The Lower American River Conservancy Act

[chicowildcat]

Curious if anyone has heard anything about this? I saw from SARA on Facebook there's a community meeting coming up on March 3rd. I noticed in the fact sheet that "fishing" wasn't mentioned at all, hopefully that's a voice that'll be heard if this bill moves forward.

http://asmdc.org/members/a07/other-resources/support-ab-1716

March 3, 2016 | 6:30pm to 8:00pm
Clunie Community Center
601 Alhambra Blvd
Sacramento, CA 95816

-B

[Darian]

In it's present form, kinda seems like another bit of feel good legislation that sets up a Board with attendant costs and has little authority. Funding is dependent on appropriation by the legislature. Doesn't seem to address enforcement/moving of illegal camping or much of anything else, really. Maybe that'll change if the bill advances.

There's an upcoming meeting set up by Kevin McKarty. Maybe he'll expand on what he intends for the bill then.

[Lew Riffle]

My take on this is that the Lower American River lacks designation so it can't get the grant funding that is needed to for protection, restoration, recovery, ect. This is "hookup legislation". All the rules and authority will come later because by gum there is money to be had if you play the game of the agency granting you the money.

[Darian]

The bill does appear to be as you describe it, Lew. However, there are some authorities/restrictions in the last part of the bill. A major restriction is that whatever project is proposed/accepted by the board cannot conflict with Sacto County general plan. Also, the board is not authorized to raise taxes, acquire or own real property among other things. If a project is proposed the impacts private land the board must have written permission from landowner.

The promotional materials sent by McCarty mentions a board of 12 members but fails to mention that there're many state level, regional and local agencies involved in an anticipated, co-operative process. There would be a lot going on here. One of the major problems for the lower American River has been and continues to be illegal camping, the homeless population and related issues. Since the cities/county have all had this problem on their collective and individual radars for years now, I'm not really sure whether the conservancy will have any more impact than prior efforts.

the account for Conservancy funds is established in the states General Fund and, apparently, this board may receive funds but may not raise them thru taxes. That appears to mean that funding will come from a combination of user fees, donations, grants and, maybe, state issued bonds(???)

[Lew Riffle]

This is about getting money for projects thru various grant sources wheeled through this Conservancy. I see this as similar to the Coastal Conservancy. Theses conservancies are not about authority other than granting and oversight of the monies granted. Therein is a respectable power because they hold the purse strings. Yes it is very complex and money lubricates it all. This board does not have to own real property just oversee the purchases and transfers into a land trust of some sort either public or NGO. The tricky part is local politics and changes to local planning which as it goes most of the time will change if there is funding to be had and seeps into local agencies because of these recovery restoration and preservation projects. The world moves on economic incentive and this is attempting economic incentive into fixing the Lower American it seems. Sounds like it really needs some help from broader afield.

Ran across this in my PDFs for a more detailed view(from 5 years ago): Currently, there are ten conservancies within the State, established by legislation to help protect regional resources of statewide significance. All are independent agencies within the Resources Agency, and are separately governed by Boards as defined by their authorizing statutes. The conservancies are as follows: Baldwin Hills Conservancy • California Tahoe Conservancy • Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy • Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy • San Diego River Conservancy • San Gabriel & Lower Los Angeles Rivers & Mountains Conservancy • San Joaquin River Conservancy • Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy • Sierra Nevada Conservancy • State Coastal Conservancy • The powers of each conservancy differ, and each one is only authorized to undertake duties as expressly granted to it by the State Legislature. Generally, they are authorized to work with local agencies to complete overall conservation and public access plans and help coordinate implementation for the jurisdictional areas the conservancies cover. The conservancies have power to enter into contracts and to hire staff. All conservancies have authorization to acquire and manage lands (although the Sierra Nevada Conservancy may not acquire a fee interest in real property by purchase (PRC 33347 (a)) and to make grants to other agencies or non-profit organizations. Most of the conservancies have goals that include public access and recreation. Generally, the conservancies do not have land use authority and can not supersede any local jurisdictional authority. The Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy has express authorization to levy taxes within its jurisdiction, with approval, while all the other conservancies only have power to collect fees for the use of land or services provided.