Letters

Details

Written by: Marie Beery

Published: 09 September 2009

With the news of Konocti Harbor closing I find myself having to write a letter.
 
First I would like to ask why our marketing department did not do any rebuttal pieces in the Press Democrat or Marin Independent Journal regarding the state of the lake.

There could have been many positive pieces done that could have counteracted the damage done by those articles. We could have talked up the growing wine industry here, we could have given our ancient lake history etc.
 
Now with Konocti Harbor announcing its closure, why are we spending time and money on an old building in Lucerne instead of looking for buyers or doing something to keep Konocti Harbor open?
 
I could go on and on but I don't have time. I am open to hearing whatever excuses there may be, but I would really like to hear what we are doing or going to do.
 
Marie Beery lives in Kelseyville.

Details

Written by: Anna Rose Ravenwoode

Published: 04 September 2009

On April 2, the “Clean Water Restoration Act of 2009” was introduced to U.S. Senate.

According to its official summary, the act “Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to replace the term "navigable waters" that are subject to such Act with the term "waters of the United States," defined to mean all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all impoundments of the foregoing, to the fullest extent that these waters, or activities affecting them, are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution. Declares that nothing in such Act affects the authority of the Secretary of the Army or the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the provisions of the Clean Water Act related to discharges:

(1)composed entirely of return flows from irrigated agriculture;

(2) of stormwater runoff from certain oil, gas, and mining operations composed entirely of flows from precipitation runoff conveyances, which are not contaminated by or in contact with specified materials;

(3) of dredged or fill materials resulting from normal farming, silviculture, and ranching activities, from upland soil and water conservation practices, or from activities with respect to which a state has an approved water quality regulatory program; or

(4) of dredged or fill materials for the maintenance of currently serviceable structures, the construction or maintenance of farm or stock ponds, irrigation ditches and maintenance of drainage ditches, or farm, forest, or temporary roads for moving mining equipment in accordance with best management practices, or the construction of temporary sedimentation basins on construction sites for which discharges do not include placement of fill material into the waters of the United States.”

On June 17 if was referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The bill, S 787, substitutes “navigable waters” with “waters of the United States” will allow the Clean Water Act to protect all surface waters and their tributaries from pollution.

It strengthens the Clean Water Act, so persons, businesses or corporations, who dump pollutants in a year round or seasonal/dry streambed would be responsible for their actions by being regulated under the Act.

If you read the bill as introduced, it specifically exempts 1-4 listed above, namely return flows from irrigated agriculture, stormwater runoff from certain oil, gas and mining operations, dredged materials from normal farming, silviculture and ranching activities, etc.; and many other maintenance activities.

I support exemption one (return flows for irrigated agriculture) as long as those return flows are shown to carry no pesticides, herbicides, insecticides or dormant oils which would further pollute Clear Lake.

I do not support exemption two because it allows oil, gas and mining operations to remain irresponsible for the pollution they produce in their industrial activities.

I support exemptions three and four because they are under an approved Water Quality Regulatory Program; or they incorporate Best Management Practices.

But this legislation has only begun its journey through the U.S. Congress. The language in the bill will change.

I strongly encourage everyone interested in clean drinking water (and a cleaner Clear Lake) who live in the Clear Lake Basin to follow this legislation at www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s787/show .

Anna Rose Ravenwoode lives in Kelseyville.

Details

Written by: Norm Ihle

Published: 02 September 2009

The developers of Cristallago have completed a final environmental impact report (EIR). In reviewing the report, I was absolutely astounded that they have made only minor changes to the original EIR.

The report is an absolute travesty. These people are doing their best to “ram it down the throats” of the Planning Commission and the citizens of the county. It is such a clear cut case of developers wanting to put their plan in place without any concerns for the citizens of this county or the environment. These men want to become multi millionaires at the expense of all of us. They do not care about us or the County. It’s all about the money.

The plan is flawed in so many ways; I’m surprised they have the audacity to present it to the Planning Commission. Their responses to the concerns of all the folks who raised concerns are woefully inadequate.

Here are just a few highlights.

They just disregarded all the archaeological historical concerns.

Caltrans stated: “The project as proposed has the potential to create significant traffic impacts” at the Hill Road/Parkway turnoff. Construction alone would increase the traffic at this turnoff from 270 trips per day to over 3,000 trips per day.

They want to use a 5.5 acre lake on the site and create other holding ponds for holding water filled with asbestos, fertilizers and pesticides. This in an attempt to keep the pollutants out of the Scotts and Lyon Creek watersheds, which drain into the lake. What will happen to the wildlife that will use these areas? I personally do not care for three-footed ducks.

They would be moving between 500,000 and 1 million cubic feet of earth, drastically changing the hillsides forever. They have not even ruled out blasting at the site. The majority of the moving of earth will be for the golf course, which would also remove 53-percent of all the oak trees on site. All for a couple of hundred golfers. They did not even try and change the course layout to make it blend into the scenery or eliminate the need to remove the oak trees.

Asbestos is rampant in the soil – so much so that if a new homeowner wants to put in a swimming pool, he will have to get a hazardous waste permit.

They indicate that this project will have no significant effect to the Lake County General Plan or Lakeport General Plan. However they contradict themselves throughout the final EIR in which they say it would have significant impacts. What the heck?

I could go on and on. But I do not have enough space to cover it all.

This project will make the whole community look like Los Angeles with 650 homes all looking the same and compacted into clusters.

Bottom-line to all of this, is that the final EIR is deficient and should not be approved.

Hopefully the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission will see the folly in this project as outlined and send it back to the drawing board.

Please join me at the meeting .We cannot let them move ahead with this development as planned

The Lake County Planning Commission meeting will be held at 9:30 a.m. Thursday, Sept 10, in the board chambers at the Lake County Courthouse, 255 N. Forbes St., Lakeport.

I hope to see you there

Norm Ihle lives in Lakeport.