Again Lake County has a proposed half-cent sales tax to raise money that could only be spent on the lake. This one has more process oversight with the sunset, but can it work?

Bringing the lake back from decades of ecologically wrong decisions is not a small or inexpensive chore and the question may be, does this approach measure up as the best way?

The lake responds to the treatment dealt. So it’s not surprising that removing wetlands and emergent vegetation with significant upland sediment runoff over the last 60-plus years led to runaway summertime cyanobacteria blooms.

The ecology of the lake is dependent on the rimland, wetland and upland, and much of our vibrant economy is dependent on a vibrant lake ecosystem.

A case could be made that reordering the county general fund spending priority would take us where we want to go for a fix, as many have said.

I agree, but this would probably take the same 60 years of incremental decisions over many successions of county supervisors. Not likely, unless a degree in ecology is required for the job.

A better, more efficient way that maintains the required focus on the prize is needed and over the years there has emerged a preferred governance method for problems such as ours, the dedicated special fund program or project.

I remember discussions for years, without results, over restoring coastal salmonid streams from past timber harvest practices.

Changing the timber cutting practices, even though the battleground was hard fought, was the easy part compared to the cost and effort of restoring the streams.

Piecemeal restoration would take eons. It just wasn’t going to happen using the same old general fund methods.

Establishing a separate, dedicated source of funds with focused goals cut through the noise allowing the restoration to begin and meaningful progress made.

There have been many recommendations from concerned individuals and committees about the impending doom of the quagga/zebra mussels and the lost tourism from weeds and algae.

Frustration appears to rule both sides of the Board of Supervisors’ dias. What program would you cut to keep a balanced budget and what personnel are skilled in science and management to deliver the solution?

Nothing happened until a mostly volunteer mussel inspection program was instituted, weeds were cut as money was available and algae mats were herded with booms.

Did any of this make a difference? There’s no monitoring of course to know and counter claims remain.

What’s special about a Measure L dedicated fund approach?

It takes away the competition from other general fund needs such as road repair or social programs. These are hard competitors for the attention of elected officials.

When the voters say they want the lake protected from mussel invasion and the cyanobacteria blooms to be controlled, that of course will be the dedicated focus.

So, the elected know that results rather than a favorite public project are the coin of the realm. Their immediate task will be making sure the program can produce measurable results.

Putting a program in place with the right structure is a good first step but these are not programs that will run without good science, oversight and monitoring.

Feedback to the supervisors and public is required in determining priority spending direction. The second key ingredient will be skilled staff practitioners freed from other distractions, honed from immersion in the details and goals and who can maintain a course while explaining the maneuvers.

All of this focus and momentum comes from a dedicated fund program structure as in Measure L. The issues with the old approach will fade into background noise.

Jim Steele is a retired state wildlife biologist. He lives in Clearlake Oaks, Calif.