|02-18-2005 01:46 AM|
I just been looking a little more and there are more things that I will bring up here.
I never thought I would see this being done by our legislators
|02-17-2005 08:32 PM|
Don't you just love the way a lot of our legislators tell us they are concerned about fish and wildlife and then they go introduce legislation to remove protection of the rivers. I suppose they think fish can survive just fine without spawning grounds. Oh yeah, we must keep reminding ourselves that the fish are doing just fine and that dredging rivers, removing gravel from rivers, allowing river channels to be moved by heavy equipment, and "fortifying river banks" with dikes or rip-rap is actually good for fish.
|02-17-2005 03:21 PM|
I was hopeing that someone was going to notice that!
|02-17-2005 02:20 PM|
Notice the sponsors of this bill are also some of the most vocal legislative opponents to C&R on wild fish. I suppose they feel the fish stocks are so healthy they don't need any protections at all.
|02-17-2005 02:21 AM|
Here is another one
The more I get into it the worst it gets!!!
Sponsors: Representatives Buck, B. Sullivan, Kretz, DeBolt, Blake, Eickmeyer, Takko
HB 1346: Improving the efficiency and predictability of the hydraulic project approval program.
Natural Resources, Ecology & Parks Committee: Public Hearing & Possible Executive Session
• This bill contains provisions which would significantly reduce protection for fish habitat.
• Among other things, the bill would significantly reduce the jurisdiction of the Dept. of Fish and Wildlife to regulate projects which damage fish habitat.
|02-16-2005 08:40 PM|
I live along the Cosumnes river in Northern California and it too is designated a wild river, even given the moniiker "The last wild, undammed river in the state". With all of these alleged protections it didn't stop developments and even golf courses from going in and taking water directly from the river. In late summer you can walk for thousands of yards on dry riverbed. I've lived here 30 years and until a few years ago this was unheard of.
To where do we retreat next? Is there a river to make a home for yourself on in this day and age that will not be raped and pillaged from? I'm thinking not, sadly.
|02-16-2005 05:50 PM|
Working on that angle right now, talk with them this am
|02-16-2005 04:17 PM|
Are not the Skagit and Sauk designated wild and scenic rivers? And therefor protected from this kind of tampering? We need to get Friends of the River or Americam Rivers or one of those watchdog groups in on this.
|02-16-2005 03:00 PM|
HB 1118 Concerning the removal of gravel from waterways to reduce flooding.
Sponsors: Representatives Ericksen, DeBolt, Sump, Kristiansen, Holmquist, Roach, Newhouse, Pearson
HB 1354 Authorizing a pilot program for flood control.
Sponsors: Representatives Pearson, Kristiansen
Rep. KIRK PEARSON
Rep. DAN KRISTIANSEN
39th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT Both
Rep. RICHARD DEBOLT
20th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. BOB SUMP
7th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. JANÉA HOLMQUIST
13th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. DAN ROACH
31st LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. DANIEL NEWHOUSE
15th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Rep. DOUG ERICKSEN
42nd LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
|02-16-2005 01:45 PM|
One of the co-sponsors of the two bills represents Eastern Skagit County, Eastern Whatcom County, and Eastern Snohomish County. The rivers in the area he represents that regularly flood and move channels or erode rivers banks include the Skagit, Sauk, and Skykomish. This legislator (Kirk Pearson) lives in Monroe and is desireous of protecting a lot of development that has been done on flood plain around Monroe.
Like Brian mentioned, these two bills would allow removal of river gravel supposedly as a flood control measure (dredging river mouths etc.) and one would make the state and county governments move river channels, dike, or in some manner reinforce clay, sand, and gravel banks to "save property".
The fallacy is that a large flood is going to move river channels and parts of river banks anyway. Anybody who saw what the 95 flood did the rip rap on the Sauk knows that when a good flood comes, the river is going to move anyway. This will just provide folks with a false sense of security and encourage more development on the floodplain.
|02-16-2005 11:08 AM|
HB1118 and HB 1354
Are these, House Bill 1118 and 1354, state or federal bills? Would a Washington state bill be called AB 1118 and AB 1354?
I have a problem understanding how legislation can even be considered, let alone passed, when it is in conflict with existing law. To my way of thinking, legislators who vote for this kind of crap should be kicked out of office. I don't mean voted out come next election. I mean kicked out,,,,,impeached,,,,,whatever,,,,now. And the originators of this kind of crap should be hung! Or at the very least, kicked out of office and barrred from ever holding public office again!
Public servants, indeed. These bastards need to be held accountable.
|02-16-2005 01:32 AM|
Need some HELP guys/gals
Please call and E-Mail and send letters to your legislators and the governor's office to oppose HB1118 and HB 1354.
HB 1118 will give counties and diking districts the right to take gravel from streams with a WDFW hydraulics permit. Such gravel taking, even with a permit, is a major destroyer of fish habitat and of the riverine environment.
HB1354 would let counties to change river courses to save homes and force governments to come up with plans to save streamside homes even where homes should not be along such streams as the Sauk and the Skagit.
Political force for these bills stems from, among others, riverside owners along the Sauk, a U.S. Wild and Scenic River, where floods naturally and frequently chew up the river side. Some of these people last year at this time bulldozed the Sauk river bed, thereby destroying wild steelhead and endanger Chinook spawning areas, and bulldozing creeks that carry steelhead and salmon. A criminal investigation started, to be baffled by the refusal of anyone to testify who did the dirty work. Since them shoreline owners have organized to harass the investigating agencies and to find ways to let them do whatever they want to save their properties.
The Wild and Scenic River status became law in 1978. Many of the properties involved have developed since then.
There is likewise a big squawk coming from people living along the Skagit, who feel the government of some kind must stop erosion along their shorelines and in effect promise to pay for the losses.