Rod Jones: I am strongly inclined toward endorsing PUMI after the election and when I have a chance to study it more completely. As you know, I have been consistently troubled by the aggressive program of CAMP and COMMET that invades privacy and property rights in one fell swoop. These programs seem to operate as a tail wags the dog. If money is there, we say yes. Little reflection goes into purpose, design or scope. I would not summarily rule out all programs, as large-scale commercial growing operations carry risks and dangers. We all know of the homicides that have occurred. And I would not act without thorough consultation with Tony Craver. But this is plainly not high on my agenda, given the other needs for limited law enforcement budgets.
Patti Campbell: Prefer COMMET versus CAMP. I respect the law, but want the most local control over the program.
Richard Shoemaker: To the degree that enforcement occurs on private lands on which people have trespassed on or through to cultivate. Also when public lands are used as an access or growing place.
BH: Yes.
RJ: Unfortunately, we are somewhat pre-empted by state law in this regard. This lesson was learned some years ago in a spirited effort by Mendocino County, only to have it overturned by court order. On the other hand, we can learn from what Arcata has done. There is much room for leadership, especially in the important symbolic area and with regard to what the County does on its lands. I am in favor of such iniatives that place the County in a clear position and allow it to "lead" rather than be "led." I should add that, although your questionnaire did not ask, we can provide such positive leadership in the area of local campaign election reform. We don't always have to wait for others to act first!
PC: As currently done through our ag commissioner at local level.
RS: Yes
BH: I am interested in an ordinance to regulate vineyard development and would like to see that happen. I feel that expansion of the vineyard cover in the county is a problem and I would like to see some curtailment; however, it will be hard to get something through that tells farmers what they can or cannot plant on their land. I would certainly like to see regulations on development, including limitations on habitat destruction, air pollutants - dust and pesticides, - planting on slopes (no averaging). There should also, be requirements for berming and channeling to avoid soil runoff into streams.
RJ: Sonoma County's recent experience should be a clarion call for immediate policy-making in our County. Regulations are necessary. These must extend to oak protection as well. I cannot tell you precisely what regulations without further study.
PC: I support sound environmental practices in all industries.
RS: Vineyard development should occur in a manner that does not decrease oak woodland areas and fish habitat. It also should be done in a manner that will not degrade fish habitat.
Degree of expansion; On land that is currently zoned for agricultural use.
Appropriate regulations; Grading, stream setbacks and woodland protection.
BH: Growth is a basic issue for Mendocino County and we can expect it to happen. While we do need more housing, I think we need to take a hard look at how and where that happens. For one thing, we should retain land in ag classification with some minor exceptions - small areas for clinics, fire protection facilities, other emergency facilities- not to include conversion to residential. If there is to be growth, I would prefer to see more density in the urban areas rather than any kind of suburban sprawl.
RJ: As I think you know, I am very supportive of maintaining and preserving open land. Why are we just now looking at updating the General Plan? Why hasn't that been on our radar scope for revision immediately after passing it? I favor moving to bioregional planning, coupled with inducements for lowered housing by way of co-housing development. I am concerned generally about sprawl, a la Windsor and northern Sonoma County, and the de facto conversion of timberlands into subdivisions. We have not yet addressed the threat posed by certificates of compliance. I could go on and on in this area.
PC: Not much different than we have now. Infill first.
RS: Agricultural operations should be allowed to have worker housing on site. Rural development should be kept to a minimum unless directly related to an agricultural operation. Urban development should be in the urban core with higher densities when possible.
BH: While the BOS has little say about logging practices, I feel that they should keep constant pressure on the Board of Forestry concerning changes in logging practices that will lead to minimal environmental destruction. I support special forest practice rules for the County, but the history on that issue doesn't lead to optimism.
RJ: You've asked a number of very complicated issues that have no simple solutions or sound-byte answers. Please consider my reply here along with question No. 7 below.
It is clear that the promised SYP's [sustained yield plan] that were used by BOF [Board of Forestry] to turn back the County's effort for local regulations are in the wastebasket and supplanted by Option A and C. This is unsatisfactory. So, too, are the vague representations of MRC [Mendocino Redwood Company] about sustained yield harvesting and the utter silence of Campbell Group. This topic needs immediate resurrection. I strongly believe Mendocino should remain a timber-producing economy but not at unsustainable levels. So the issue is how we get assurances that this happens. Local rules may remain our best solution.
PC: Strong county voice, but not local rules. Regional is better approach.
RS: I have little interest in fighting that battle again. In regard to logging effects on streams and rivers I think the county should be an advocate for better practices and regulations.
BH: Unfortunately, we appear to be locked into a situation in which Sonoma County has rights to the lion's share of water from Lake Mendocino. The BOS should ensure that any other water resources
developed remain here in the County. On the diversion, while my preference would be to cut it off and allow the Eel to flow in something more closely resembling its natural course, I don't, think that is politically feasible, given the dependence that has developed over time on that water. Raising of the dam has some promising aspects, but given the existence of a fault beneath the lake, we should approach that project with some caution. We could retrofit the dam, but that would be an expensive proposition. Again, my preference would be to return all rivers to their natural flow, which would mean taking the dam down, but I do not see that happening. I think Steiner's bypass plan has merit but that too would be expensive. We are going to need more water as our population grows. I would suggest looking into possibilities for underground sources and for catch basin construction.
RJ: Very complicated, almost insoluble problem. I'm initially impressed with some of the ideas propounded by Park Steiner, but am a far, far way from saying I can weigh in on one solution over another. We will be dealt some cards by agency regulation. Are we effectively engaged at a grassroots level, organizing diverse community interests to try to talk out alternatives, or simply busy beating the drums about fear of federal regulation? The latter, I believe. We need to rapidly shift gears and engage. I find the prospect of more dams to be the least desirable and most short-sighted "solution" to water problems.
PC: These questions are far too complex , too far away from any conclusion to make a statement at this time.
RS: We should be very careful in our relationship with Sonoma County. Their own self interest and clout should worry us. This is evidenced by their operations at the dam.
Eel to Russian River diversion; This county should have bought in early to the original 15% reduction plan. Now who knows what will happen.
Lake Mendocino/Coyote Dam; should it be raised? Possibly. Taken down? No. Park Steiner's model? Let's seriously look at it. It, coupled with raising and a pipe back to P.V. has the potential to reconnect some of the finest steelhead habitat, restore more natural gravel migration, reduce scouring and replace Eel River water.
BH: Money for salmon restoration work should go for salmon restoration work.
RJ: Money for salmon means money for salmon. It does not mean simply chip-sealing county roads so that the county budget is relieved. It means a coherent program that recognizes the harm done by unpaved roads, blown culverts and erosion on hillsides. It means taking displaced timber workers and others and providing employment in coherent restoration efforts.
PC: In every manner identified by salmon restoration working group.
RS: Hopefully the money will come in two pools. One for private and one for public work. Habitat restoration, migration barrier removal and sedimentation reduction projects are some of the work I would like to see done.
BH: See LOGGING PRACTICES, above.
RJ: Please see response No. 4 above.
PC: See No. 4
RS: It brought it on itself. It needs to be restored at a level that eliminates boom and bust cycles. We should push the state to enforce the existing rules for the protection of the resource, not the protection of the owners.
BH: No circumstances would justify oil drilling off the coast.
RJ: I cannot envision any such circumstances.
PC: None
RS: None
BH: Public Health should come down on the side of choice in the matter of abortion. I support expansion of birth control education and expanded access to birth control for youth and adults alike. I fully support needle exchange, condom distribution and anything else anybody can think of to stop the spread of HIV.
RJ: Yes as to all three subparts of your question. Time to move from the dark ages. BOS can
lead rather than follow (for a change). Our money needs to go into our future. That means an emphasis on kids, prenatal care, "at risk" juvenile intervention, and programs addressing drug and alcohol prevention (rather than enhanced punishments).
PC: Should be women's right to choose. Already working on the others and I support.
RS: Right to choose; I'm not familiar how this issue relates to county policy. The county does participate in planned parenthood activities.
Expanding access to birth control/information to youth; The county's policy is to cooperate with schools and offer education and materials.
The needle exchange program; Support the change in federal legislation. Continue the support of existing programs.
BH: The only control the BOS' has over the Sheriff and the District Attorney is the- power of the purse. I would support suggesting to the Sheriff that the Board would consider adding funds to his budget for a domestic violence prevention program if he comes up with one that deals directly with the issue and with officer attitudes toward the issue. That program should include clear guidelines for officers with assurance that it will be applied across the board equally.
RJ: Again, punishing offenders after the violence may be necessary but doesn't sufficiently address the underlying problem. County programs of sound intervention are essential, such as the Alternative to Violence Classes, etc.
PC: Influence is political and financial.
RS: Very little other than cooperate when specific programs are offered that require county staff or funding.
BH: As a former Grand Jury member, I have been disappointed that the BOS has, in the past, viewed the Grand Jury as an adversary, rather than as an ally in correcting problems in the County system.
RJ: Far too defensive and unresponsive generally. Why do we still not have a grading ordinance? Enough 5-county studying, time to get it off the shelf and act.
PC: Both could be better
RS: I think they do important work. Their reports and responses are mixed from adequate to poor.
BH: My leadership style is collaborative. I feel that persons or communities affected by what I do, or by what the Board of Supervisors does should be fully informed and, where possible, fully involved in making those decisions. ' Information on issues under consideration should be available to all concerned and there should be no surprises.
RJ: Advocacy of interests in a context of negotiation and consensus-building. I believe, as did Abe Lincoln, that litigation is far less effective than mediation and settlement. On the other hand, advocacy means speaking and acting on behalf of one's constituents. It is an essential component of leadership, the other being "vision" and articulation of goals and objectives. I believe my public interest work on behalf of grassroots groups demonstrates the efficacy of my style of leadership. (References available.)
PC: Collaborative. It works to get consensus for better decisions for the larger good of the community.
RS: I attempt to be inclusive and make the county forum available to as many people as possible. I try to stay informed and share that information. I got the board to start policy setting sessions that need revising and implementation. I am assertive at times aggressive.
Copyright Mendocino Environmental Center 2000
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is cited