Lake Berryessa IMPACT

[Scott V.]

Phil: my understanding is that the mobile home you own sits on land you do not own. You have a permit that allows you to occupy that land. That permit timeline has run out and this FEIS may not allow for that permit to be renewed.

The land your mobile sits on is public land; my land, your land, and everyone else's land. Yet as public land, you have exclusive use to it and can restrict my right to access it.

This is no different than a lease running out and the property owner making the decision not to renew your lease and telling you to vacate.

The Government made a decision many years ago to increase recreational use of public lands. They almost had to beg people to come to recreate and the Govt used this permit process as a way to do it. That was 40 years ago when the population of California was way less than it is now. Now this exclusive use of the public lands in affecting a large population that cannot access their lands.

I haven't read the entire FEIS but the purpose and need summarized it quite well - decisions made 40 years ago are no longer valid with the current population. It's time to change that and with permits running out, now is the time.

Scott V.

[Steve]

The club you mentioned doesnt do the types of things you are talking about. They arent near that leftist. I know this, I lived amongst folks who actually did do those sorts of things, and they are well beyond the mentioned club, youve got to dig deeper if you want to find the right organization to blame for those things (I actually had two of my truck tires spiked one night while working, they targeted the wrong person ).

I dont even know why Im posting this stuff, I could care less about any of those groups. I guess maybe its the mis-perceptions that many on this forum have, they either watch too much tv or read too many magazines. Relying on media for your information and basing what you think you know on that information is a major mistake (do you believe everything the mass media tells you?). The only way to find the true answer is to go find it yourself.

And Chris, trust me on this one, BOR's proposal is much better than the current management plan at Berry.

[rexford]

I was generalizing them as a group. I also agree that the majority of
the members probably have the best of intentions and are law abiding
citizens that share some of my views. With any group or society you
have to weigh the good with the bad and hope that the good is prevalent.
My two encounters with Sierra Club members was very negative and dangerous.
I understand that many members would not condone such acts but never the
less they happened. Being I can not identify the individuals only the
banners they flew probably has allot to do with my perception.


The Sierra Club in general gives me the impression of a political bully.
I do not consider you or any individual associated with this group to
be an evil environmentalists but as a whole I can not dismiss my
perception. I would like to see the Sierra Club work to change this
rather then trying to force their will on others. I think these kind of
changes would go along way to improve their credibility.

I did not intend to insult you as an individual and if I did I am sorry.
The Sierra Club has a long way to go to change public perception and if
you are one of the people working toward that goal I admire your efforts.

Thanks,
Mike

[Brian Paine]

One of the best points made … do not lose focus … do not get sidetracked on issues that are not the main one … do not present yourself as an “antiâ€

[sTony]

Rather then getting sidetracked into a debate about environmental protective organizations lets try to keep the conversation on target and speak specifically about BOR, this FEIS and the meeting coming up this Saturday. I'm hopeful that some of you will be attending.

Part of the problem that current mobile home tenants have is that the existing leasee's of the land are still allowing them to buy in when sites are available and not necessarily letting them know how short lived the transaction might be. My understanding is that these folks must be approved by the BOR which is kind of a ironic twist if their still allowing new tenants all the hwile knowing they'll be kicking them out if this plan is acted on.

I've read over the FEIS, whew... that took me forever. It is a plan that has much promise for many varied users, albeit at the expense of the curent benefactors of the old model plan. Do these marina operators have any rights to continue the business that BOR allowed them to build over the last 50 years?

Steve, I would suggest that this would be a good time to approach local marina operators about the way they charge for use on the lake. The double charging that you experience is likely to meet with a different ear from these folks if they knew that support could swing their way if they charged a more reasonable fee for use.

As to the uses of the lake, their are few restrictions currently on the lake beyond some 5 mph areas and use has never been restricted such that motorized vehicles can't use the lake as well as canoes, kayaks and so on. that part I don't see a need to change one bit. A much larger problem on the lake has been the brown water releases into the lake from some of but not all the tenant areas. It would seem if BOR wanted to they could determine where the problems areas persistently existed and terminate agreements at the end of their term easily enough while allowing the tenant areas that have not had such problems to continue running their businesses. Then BOR could then excerise the plan for the development of the regained areas and make them more user friendly for the current and future generations that don't currently reside on the lake but are regular users. It's called compromise, which in my life time has always seemed to be a good way to work things out to move forward harmoniously.

Jsut my two cents. I will try to be at the meeting to report back what transpires. I do not believe it's my place to actually make a presentation however.

sTony

[NaCl]

Whoops! I forgot we can't say "God" on a public forum in California! HaHa!

.....NaCl

[NaCl]

I used to do it at the punch bowl on prom night! HaHa!

.....NaCl

[Steve]

And you still didnt get any!!!!! No wonder your an old salty dog.

Lol!!!!

[Nozmo King]

Thanks, Mike, & no need to apologize - no offense taken. There's actually a certain humor to the whole topic, since most of the Sierra Clubbers I've known have been middle-class suburban white guys with three kids & big mortgages.

And, Tony, you're right - the real issue is the future of Lake Berryessa, where I too enjoy bass fishing. I hope it doesn't get screwed up & will try to get around to reading the document so I have some clue what's actually going on.

[Lou]

In my blissful ignorance, I have a question:

Is the BOR a Federal or State agency? (I have always thought it was Federal).

Why the question? Well, as we have seen with CARB, as goes California so goes the rest of the nation.

Have any of you ever been on or fished the lakes of the TVA such as Watts Bar, Cherokee, Fort Loudon, Tellico or Douglas?

I imagine the BOR if Federal has superior jurisdiction to the TVA. If so, we can expect this agenda to move eastward eventually....until at some point they may meet with deadly force.

[Jeff Jewell]

I will try to attend this meeting, I still have many unanswered questions, The map is vague at best, or I just don't get it.
To me it looks like the only change to boating would be a non-motorized zone behind Big Island. So questions are
1. Any additional boating restrictions?
2. Will the lake close for a period of time?
3. Will the launch fee's increase?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's My $00.02
If the trailers are polluting the Lake then they need to go.
Most of the resorts could use additional boat trailer parking.
More camp sites would be nice.
Repair the parking lot at the Cappel Creek Boat Ramp

[Lou]

I am going to be there too, and ask the following questions:

1. Whose interests do the Bureau of Reclamation ultimately protect?

2. Does any question or comment by any of the citizens at this meeting have the possibility of changing the decision, or affecting its outcome, by the BOR in the least?

Jeff, the answers to your questions are as follows:

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes

And the free launch at Capell Cove will no longer be free. It will be a pay-for-use ramp managed by the "official" (read: Monopolizing) concessionaire.

I agree with your last four comments.

[Lou]

Article Last Updated: 11/20/2005 03:12 AM
Residents unleash scorn on Lake Berryessa revamp
Nearly 700 at hearing oppose efforts to uproot shore's mobile homes

WINTERS - They are furious.

Nearly 700 people with a stake in Lake Berryessa's future packed the Winters High School gym to the rafters Saturday afternoon to denounce the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's effort to revamp the popular boating hot spot. They booed the sole "environmental wacko" on the panel and heckled the government guy trying to explain it all. And they had reason to.

Because the first choice in the government's list of ways to remake the 20,000-acre reservoir is scrape the place clear of their long-term "exclusive use" mobile homes now dotting the lake's shores and open the place up to more campers, canoers, hikers, RVs and the so-called "short-term user."

Those at the lake now deride the plan as a fantasy effort to remake the lake into something it never has been - namely, a wilderness recreation area. What will happen, they fear, is that the Bureau of Reclamation will destroy a community that has called the lake home for 50 years.

"I've been here 18 years, and I haven't had one person come in and ask me to build a trail up over that forsaken hillside so they can go out and hug a tree," said John Frazier, owner of Markley Cove Resort on the lake's southeastern end, to a standing ovation.

The government plan, released in final form late last month, remains essentially unchanged from earlier drafts. It suggests the Bureau "permanently remove" all of the mobile homes and trailers that now dominate the few level spots on the reservoir's steep and wooded shoreline.

Lakeshore areas at the seven resorts serving the lake would be restored to "a more natural setting" with improved public access. Those with the exclusive leases to the reservoir would be gone, their spots turned over to campsites, picnic areas, RV sites, rental cabins. Instead of paying a concessionaire $400 or so a month to rent the land underneath their vacation home, they would have to reserve a cabin or campsite like everyone else.

Even the current resorts would look different. Today, the lake is fringed with seven resorts, each run by a different operator. Those leases all expire by 2009, with no ability to renew under law. The bureau would like to see each one remade - possibly by a single operator - into different recreation areas: Markley Cove would become the houseboat center; Spanish Flat a mix of camping and "rustic lodging;" Steele Park a "major contemporary overnight lodging area."

"I just wouldn't come," said Mark Randazzo of San Jose, who has such a spot in Steele Park Resort and whose father owned one before him. "(We've) established a community that's about to be destroyed. Randazzo isn't alone. Winters, perhaps the closest town to the lake, has labeled the plan "the economic equivalent of a military base closure to our community," and various business owners spoke Saturday of the devastation such a dramatic overhaul might trigger.

Indeed, Saturday's discussion - technically a Winters City Council meeting - came three weeks after Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy and chairman of the powerful House Resources Committee, asked Interior Secretary Gale Norton to hold a town meeting.

"We've been contacted by hundreds of constituents," said Kiel Weaver, a Pombo aide who flew in from Washington, D.C.

The bureau hasn't made a final decision, and other options - including staying with the status quo - remain on the table. "Take my word for it, or someone you trust," said Mike Finnegan, the bureau's regional manager. "Not you," came a catcall from the crowd.

Plan proponents see tremendous opportunity to open up the largest lake 90 minutes from the Bay Area to the larger public. California faces growing demand for outdoor recreation areas. Lake Berryessa, they say, is underused - a "private lake."

"The economic area around the lake is in sad shape. It's not what you would call an economic success," said Carol Kunze, the lone environmentalist on the panel. The bureau's plan "would convert Lake Berryessa into a vacation destination. It's going to become a recreational asset too for the

9 million people in the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento area. Public response to the bureau's efforts has run two-to-one in favor of less trailers and more short-term use. But a visitor would never guess that based on Saturday's turnout.

Nine out of 10 people sported yellow stickers and armbands of orange survey tape in support of the resorts.

The bureau will not likely issue a final decision on Lake Berryessa for at least three months or possibly even a year. More information can be found on the government's Web site: http://www.usbr.gov/mp/berryessa

[Lou]

Check this out if you want a good laugh, if she wasn't serious it wouldn't be as scary as it is funny:

http://www.berryessatrails.org/eboats.htm

[sTony]

I was at the meeting and am in the process of writing up my editorial based on what I learned.

I can tell you this, Carol Kunze represents a very small minority interest at best and shouldn't get much consideration if any from BOR. She talked as if the Lake was in dismal shape when the regulars users, both fulltime and day users, know that it quite frankly is not. She threw out numbers that were biased and misleading and in many cases out right lies. She is the proverbial squeaky wheel that wants to be greased despite the fact that she knows little to nothing beyond her own very minute concerns. She literally tried to dominate the preceedings and in doing so made her own positions weaker.

She talked about how the area is in close proximity to 9,000,000 potential users and that she ran a poll on how people wanted to use the lake and that hiking, bird watching and getting in touch with nature was what most people wanted. She polled a wopping 2,700 people for those replies. I wonder what percentage of 9,000,000 people 2,700 represents. Keep in mind that over the last two decades Lakea Berryessa has been used by an average of 1,400,000 people a year.

I'll write up more about the meeting this week.

sTony