District, Amador Water Agency, and Woodbridge Irrigation District -- have precious little information on their websites, have buried it so deep that I couldn't find it in a quick search, or don't have websites at all.

It certainly begs this question: Why should taxpayers put millions into developing more water supply on the Mokelumne -- anywhere from $35 million to $500 million, according to The Record story -- before more Mokelumne water districts demonstrate a true commitment to conservation and efficiency?

It's a start

2007-11-15T06:36:00.000-08:00

Using water more efficiently is the most effective and lowest-cost way to increase water supply and decrease wastewater treatment demand and cost. And it's certainly better for the environment than building or expanding dams on our remaining rivers -- think Prius vs. Hummer. Smart water agencies across California have recognized this reality and implemented water conservation and efficiency programs.

For example, today's Record includes an article regarding a Stockton water agency that is giving away -- yes, giving away -- 500 superlow-flow toilets. The article says that use of a toilet like this over a person's "140,000-flush lifetime" could "save enough water to fill a dozen swimming pools."

Local conservation and river advocates have been urging local and regional water agencies to take similar steps. So it's good to see Amador Water Agency taking a step, however small, in that direction.

At its last board meeting, the Agency discussed a pilot conservation program for the Camanche area. Here's what the Amador Ledger Dispatch had to say about it:

Abercrombie submitted several options to reduce consumption and decrease water waste that could possibly include discounts and rebates to customers who use efficient appliances or a water smart irrigation controller.

"The agency would provide a free self-survey kit to guide customers through a step by step home water assessment," he told the board. "Customers who complete the survey would be eligible to receive a free water-wise activity kit, which would include a low flow shower head, kitchen and/or bath sink aerator, a watering gauge and other tips."

And TSPN added:

Finally the Agency as also toyed with the thought of a financial reward for a reduction in water use. However, there are also other factors that the Agency has to keep in mind, such as the increased work load on existing staff to implement such a pilot program as well as a possible reduction in revenue from decreased water usage. The board agreed that smart water use is a primary focus of the Agency and decided to pursue the test program and develop a budget for such a purpose. If the pilot test proves successful the agency plans on expanding into other service areas. For more information about how you can conserve water contact the Amador Water Agency at 223-3018.

It's a start. However, the cheapest way for an agency to educate ratepayers is to post information on its website. Once the web posting is done, there's virtually no cost. The next cheapest way to reach people is through the mail. Having people answer phones is an expensive way to provide tips.

But if you look at the AWA site, there's precious little about conservation. Contrast that with Foothill Conservancy's website, which has had water-saving tips on its home page for months.

If the agency is truly serious about conservation, perhaps it should change its home page to include useful information on conservation and efficiency instead of showcasing a link to a water industry PR site about the state's "water crisis."

You can read more about California dam hype and water reality on Friends of the River's website.

Why bother?

2007-11-06T21:28:00.000-08:00

I am not often discouraged. You cannot work on conservation issues in Amador County and be a pessimist -- it would just be too overwhelming. But sometimes I have to wonder why those of us who care about our county spend so much time participating in processes that seem rigged from the get-go.

Take the Kirkwood Mountain Resort expansion proposed for the Eldorado National Forest off Highway 88 -- the public land you and I own. In spite of many comments pointing out the myriad flaws in the expansion proposal -- destruction of scenic vistas and wildlife, increased traffic for intersections already at gridlock on busy ski days, and more -- the Forest Service has just approved the proposal pretty much as Kirkwood asked.

I know that big, powerful interests usually get their way in our world (Kirkwood's primary owner is a wealthy friend of the Bush family). I know that the Forest Service usually gives downhill ski resorts pretty much what they want, regardless of the damage they do to the environment (Kirkwood got an F in the last Ski Area Citizens' Scorecard). I figured that the fact Kirkwood was recently touting the plan to the media as if it were approved -- before the decision was made public -- was a bad sign.

But somehow I held out some small hope that maybe this time, it might be different. Foothill Conservancy and others -- including the U.S. EPA -- had pointed out the project's many deficiencies in detail, forcing the Forest Service to do a great deal more analysis. I had also heard that new Eldorado National Forest Supervisor Ramiro Villalvazo is "as green as they come."

But when I learned tonight that Supervisor Villalvazo had essentially given Kirkwood everything they asked for, my hopes were destroyed like the boulders Kirkwood plans to blast away on its cross-country ski trails. If Supervisor Villalvazo is as green as they come, someone's going to have to redefine green for me. Of course, he is only one player in a largely dysfunctional agency controlled by politicians who see nature as nothing but a profit center.

And tonight I cannot help but think of the resource agency people I know who struggle to do their jobs with integrity in spite of the politics of the day. How sad they must be to see a once-fine agency drop to this low level. How hard it must be for them to do what's right in the face of the political pressure that has so corrupted our national institutions.

Teddy Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot -- the fathers of our national forests -- are rolling in their graves.

River offers something for everyone

2007-11-04T09:21:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I helped out with Foothill Conservancy's umpteenth Mokelumne River Cleanup on the river's Electra run. Spending the day down by the river reminded me how much the Mokelumne offers something for everyone.

The land-locked Kokanee salmon were spawning, so the beach was full of people fishing. There were tiny kids with tiny fishing rods, just extracted from their plastic and cardboard packaging; teens with rods bent and fish on; whole families together, fishing and playing on the beach. They were joined by more seasoned anglers, too -- men with waders and better gear and nets --who were reeling in fish after fish.

The river was low, so the Kokanee were easy to spot in the water. It looked like you could walk in and simply net them. I heard one young guy say, "I have fish lounging against my legs."

Raptors could see the Kokanee, too. A mature bald eagle and an osprey were diving for lunch, oblivious to the volunteers picking up trash, anglers on the banks, and kayakers navigating the rapids.

Farther downstream, a fly fisherman was working just below the rapid know as The Slot. Below the Highway 49 bridge, a couple was panning for gold.

The fall color on the river is especially wonderful this year. The California grapes, oaks, cottonwood and other riparian plants are trending from pale yellow to deepest red. Contrast that with the river's range of blues and greens, and it's hard to imagine anything more lovely.

Since Electra is heavily used, some river lovers avoid it. There's plenty of evidence of damage to the river banks (why is it that people insist on driving right down to a river that's only 50 feet from the road -- even going so far as to pull out big boulders put there to keep cars off the bank?), and sometimes a fair amount of trash. One couple working the cleanup said they hadn't been there for years because it's so popular. But after a few hours at Electra, they were once again taken in by the river's beauty.

People who aren't river-oriented tend to forget that we have this wonderful resource for recreation, relaxation, and recharge a short drive south of Jackson. But plenty of people know it's there. And as our county becomes more urbanized, places like Electra, where we can get out with friends and family and bask in the glory of nature, will be even more precious than they are today.

You can help keep the Mokelumne a river future generations can enjoy on a fine fall day by signing on to support including the Mokelumne in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Thoughts on fire and sprawl

2007-10-24T20:05:00.000-07:00

Watching the fires in Southern California is sobering. While we don't face the Santa Ana winds here in the Central Sierra, our forested areas and chaparral are, much like those to the south, fire-adapted ecosystems. Fires are a normal part of the ecology.

When we fill the forest and chaparral with scattered houses, creating the so-called "wildland-urban interface," we create a greater risk of the kind of destruction we're seeing down south this week.

We may not have the Santa Anas, but we can get some fast-moving fires of our own, like the Power Fire that burned in the North Fork Mokelumne canyon in 2004. That fire could have jumped Highway 88 and burned west into populated areas of the county with impunity had nature not intervened in the form of cold rain and wet snow. Let's all hope the south state gets that kind of break soon.

As Amador County updates its general plan, the county would do well to consider how to protect life and property through land use planning that takes the reality of fire into account.

It makes no sense from a fire protection point of view to encourage the development of more small parcels and homes in the county's rural areas. Compact, town-centered development is a much better way to address the human, environmental and economic cost of fire.

Excellent recommendations related to sprawl and fire are found in the latest publication from the Sierra Nevada Alliance, Dangerous Development: Wildfire and Rural Sprawl in the Sierra Nevada. Everyone who cares about land use planning in the Sierra and California should read this publication.

A tale of two counties: compact development and the general plan

2007-10-23T20:27:00.000-07:00

Calaveras County is beginning to update its general plan. To help guide the process, the supervisors held a "visioning" meeting last week to discuss the county's future. As reported in local and regional newspapers, the board came down solidly on the side of avoiding sprawl in favor of town-centered, compact development.

Even Supervisor Tom Tryon, a property rights advocate and former Libertarian candidate for statewide office, supported locating development where it can be served with municipal water and wastewater systems.

Two of the county supervisors supported incorporating the Ahwahnee Principles into the county plan. Supervisor Steve Wilensky supported incorporating principles adopted by local communities in Calaveras District 2.

It was encouraging to see the Calaveras supervisors recognize that compact, town-centered development can protect the county's agriculture, natural resources, water quality and community character.

Contrast that with Amador County. First, we have the new defenders of sprawl, the Amador Citizens for Responsible Government, emerging to support the Placerization of Amador. Funny how what they say sounds exactly like the complaints of developer Bob Reeder at the county General Plan Advisory Committee meetings.

Then there's a pretty clear split on the GPAC between members who see the wisdom of town-centered development and a strong general plan, and those who want to continue the ad hoc, project-by-project sprawl that has characterized local growth over the last 40 years. The latter are trying to make the general plan as toothless as possible.

The cost of continuing sprawl development patterns has been brought to light at nearly every GPAC meeting over the last year. We've talked about fire, water, recreation, schools, roads, air quality, historical and cultural resources, agriculture, wildlife, economic development and more. In every instance, compact development has less impact than sprawl. In every instance, the things people love most about the county are better protected by concentrating development in compact communities than by chopping ranches and forestland into subdivisions.

At its early meetings, the GPAC came up with a pretty good vision statement for the county's future. There was broad agreement about what the county should be like 20+ years from now.

As the GPAC -- then the planning commission and board of supervisors -- continue slogging toward a general plan, they need to keep that vision in mind, and ask: Will this get us to the future we envision?

If the answer is no, the general plan is clearly heading down the wrong path. If the answer is maybe, that's the wrong path, too. And if the general plan is just too fuzzy to serve as a clear path to the vision at all, we'll end up looking like Placer, not Amador, County in the end.

Once you have a destination in mind, it's better to develop a clear route than to wander in the wilderness in hope that you might just get there one day.

Open letter to Raheem Hosseini re his global warming editorial

2007-10-17T20:52:00.000-07:00

Today's Amador Ledger Dispatch includes a fine editorial by Raheem Hosseini on the county supervisors' recent rejection of the Cool Counties initiative and his disappointment at the lack of public outcry. I started to write Raheem an e-mail in response, but decided to publish the content here, instead . . .

Hi, Raheem:

Just so you know, it's not that local enviros like me don't understand the implications of global warming or think the county shouldn't get on board. We just try to be judicious regarding which battles to fight, where, when, and how.

Public hearings on issues of this type are opportunities for demagoguery and seldom lead to anything very positive or productive. And chiding the supervisors after the fact isn't productive at all, at least not from where I sit.

At the risk of sounding like the older person I am fast becoming, I have to say that I was much quicker to jump to a fight when I was 25 than I am now. It's not that I don't have as many opinions, or that they are any less strong, but I have a different perspective on how to get things done.

For example, I'd rather slog through countless hours of review and edits and discussion of county general plan goals and policies that can reduce local GHG generation for the next 20 years (as I have been doing over the last six weeks) than spend just one hour in a hearing that will have little impact in the long run --- especially if it means listening to people who know nothing about the issue go on and on about it.

Of course, since the Ledger isn't covering the General Plan Advisory Committee meetings, you don't know about all the work that's going into those goals and policies -- or the conflicts playing out between people who want the plan to actually do something and those who are trying to make it as toothless as possible.

So from my perspective, expending a lot of energy on the Cool Counties resolution didn't fall under the category of time well spent. That may disappoint you -- it's obvious you wanted more from local enviros on the issue than we gave you this time -- but please consider that sometimes a lack of outcry may just mean that the would-be outcryers (sp?) are out working their fingers off making real change rather than jumping at opportunities to beat their heads against a wall.

That never works and you just end up with a headache.

Thanks for being out there using your bully pulpit to advantage. Loved the redacted W-2 reference.

Best,
Katherine

Who's being "responsible"?

2007-09-30T16:24:00.000-07:00

There's a new group in the county, the "Amador Citizens for Responsible Government." Sounds good, right? Who's opposed to responsible government?

But like many things, what sounds good may not hold up to closer scrutiny. This particular group's thoughts on what constitutes responsible government are pretty questionable.

The group opposes efforts to combat global warming, which it calls a "scientifically-discredited theory." They recently convinced the Amador County Board of Supervisors not to sign on to a national "Cool County" resolution pledging to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Apparently, these "responsible" guys (19 of their 20 "Executive Council" members are guys) think they know more about climate science than the the Nobel Peace Prize committee and major world scientific institutions.

They've shown up at recent meetings of the Amador County General Plan Advisory Committee to oppose consideration of global warming in the update of the county general plan -- even after the county's consultant described how the state is suing counties that fail to take global warming into account.

Is that responsible? I don't think so. Failing to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions could result in serious consequences for this and future generations. That doesn't sound responsible to me. It sounds selfish and short-sighted, especially when common sense solutions exist.

If our county disregards global warming-related state law, it leaves itself open to lawsuits. Is that responsible? Last time I checked, our county didn't have money to waste on lawsuits that can easily be avoided. I know I don't want my tax dollars spent that way.

This group also opposes smart growth planning principles, which center around building denser, walkable communities where services and infrastructure are available -- much like the small towns we love in our county now.

Providing government services and infrastructure to compact development is much cheaper than serving homes spread all over the rural countryside. It is easier to protect homes from wildland fire. It costs less to maintain roads.

Compact development reduces the need for new school construction, school buses, new roads, new sewer facilities, water lines, fire stations, and more. It ensures that natural areas will continue to provide "ecological services" such as clean water and clean air. It supports our tourism economy by keeping the county beautiful and rural. It keeps our working landscapes contributing to the local culture and economy.

Smart growth can be cheaper for builders, too, because they don't need to provide the infrastructure to sprawling homes.

So it's hard to see how opposing smart growth constitutes "responsible government."

The group is also opposed to the new Amador Regional Planning Committee -- a group formed to help ensure better coordination of land use planning among our five cities and the county. The committee has no regulatory authority. Absolutely none.

But this new group somehow sees it as a threat, and therefore supports continuing our current system, where coordination of planning efforts is spotty, at best -- with the obvious consequences we're seeing in our county today.

Responsible? I think not.

So what is this group for? They say they're for "limited government." But best I can tell, they're really for unfettered growth of the type that threatens our natural environment and quality of life -- the kind of growth we've seen turn much of rural California into sprawling, undifferentiated suburbs. They want that sort of growth here, too, regardless of the cost.

And if you ask me, that is anything but responsible.

Jackson does need help, but not Jackson Hills

2007-09-08T11:48:00.000-07:00

It looks like Jackson's City Council will complete the approval of the Jackson Hills project on Monday night, September 10. Some locals think the city council members have been "bought off" by the developers.

I don't. I think it's more likely that the council members feel like they have to do something to address the challenges facing Jackson today: a distressed downtown, the loss of sales tax-generating businesses to the county, and the need to develop wastewater disposal alternatives.

The council is approving Jackson Hills because it's been sold to them as the solution to these problems. And they've bought the package, despite the many questions that surround it.

It's an easy fix, right? Approve one subdivision and all of Jackson's problems will go away. Problem is, closer scrutiny shows that Jackson Hills is not the solution, and before long, the city will have the same problems it had before, compounded by the problems that come with Jackson Hills, including gridlock in the south part of town.

There are other options.

Let's take downtown first. Years ago, when the county government was based in Jackson, county workers went downtown to shop at lunch and after work (I worked briefly in the courthouse, so saw and did this myself). When the government center moved out to Argonaut Heights, the downtown merchants lost that business. Now that the county workers are back on Court Street, has anyone tried to lure them back downtown?

Let's see -- why would county workers -- or Sutter Amador Hospital employees -- shop in Jackson? Maybe if there were free shuttles at lunch time. Maybe if it were easy to grab a loaner bike at the workplace and pedal into town for a sandwich without risking your life in the process. Maybe if there were actually something to buy. Remember, Jackson used to have many businesses that catered primarily to local residents and people working nearby.

Perhaps local business owners need to look at the local market again. The city could help by funding some market research and making it available for free to local businesses, working with the two big employers in town, and going back to some of the good plans developed for downtown in the past that are now gathering dust on someone's shelf. A little economic gardening could go a long way.

Also, I've always thought that any big shopping center with a shady parking lot could do a lot more business in summer than those with acres upon acres of unshaded asphalt. Given the choice of shopping at a store with cool parking or one without, I know which one I'd pick on a hot summer day. Urban forest grants could green up Jackson's shopping center lots for those who aren't going to go downtown and make them more competitive with the businesses in Mart-hell.

The sales tax loss is a hard problem to solve. Jackson always had unusually high sales tax revenue, thanks to its car dealerships. One could see how big a problem that loss was going to be years ago when the county decided to create the Mario Biagi Sales Tax Sacrifice Zone in Martell.

Home Depot is trying to sell itself as the solution to this problem, while proposing to build in the historic viewshed below the Kennedy Mine. Surely there are other ways to help Jackson renew its business base.

Wastewater disposal is the third big challenge. Spraying treated wastewater on local ranch lands is one good solution. And unlike a golf course, irrigated cattle pastures don't come with 580 houses and nearly 6,000 car trips a day.

As Jackson works on long-term wastewater solutions, the city could immediately reduce its wastewater volume by conducting water audits for every household to identify water-wasting practices. It could also subsidize the purchase of low-flush toilets and modern, water-saving clothes washers.

A new washing machine of the right type uses only 35%-50% as much water as older models -- that's water going into the wastewater system today. Everyone wins -- the homeowner spends less on water and power and the city has less wastewater to treat. The city would save money, too. Muncipal wastewater treatment requires a great deal of electricity.

Just as there is no free lunch, there is no simple solution for Jackson's problems. But there are alternatives to a big, environmentally destructive, dumb-growth subdivision that threatens the operation of local ranches. I've name just a few here. I'm sure others could be developed with some concerted effort and creativity.

Real leadership for Jackson means moving ahead with that effort. And it means standing up and taking on these challenges with a view to long-term consequences, not opting for the easy short-term fix -- especially one as suspect as Jackson Hills.

Property rights are not a blank check

2007-09-03T14:59:00.000-07:00

Our community is full of independent people who want control over their lives and their land. That's a good thing, as far as I'm concerned.

But then there are those who raise the issue of "property rights" every time a land use policy comes along that they don't like -- or when the question of community rights is raised to challenge a subdivision or big-box store or other project that doesn't fit the community, causes gridlock, creates air pollution, destroys habitat, or otherwise creates problems for other people.

There are many misconceptions about property rights. But the truth is, local governments -- that is, our duly elected representatives -- have broad powers to determine what is best for the community and through that process, to control local land use. Those powers include telling people how they can develop and use their property.

Although individuals may have their own definitions of property rights, the courts have in fact defined property rights and "takings" for us. For a good explanation of how it all works, see this handbook from LandWatch Monterey County.

Lodi paper features the Mokelumne

2007-08-27T18:04:00.000-07:00

The Mokelumne River runs from high in Alpine County to the San Francisco Bay Delta. Along the way, it provides water and power for millions of people; a home for a rich variety of wildlife; recreational experiences for the adrenaline junkie and the beach hound; and sustenance, inspiration and recharge for those of us who rely on the wonders of nature and the magic of changing light on flowing water.

The Lodi News-Sentinel just completed an exceptional three-part series on the Mokelumne. Two young journalists --reporter Matt Brown and photographer Brian Feulner -- kayaked the slower, flat valley/Delta portions of the river. They kayaked and hiked its lower foothill reaches. And finally, they undertook a true wilderness journey, backpacking from the Mokelumne's headwaters near Highland Lake through the Mokelumne Wilderness to Salt Springs Dam.

It was an exceptional adventure. The resulting stories, photos and videos are on the paper's website. Do take time to read and view them all.

Then if you support protecting the Mokelumne Electra Run--which the not-so-stuck-in-Lodi guys visited--and the incredible segments above it that they did not (Editor Rich Hanner's a good guy, but hey, you can only have your reporter and photographer gone for so long), sign on to support National Wild and Scenic River designation for the Mokelumne.

It takes no time at all to do your part to preserve our river for future generations to explore and enjoy.

It's our river to enjoy and ours to save.

"If not us, not them. If not now, then when? If not here, nor there. If not this world, then where?"__John Gorka song lyric: "If Not Now"

Let the People Plan

2007-08-12T06:56:00.001-07:00

Last weekend I attended the Sierra Nevada Alliance conference in Kings Beach. A couple of the sessions addressed an exciting trend -- community-based planning.

Instead of waiting to react to what a developer brings them, some towns are looking at land planned for annexation or redevelopment and coming up with a master plan for that land themselves. The processes are often hands-on, with lots of citizen involvement.

People decide what kind of development will take place, where, and how fast. They plan the parks and schools and fire stations. They plan the housing. They plan the business locations. They make sure that what they value most is protected -- special views, natural and historic features, and so forth. Most of all, they make sure the plan is consistent with their vision for their town.

And when the plan is done, the message to developers is clear: "This is what we need in our town. This is what we want. Join with us to make it happen."

The good news is that developers seem happy to bring in projects that fit the plans. That's probably because a community-developed plan gives the developer and landowner more certainty. It can also spare them all of the time and money they normally spend trying to market a project.

Amador County's small towns could take this approach to planning. Just think about how different the results might be from what developers are bringing us now.

Look at Martell. Some of us pushed for just such an approach to Martell redevelopment years ago, but the developers weren't interested. If local residents had developed a plan for Martell, it could have included a passive park in the woodland at the lower end, walking and bike trails to connect to the towns, mixed-use development with workforce housing, and more. But instead, we got a same-old, same-old sales-tax sacrifice zone that pulls revenue from our towns and gives us traffic jams in exchange.

It doesn't have to be that way. We don't have to wait for developers to "save" us with their ideas of what our towns should be.

We should define our future, ourselves.

Beware the Big Lie

2007-08-11T17:39:00.000-07:00

In the 20th Century, propagandists perfected the practice of the "Big Lie" -- saying something outrageous and repeating it over and over again until people came to believe it.

21st Century Amador County developers have embraced this propaganda technique to push their projects on us.

"Our project is good for YourTown."

"Our project is the solution to YourProblems."

"Our project is smart growth."

The current noteworthy example is Jackson Hills. I've never seen a project get this far along with so many harmful environmental impacts and so many questions remaining about its details. And a couple of smart growth-resembling details do not a smart-growth project make.

But the developers and their minions are simply repeating their big lie mantras: "Jackson needs Jackson Hills. Jackson Hills will solve Jackson's wastewater problems. Jackson Hills is smart growth."

Because Jackson does have some real problems, mostly caused by poor development decisions made in the past and difficult infrastructure challenges, these messages are appealing.

But as I've said before, Jackson Hills is a bad project in the wrong place at the wrong time. The golf course can't dispose of wastewater in winter. There's no place for regular working Jacksonians to live. It would create gridlock in South Jackson. It would obliterate oak woodland and threaten the operation of local ranches. And there are just too many unanswered questions.

Jackson's Planning Commission saw through the Big Lie and recommended rejection of the project. So did the Amador County Transportation Commission.

They relied on fact, not faith, in making their decisions. Faith is a good thing, but putting faith in developers is a very risky business.

Let's hope the city mothers and fathers are also smart enough to see through the manipulation, look hard at the facts (and the missing facts), and do the right thing for their town and our county.

Be sure to attend the public hearing on Monday evening, August 13 if you'd like to weigh in.

ACTC gets it at last

2007-08-06T20:01:00.000-07:00

We all know there is a connection between growth and traffic, at least in a county like this where everyone must drive for nearly everything.

Years ago, that connection seemed to be lost on the Amador County Transportation Commission. But now ACTC is emerging as a strong force for better planning in the county.

On Wednesday, the ACTC board voted to recommend to the Jackson City Council that it deny the Jackson Hills golf course subdivision project because of traffic concerns.

The next night, ACTC planner Sean Rabe gave a presentation to the Amador County General Plan Advisory Committee on traffic and land use.

"Traffic is a symptom," Rabe said. "Land use is the cause."

No joke. If we continue to develop in ways that require people to use their cars to get everywhere -- and everyone else to use their cars to get to them -- we will have gridlock at most major county intersections. There is simply not enough money and not enough buildable terrain to build our way out of this with bigger roads or new routes.

It's way past time to manage traffic on the demand side of the equation by paying more attention to where, how, when, and how fast we grow. ACTC deserves our thanks for stepping up on this critical local issue.

For more, read Editor Raheem Hosseini's editorial on the ACTC decision.

Gridlock doesn't care about class

2007-07-14T12:30:00.000-07:00

There's an advertisement lurking as an op-ed in Friday's Amador Ledger Dispatch. A local person employed by New Faze Development to promote its environmentally destructive Jackson Hills subdivision argues for the project because it's "classy."

And she says that if Jackson Hills isn't built, some other development -- something far worse, in her opinion -- could be built on the site.

That's interesting logic: If the city doesn't approve this bad project, a worse one might come along? Wow.

Of course, the land could also stay a cattle pasture. Maybe even an irrigated one.

One of the biggest problems with Jackson Hills is that it will create gridlock in south Jackson (the word traffic doesn't appear in the "advertorial"). I don't know about you, but the last time I was stuck in traffic, it really made no difference to me whether the cars were shiny, late-model Beemers or beat-up older cars and trucks. And if ambulances can't get through a traffic jam on their way to the Sutter Amador ER, is that OK provided the cars in the way are nice and expensive?

Gridlock is an equal-opportunity impact that pays no attention to so-called class.

Who says traffic will be a problem? None other than Charles Field, Executive Director of the Amador County Transportation Commission, the county's resident traffic experts. As reported earlier this week in the Ledger article about Monday's council meeting, "Field repeated concerns that if Jackson Hills is built as planned, serious traffic congestion may aggravate already overburdened streets and roads."

The New Faze author also argues that Jackson Hills will "pay millions in developer fees that will benefit Jackson, Amador County, the school district and the Amador Water Agency."

What she fails to note is that under state law, developer fees can only cover the cost of a development's impacts on local government. They don't "benefit" government or taxpayers, they just cover the cost of providing capital improvements to the project. And often they don't even do that. Impact fees definitely don't cover school construction costs.

In closing, the author calls Jackson Hills "innovative." If Jackson Hills is innovative, I'm a right-wing Republican. Jackson Hills is a formulaic, suburban golf-course subdivision designed to attract affluent people in a certain demographic who are fleeing urban areas with equity from their homes for the comfort of gates and golf.

The odds of it becoming the social, economic and fiscal salvation of Jackson are slim to none.

Shame on the Ledger for allowing a developer to run an ad like this for free.

McCutcheon tix available in advance

2007-07-13T20:51:00.000-07:00

While tickets for the McCutcheon concert/Wilensky fundraiser were originally announced as being available only at the door, you can buy them in advance online or at

Aeolian Harp, Angels Camp
Jackson Family Sports, Jackson
Sam Snead Real Estate, West Point

Don't miss the show!

Don't miss John McCutcheon in Mokelumne Hill

2007-07-04T08:18:00.000-07:00

Storytelling musician-activist John McCutcheon will perform in the wonderful little town of Mokelumne Hill on Saturday, July 21.

The show, a benefit for Citizens for (Steve) Wilensky, will be at the Mokelumne Hill Community Hall at 7:30. Tickets are $25 at the door.

John's an amazing musician, and Steve -- the Calaveras County District 2 Supervisor -- is a remarkable politician. They're two of the finest people I know: smart, caring, compassionate, talented, and hard-working.

This promises to be an incredibly special evening. Be there!

Sitting at home is not a good option

2007-07-01T06:54:00.000-07:00

For years, some of us tried to explain what is patently obvious in Amador County now: left to its own devices, growth can destroy the things we love most about this special place.

Without good planning, we said, our home county could turn into all of those places we point to for their terrible traffic, bad air quality, ugly strip development, and land-consuming rural sprawl -- places where scenic vistas, working ranches, farms, and historic sites are written about in past tense.

We were often written off as alarmist socialist tree-huggers.

But with the "anywhere USA," traffic-jamming, suck-the sales-tax-from-the-cities commercial development of Martell and same-old, same-old sprawling, water-wasting golf course subdivisions proposed around our historic towns, most people "get it" now. As a result, more people than ever are getting involved in local planning issues and promoting smart growth.

At the same time, a certain amount of fatalism remains. Some believe that nothing can be done. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: If you think nothing can be done and don't act, guess what? The powers of growth and development will prevail, just as they have in all of those other places where money talks and people are "too busy" to get involved.

But if we join together and claim this county as our own -- not the province of developers -- we can shape its future. Right now, residents of Jackson who want to avoid sprawl and would like to see ranching continue around the town would do well to contact their city council members about the Jackson Hills golf course subdivision and show up when the council discusses the proposal on Monday, July 9.

Jackson Hills is the wrong project, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. The EIR details more significant environmental impacts than any project I've ever seen proposed in Amador.

Jackson Hills will threaten the operation of the Plasse and Busi ranches, destroy oak woodlands, waste an incredible amount of water, and create gridlock in south Jackson. It will provide homes for affluent equity-amenity refugees, not people who live and work in Jackson.

The Jackson Planning Commission did the right thing when it voted against Jackson Hills.

Those who will profit from this development -- realtors, business owners, golfers, builders -- have joined together to support it. They are letting Jackson officials know what they think.

Those of us who will suffer, not profit from the project need to do the same. If you care about Jackson, traffic, ranching, oaks, smart use of water, and housing working people can afford, be sure to let Jackson officials know.

It's your town and your county. So take it back -- before we lose it for good.

River people

2007-05-28T19:53:00.001-07:00

Last weekend I went to the National River Rally east of Portland in the Columbia River Gorge. It was an incredible place and an amazing event.

Hundreds of river people were gathered in one place. Others might use the label "river people" disparagingly, but those of us attending wore it with pride.

There were scientists. Watershed coordinators. Academics. Bureaucrats. Activists. Tribal representatives. Fish people. Pollution fighters. Bug lovers. Kayakers. Anglers. Water recyclers. Water planners. Business owners. Nonprofit managers. Young. Old. Boomers. Millenials. People from Alaska. People from the North, East, Midwest, West, South and Southwest . . . All joined by a love of rivers and the water that flows through them to shape our land.

When you talk to people from the inner city -- places like the Bronx and Baltimore -- who are trying to bring back the life in their polluted urban rivers, you cannot help but be newly reminded what a gift we have in our Mokelumne and Cosumnes rivers.

As one American Indian speaker pointed out, the rivers came first. Before the people, before the towns, before "civilization."

We forget that too often. Our land was shaped by the native people who lived here for thousands of years before us, and it has been further shaped by those who arrived during the Gold Rush and everyone who came after.

But before people began to "manage" this land, the rivers and creeks carved our deep canyons, shaped our hills, nourished our fish and wildlife, and set the stage for us. Just like our historical sites -- the mines, the towns, the rock walls -- our rivers are our heritage. They are part of who we are.

Bloomin' crazy

2007-05-14T09:13:00.000-07:00

Our home wildflowers are amazing now after a slow start. Yesterday and today, I saw all of the flowers listed below as well as some I haven't yet identified. Most are in our meadow or on its fringes:

Four kinds of monkeyflowers: yellow, yellow/white, pink tubular, pink/purple/yellow

Larkspur
Meadowfoam
Yellow broadeia (a tritelia)
A blue broadeia
Woodland star
Wilding pinks (see April flower post)
Milkweed
Mallow
Vetch
Wild onions
Yellow violets
Madia, a yellow composite dominating the meadow