San Geronimo Valley residents dispute county salmon plan

SGV property owners should sue SPAWN for taking the use of their property.

Dear IJ, Thank you for reporting on a situation in our valley that could severely impact the lives of the people who live on and/or own 892 out of 2000 parcels affected by the SEP document in the San Geronimo Valley.
I believe you have a typo in your 2nd paragraph. Either that or you totally misunderstood what the people were saying. The word in question is "even". It should read "but not" or something to that effect.

Here's how it should read - Many of the S.G. residents who filled the Lagunitas Middle School gym to bursting Thursday night said they like the idea of a plan that protects native coho salmon, BUT NOT if it means placing restrictions on building or renovating homes along the shores of Lagunitas Creek.

I would say that of the 350 - 400 people that packed the room (40 people were outside the building at the 4 entrances) maybe 15 were active SPAWN supporters. We all take pride in our fish, so I can't say that anyone is against the fish. The problem we are having is more about what the county wants us to do about it - will their measures really bring back the fish or will it cost millions of dollars, loss of property values (who wants to buy a lot next to a creek if you can't improve it and for already developed lots, who wants to be restricted about what you can and cannot do on property you are paying a huge mortgage on and paying exorbitant taxes on?) and cause a lot of stress for the homeowners and not bring back the fish?
I'm especially concerned about the elderly people who live on fixed incomes who may have been counting on their property to support them for the rest of their lives. But also concerning is that everyone who is in the "zone" will be unduly stressed out by this if any of it were to become ordinances.
We do have a problem here though, and that is the salmon population is dwindling (0 in fact last season). What I have heard that has been proposed is VOLUNTARY actions to take place after we have been educated. I think there should be seminars on how to take care of our land, and then let us VOLUNTARILY correct the situations on our properties. I believe we all think we are doing the right thing, but some of us may be misguided and we could all use some education about how we can do better.- Laura

For anyone who would "question whether the county's plan would do as good a job protecting the creek as San Geronimo residents themselves," one need only look at the trajectory of the fish numbers and the science behind the recommendations. And I mean look into it, honestly, rather than just listen to or repeat some obviously conflicted land owner with false (or at best unsupported) but convenient claims, such as it's the ocean conditions that are limiting population.

I find the idea that the residents themselves can take care of this extremely ironic when one sees the indignant, disproportionate reaction elicited by a few minor, voluntary recommendations. Sure, there are some well-intentioned and capable people who would put their efforts behind this (including those who already are, eg SPAWN and their volunteers.) But then there is also a fair amount of the normal cynicism, apathy, and selfishness that you find anywhere (seasoned with a sprinkling of private-property, librarian fanaticism). But people for the most part are busy and spend their finite resources elsewhere. Leaving it to chance is what we’ve been doing so far, and it’s not working.

Laura, I am not sure if you count yourself as one who is in favor of the plan but NOT IF it places restrictions on building and renovations. But I mean that's like saying, I will act to help unless it inconveniences or costs me anything. No offense intended. What if it's the case that traditional habits around the creek just do contribute to the fish's demise? Because if you read the reports, that's the way it is.

Also Laura, you may have read in the artivel that the recommended measures are known to work. Or at least confidently expected to work. When you say what if we do this and that and it causes a lot fo stress and it doesn't bring them back?...well one thing is sure to NOT bring them back, and that's business as usual.

About stress, I understand it's worrying people, but honestly I am not sure why there is all this reaction based on perceived drop in property value. How come this is not viewed as PRESERVING property values?

Property values: for one thing, no doubt they will go down if the fish are gone and the streams are eroded and polluted. For another thing, isn't a parcel in a rural setting MORE valuable if you know that your neighbor cannot build near the creek? I am not sure about this, but you may find that people shouting the loudest are those with plans to do new delveopment and this makes life difficult. But if that's whose complaining, that's not the same as people growing old and worrying about retirement, etc. Maybe I'm missing something...

Are the Salmon not coming up the creek because houses are too close to the creek? What about Foreign offshore gillnets, creek otters, birds,dams,drought, and poor ocean conditions. If the buildings near the creek disrupt the Salmon, why is the creek so full of trout and steelhead. By the way, what do you think trout and steelhead eat?
Not even 20 years of "non profit" SPAWN suing Marin County taxpayers, with there $20 million in the bank have helped the Salmon. There are less now than before SPAWN was here.

You may not know this, but litigation is really a last resort in any civil process, one SPAWN does not take lightly and has only ever done once over violations of CEQA for a 4,500-ft house being built 20-ft from the edge of a stream on a parcel that could not be developed for decades prior.

One only pursues legal action AFTER one has exhausted administrative remedies. That being said, SPAWN has been testifying at public hearings for nearly ten years now about the cumulative impacts of land-use policies on endangered salmon, which is required to be assessed under California’s Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)…. A law in place to protect people and the environment for all future generations.

While we did not litigate on the CWP it is worth point out that litigation is a principal mechanism through which legislation is enforced in this country. Litigation was and continues to be essential to the implementation of virtually all important legislation, from civil rights, voting rights, the right to privacy, and the rights for a healthy environment. This is not some "evil" scheme, but rather a process to ensure rule of law is followed... so this generation preserves the rights of future generations.

We also believe Valley residents want to do the right thing, which is why most of the work SPAWN does is to bring resources to the watershed to help landowners fix streambanks, repair dirt roads, reforest, install rainwater harvesting. Big issue is while taxpayers across the Nation invest in projects here, what do we do about the continuous habitat destruction taking place? How do voluntary programs tackle that?

It is really important that people actually read and understand the SEP and not rely on radical interpretations of what is really a very modest set of recommendations being made to the BOS.

p.s. Laura, I think you really underestimate our supporters in the room last night. I received many comments this morning from people shocked at the flavor of comments made on behalf of creekdwellers last night and thanking SPAWN for thoughtful, respectful and non-inflammatory comments.

This is, should not be a blaming game. It is a process to forge a plan to guide us forward as community to help the salmon and our streams, which we believe are a reflection of the health of our community overall.

Many of the San Geronimo residents who filled the Lagunitas Middle School gym to bursting Thursday night said they like the idea of a plan that protects native coho salmon, even if it means placing restrictions on building or renovating homes along the shores of Lagunitas Creek.
I strongly disagree with with the above statement, the home owners did not
like the idea of a plan that places restrictions on building and renovation homes. Protecting the salmon is a great idea, but not and I repeat not
at the expense of the home owners.
Rick Seramin

The water (or lack of) is the major cause of the problem. Why doesn't Marin Water build a water aqua Duct to the foot of White's hill and release water into San Geronimo Creek allowing the spawning of the Salmon during low water years. This would be a major relief for the Salmon returning to the creek. MMWD should become part of the solution.

Rick Seramin wrote:

The water (or lack of) is the major cause of the problem. Why doesn't Marin Water build a water aqua Duct to the foot of White's hill and release water into San Geronimo Creek allowing the spawning of the Salmon during low water years. This would be a major relief for the Salmon returning to the creek. MMWD should become part of the solution.

MMWD does a lot of work out here. Who pays for this water duct? MMWD users, i.e. us!

The best long-term strategy for improving flows is to not allow harmful well diversions (there are well operating up in Woodacre and pumps in the creek that leave the creeks dry every summer)+ to replenish groundwater sources (depletion is a result of changing hydrology due to development, i.e. impervious surfaces/stormdrain systems). I highly recommend you read the Existing Conditions Report and SEP for good background on all of this.

Coho,

the independent, scientific studies that preceded and fed into the SEP address your questions, including the role of creek side conditions. I’m just guessing that you won’t read them, so I’ll tell you that they conclude creek side conditions matter. That is, after all, why the recommendations were made. Now you don’t have to agree, and you don’t have to like it, but I hope no one reading your post mistakes it for an informed opinion.

Furthermore, regarding SPAWN, wow, you have it all wrong. First, they have been around 10 years, not 20. Second, I very much doubt you have any idea of their financial situation. Third, in those 10 years they have sued the county (not the taxpayers) exactly once, and that was for not enforcing the law. And last, one could almost get the idea from your last sentence that you are implying SPAWNs work is actually hurting the fish, rather than slowing their decline against steep odds. Now if that’s the case, I invite you to clarify that and offer up your reasoning.

I think the second paragraph of your article contained an error. The consensus of the majority of the speakers was that they wanted to protect the salmon, but not with the unrealistic restrictions on building and renovations, with a raparian buffer zone of 35 foot set back from the creek, and a final goal goal of 100 foot setback.

I attended the packed meeting at Lagunitas School last night and don't know how anybody who was actually there could have possibly come away with the idea that Valley residents support placing restrictions on building or renovating homes along the shores of Lagunitas Creek. I thought the residents who attended made themselves VERY clear on that!

The lack of salmon from here to Alaska is caused by the same problem which is simply that there is not enough water in the creeks (for various reasons). Fish NEED water!

NO water, NO fish.

I'd like to think the community can work this out in a manner that meets the looming challenges of climate change and a badly needed basic restructuring of government services. Valid concerns about property rights and values are predicated on assumptions about future economic conditions that may no longer be functional given the challenges of our time.

SPAWN has shown great leadership in integrating water supply, education and fisheries protections into a grass roots movement that has national acclaim. But if the salmon go extinct you have to ask "who's next?" Small communities offer the best chance to meet the need for change, with or without government institutions.

Members of the community need to take full stock of their impacts and responsibilities as well as their basic property rights. The issues, collectively and individually, are compelling and they are immediate.

Ken in fairfax wrote:

Also Laura, you may have read in the artivel that the recommended measures are known to work. Or at least confidently expected to work. When you say what if we do this and that and it causes a lot fo stress and it doesn't bring them back?...well one thing is sure to NOT bring them back, and that's business as usual.
About stress, I understand it's worrying people, but honestly I am not sure why there is all this reaction based on perceived drop in property value. How come this is not viewed as PRESERVING property values?

Are you a land owner?

Rick Seramin wrote:

The water (or lack of) is the major cause of the problem. Why doesn't Marin Water build a water aqua Duct to the foot of White's hill and release water into San Geronimo Creek allowing the spawning of the Salmon during low water years. This would be a major relief for the Salmon returning to the creek. MMWD should become part of the solution.

That sounds great!

Laura wrote:

<quoted text>That sounds great!

Sorry, not that simple. Not only quantity, but also quality, temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and most importantly timing and rate of flow. Sooner or later, in one form or another, whatever you put on the ground or into your septic tank will impact not just the fish, but the ecology that supports them. Part of turning this process around is having consumers realize that what they use and how they use it impacts the entire food chain, globally and locally.

Enter the relatively new term "environmental health." This concept encompasses the entire food chain (and we are part of it), and it concerns human epidemics as well as extinct wildlife. Marin and the Bay Area are noteworthy for high rates of breast and prostate cancer, to name but a few. See any connections?

Sonoma County water users are in a crisis state due to mismanagement of the Russian River resources. It is clear that there are major conflicts between human demand for water and what the fish need to survive. In the summer, fish need low flows, humans need a lot. The RR fishery is nearly extinct as a result. And three years of drought have made things worst for everyone. BTW, the Russian supplies a lot of Marin's water.

Right now we are in a lose-lose scenario. Climate change is not in the future, it is happening now at an increasing rate.

OK. Don't believe me. Just pay your taxes, vote and sit back and watch it all unfold.

Paola - it is obvious that you are not from the San Geronimo Valley, Marin County or California. Since 2004 SPAWN's work has helped diminish the salmon population from 120 to zero. Can you speak as a SGV property owner? Do you own property or have any concepts of property rights? Most creek dweller's homes were constructed well before your birth. Salmon were abundent before and after thier construction. Many residents will suffer from your young "save the world" attitude. Show some respect for the SGV long time residents.

We loved the salmon in our creeks and their demise is not based on our actions.

The salmon were plentiful prior to outsiders' good intentions.

The salmon will return without SPAWN's interfernce. Focus on the real issues such as global warming.

Huh? The second paragraph slants the event in a totally inaccurate and misleading manner. There was almost unanimous oppostion to the plan, not to mention to the process by which it has been created and the way it might have been implemented had the community and its affected homrowners not exploded with fervor and determination to stop it. This shoud be retracted and rewritten!