You comments are spot on – and – appreciated. I am copying them to other concerned parties that might make use of them. Thank you.
Anderson is correct. It will be tough to get money for staffing in this environment. That is why we all must work hard on supporting this and at approaching our political reps.
Anderson is in a peculiar position. He has conflicts of interest that he must be aware of. This policy may effect his grape growers interest group. He should not participate on issue that effects them.
You are correct there are legal mandates that support completion of tasks outlined in the Sediment Work Plan. I do mention them in my comments.
The Sediment Work Plan should in no way effect voluntary work or voluntary compliance plans. I do not understand the basis of that complaint or issue. I will mention it to staff.
Coast Action GroupAllen,
Thanks for your draft letter and comments on the excess sediment work plan. I attended the meeting yesterday in Eureka. There was no significant organized opposition just the usual whining. On balance a lot of positive feedback supporting the approach. Holly L said that it has general board support and should be approved at the next board meeting. Anderson characterized it as a Christmas Wish List and didn’t see how it could be funded in the current atmosphere. He asked how much do the 19 Pys represent as a percentage increase in staffing.(21%)
My public comments were mostly responsive to his—the fact the addressing the impaired watersheds is not optional but mandated by CA and federal law—the funding issue is a debate for Sacramento not the board, and that the staff levels have been reduced in recent years by far more than this recommended increase.
There were some comments that the proposed plan would make it harder for watershed groups to do voluntary remedial. You can respond to that. I would suspect the opposite is true and part of the reason for not replicating the Garcia as a model.
I believe the draft resolution is weak and should make a step by step case that this program must be funded, tacitly acknowledging liability should it not go forward. I recall you did a lot of the word smithing on the resolution of 2004.
I’ll send you the SC draft for comment.
Oh Cobett mentioned something about the Klamath work starting to have another life and the board may have to take some additional action to keep up?