Map for Snow Mountain conservation area expands

2012-08-03T00:00:00Z Map for Snow Mountain conservation area expands Napa Valley Register
August 03, 2012 12:00 am

A major jolt has hit private property owners with the newly released map for Berryessa Snow Mountain National Conservation Area. The only map available had been a 2008 version, which created a huge outcry. Now this May 2012 map is wholly invasive to the cities across four counties.

Rep. Mike Thompson’s HR5545 and Sen. Barbara Boxer’s S3375 May 2, 2012 map, accompanying their respective bills for Berryessa Snow Mountain National Conservation Area, was released for the first time on July 27.

Until then, a map dated October 2008 had been provided to all those who reviewed and/or supported the bills. The final map has increased the areas greatly, literally putting a dark cloud over a massive area, inclusive of extensive private property, such as ranches, subdivisions, towns and outlying rural areas.

These will be classified as inholdings — essentially properties destined for federal acquisition, either by federal purchase or forcing people to leave under oppressive circumstances.

This plan intends to eliminate access, lands, use, cities and personal property. The National Conservation Area designation comes with millions of dollars, which is slated to begin purchases of inholdings.

The designation will immediately devalue all of the inholdings, making them virtually unsalable. The National Conservation Area functionally will dehumanize areas, depopulate towns, and harm lands.

Thompson has also been busy seeking federally funded fire protection, knowing well that the designated areas he has proposed and expanded over the past several years are prone to widespread fires.

The most significant longterm disaster is the “permanent” lock up of billions and billions of dollars of our assets — the natural resources, which rightfully belong to the people of California, and need to remain available.

They are essential for our future success, as towns, a state and for our nation. Stop HR5545 and S3375.

Lucy White / Calistoga

Copyright 2015 Napa Valley Register. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(29) Comments

  1. lordstar
    Report Abuse
    lordstar - August 03, 2012 3:25 am
    Lucy, I fail to see your point about the map. Are you saying the 2008 map is outdated or otherwise misrepresents the intention of the proposed action? Are you saying the 2012 map was released without enough time for review? I don't see any issues with the update.

    Further, National Conservation Area designation does not grant authority for eminent domain. S. 3375 also specifies "SEC. 4. ACCESS AND BUFFER ZONES.
    (a) Access- The Secretary shall continue to provide private landowners adequate access to inholdings in the conservation area." The FAQ makes this point but for the more savvy folks the FAQ is not needed to know the above.

    As shown in the map all proposed lands are not publicly owned. NCA only affects federal land. Land can only be gained from willing sellers and the bill itself doesn't call for any acquisition. At present I have no reason to believe anything to the contrary.

    From what I see there is not lock up of assets either only improvements and a clean up effort.
  2. Raven
    Report Abuse
    Raven - August 03, 2012 7:32 am
    and your link to this map is where?
  3. TAXPAYER
    Report Abuse
    TAXPAYER - August 03, 2012 9:02 am
    This Map as proposed by Thompson includes thousands of acres of private land.

    Time to Fight!
  4. PKilkus
    Report Abuse
    PKilkus - August 03, 2012 9:16 am
    The 2011 map never received wide circulation. In fact, Tulyome kept the 2008 map up on their web site until last month. They finally replaced it with the 2011 map. And although Congressman Thompson (and Senator Boxer) had already bills to create this NCA which referred to a map dated May 2, 2012, the map itself had never been released. That is until persistence broke through resistance and a local Berryessa Highlands resident was able to pry the map from Congressman Thompson’s office. As of August 3, 2012, Tuleyome still does not have the final map on their web site. Why not?

    See the map and download it at www.LakeBerryessaNews.com

    The final map now includes the Berryessa Highlands private property in the NCA! It also includes all the property on the east side of the lake, but, strangely, has a land gap between the northern and southern sectors of the NCA. The differences between the last two maps should concern all residents and property owners in the Lake Berryessa area.
  5. PKilkus
    Report Abuse
    PKilkus - August 03, 2012 9:30 am
    The 2008 NCA map changed after strong opposition to the new NCA by the Family Water Alliance and unanimous NO votes by the Boards of Supervisors of Glen and Colusa Counties. This time Tulyome decided to focus only on Congressman Thompson’s district assuming him to be sympathetic to their proposal. They proposed a new map in 2011 for the NCA, eliminating the half of the Mendocino National Forest that was located within Glen and Colusa Counties. The 2012 map continues that odd change. Is the eastern half of the Mendocino National Forest less important than the western half? Or was this simply a politically-expedient decision?
  6. gettingreal
    Report Abuse
    gettingreal - August 03, 2012 9:51 am
    This is a giant land grab and an attempt to cut off any meaningful recreation at the lake. Time to fight is right!
  7. orchid lady
    Report Abuse
    orchid lady - August 03, 2012 12:26 pm
    Seems fishy to me! I see that someone said that EMINENT DOMAIN can't be used under the designation, but it doesn't mean that that the government can force land owners to sell ONLY to them, by way of their usual harassment, i.e. fines, permit with holding, and the most likely thing is, the current owners would be grandfathered, while any future owners may have to acquiesce the the Federal conservation requirements, limiting the sale to guess who, the Government. I hope I'm wrong, and this is just my 'gut feeling'.
  8. TeamWork
    Report Abuse
    TeamWork - August 04, 2012 11:43 am
    Economies........The Take Over by Socialism!

    "An economy consists of the economic systems of a country or other area; the labor, capital and land resources; and the manufacturing, production, trade, distribution, and consumption of goods and services of that area.
    A given economy is the result of a process that involves its technological evolution, history and social organization, as well as its geography, natural resource endowment, and ecology, as main factors. These factors give context, content, and set the conditions and parameters in which an economy functions."
    "On the other hand, traditional socialism is a command-based economy in which markets and the free exchange of goods and services, as well as manufacturing, production, trade and distribution are replaced or done by government central planning and state owned enterprises. In this economy all private owners of capital (called capitalist) and of land (called landowners) are not allowed or banned; and the only permitted private ownership is of consumption goods. Capital and land are assigned by the state and movement of labor is severely restricted. There are no profits, dividends, interest or rent. Labor compensation and benefits are decided by central planners."

    Socialism=Berryessa Snow Mountain National Conservation Area

    quotes by-Wikipedia 
  9. Ern49er
    Report Abuse
    Ern49er - August 05, 2012 3:05 am
    Just keep voting the tax and spend Liberals into office and we will lose all our rights. Remember Mr Obama wants to make everything a level playing field. Take from the rich and give to the poor, until we run out of rich people. Then we will all be in the same boat. Ever get a job from a poor person?
  10. Native74
    Report Abuse
    Native74 - August 05, 2012 8:16 am
    Is this a new negative tactic? Same bill, nothing has changed other than a map that is 4 years out of date. The bills goal is to protect existing public lands not acquire (take) private property. I'm a property owner in Berryessa that is included and I support this bill. I wouldn't normally, but since I have known of this from the beginning and know what it's about I do. Please stick to the facts.
  11. gettingreal
    Report Abuse
    gettingreal - August 05, 2012 9:49 am
    According to the United Nations these areas are designated as "Red' and "Yellow" zones.

    Red Zone = Little to no human use

    Yellow Zone = Highly regulated use

    It's no surprise that they didn't want to release the map!
  12. glenroy
    Report Abuse
    glenroy - August 05, 2012 10:47 am
    That's about as good a condensed definition of liberalism I've ever read....and I majored in the subject back when the left whined it was senseless to oppose the inevitable conquest of Soviet socialism...

    They're getting the last laugh...though before it's all over they won't be laughing too much I wouldn't guess.
  13. TeamWork
    Report Abuse
    TeamWork - August 05, 2012 11:14 am
    The map in the bill has not changed, just became available for view-almost three months after the bill was introduced? The people should have all attachments/information when reading a proposed new bill/law/designation?  If the map doesn't matter, why include it in the bill language?  If the private properties don't matter, why include them and why not show them to the public in the first two maps?  Obviously there is something to hide.  Keep the people quiet?

    ALL information should be available for view the day HR 5545 was introduced and all information should be available when presenting BSM-NCA to officials for support.

    In-Holdings are a target for acquisition. It does make a difference and that's why the map has not been available to the people. BSM website map shows only existing federal lands-not private property. Tuleyome should know better then to post incorrect information on their site.
  14. TeamWork
    Report Abuse
    TeamWork - August 05, 2012 11:20 am
    Map hasn't changed, just now available for view.......

    SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF BERRYESSA SNOW MOUNTAIN NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA, CALIFORNIA.

    (a) Establishment- Subject to valid existing rights, there is hereby established the Berryessa Snow Mountain National Conservation Area in the State.

    (b) Purpose- The purpose of the Berryessa Snow Mountain National Conservation Area is to conserve, protect, and enhance for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations the ecological, scenic, wildlife, recreational, cultural, historical, natural, educational, and scientific resources of the lands included in the conservation area.

    Included- The conservation area consists of approximately 319,300 acres of Federal land and interests in Federal land within Napa, Lake, Mendocino, and Yolo Counties, California, as depicted on the map entitled ‘Berryessa Snow Mountain National Conservation Area’ and dated May 2, 2012.
  15. fmmt47
    Report Abuse
    fmmt47 - August 05, 2012 12:00 pm
    Another really good reason to seize your private property and pay you almost nothing for it..the government needs no more property, they already "own" 2/3 of the western United States.
  16. glenroy
    Report Abuse
    glenroy - August 05, 2012 1:19 pm
    Here's how liberal Democrats do business....and how they 'manage' conessions, how they 'managed' the conessions that ruined Lake Berryessa and no doubt will do so if this land grab passes in congress.

    http://rantpolitical.com/2012/08/05/white-house-lobbying-at-caribou-coffee-isnt-the-most-criminal-email-kicker/
  17. glenroy
    Report Abuse
    glenroy - August 05, 2012 1:21 pm
    More Democrat land deals....

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/11/AR2006101101640.html
  18. Raven
    Report Abuse
    Raven - August 05, 2012 9:30 pm
    and this has exactly what to do with the link to map under question, glenroy?...I'll save you time...nothing.
  19. Raven
    Report Abuse
    Raven - August 05, 2012 9:31 pm
    and you realize the new designation doesn't apply to private land but applies to federal lands..
  20. Raven
    Report Abuse
    Raven - August 05, 2012 9:33 pm
    once more...no private land is involved.... it is federal lands getting a new designation...read sec 3 as posted above
  21. Lberryessa
    Report Abuse
    Lberryessa - August 06, 2012 6:58 am
    I just visited Tuleyome.org/ and discovered something very interesting. I accessed the library tab. At the bottom of that page I accessed the link titled "current and archived information about Tuleyome projects" that brought me to a page that displayed an orange information links on the left. Within that was a link to "one farm at a time" once that was accessed the next page displayed "more information to come". Wonder what they mean,"one farm at a time". It will be interesting to see if it's there tomorrow but don't worry, I took a screen shot of it.
  22. TAXPAYER
    Report Abuse
    TAXPAYER - August 06, 2012 8:07 am
    So Raven, The new map includes my property, are you promising me, that they (the Government) will have no say or try and tell me what I can do or how I use my property?
    PLease have Thompson and Boxer put that in writing! LOL!!!!

  23. gettingreal
    Report Abuse
    gettingreal - August 06, 2012 8:08 am
    So, are you suggesting that the phrase "as depicted on the map" is inaccurate? You can't have it both ways!
  24. gettingreal
    Report Abuse
    gettingreal - August 06, 2012 10:36 am
    Rep. Rob Bishop explains what's really going on here. It's nice to see that some of them are still willing to tell the truth.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwVwqV7Psxg
  25. Report Abuse
    - August 06, 2012 8:22 pm
    I will just throw this in the mix! If the United States government is looking for private property to include in the proposed Conservation Area, why in the heck don't they buy the redwood forest, wildflower meadows, vernal pools and oak woodlands that Pacific Union College is trying to sell to sub division developers?

    Lets put a willing seller of some of the most important and beautiful natural land in Napa County in touch with those agencies and organizations that see to acquire lands for permanent conservation.

    Calling PUC Board of Trustees.....hello...hello out there. Is any body home?
  26. Raven
    Report Abuse
    Raven - August 06, 2012 9:20 pm
    read section three again ... "consists of approximately 319,300 acres of Federal land and interests in Federal land within Napa, Lake, Mendocino, and Yolo Counties, is your land federal land?
  27. Raven
    Report Abuse
    Raven - August 07, 2012 9:31 am
    the map depicts the federal lands involved....what is inaccurate about that? and where did I eve suggest the map is inaccurate?
  28. gettingreal
    Report Abuse
    gettingreal - August 09, 2012 8:16 pm
    Raven,
    The map depicts peoples private property as other than peoples private property. You don't see a problem with that?
  29. Lucy White
    Report Abuse
    Lucy White - August 10, 2012 4:38 pm
    In my meeting with the St Helena Star, Carol Kunze and Sara Husby on August 3rd – Sara presented a map dated July 18, 2012. The berryessasnowmountain.org website now states 320,000 acres – so there is an additional 700 acres of private land being pulled in. The website also now proposes that the Designation is sought for a National Conservation Area – or a National Monument [surpasses Congress and going to the President]. This huge land grab will destroy the communities and absorb the personal property – either by purchase or oppression. This is sought for purposes of control – land, use and resources. People are expendable. We need to fight against this to protect our assets for the current and future generations. It will affect all of us – our freedom and our economy.
Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

Follow the Napa Valley Register

Featured Businesses

Marketplace






Featured Ads