TOWN HALL MEETING
1:00 PM SATURDAY, NOV. 19, 2005
WINTERS HIGH SCHOOL GYM
101 Grant Avenue
Saturday, November 19 at 1:00 PM is the key to the future of Lake Berryessa. There will be a Town Meeting and open discussion about Lake Berryessa hosted by the town of Winters. We suggest you be there no later that 12:30 PM. The High School Gym is located just north of Hwy. 128 and County Road 89/Railroad Ave. intersection - the only traffic light in town. Task Force 7 volunteers will be there to hand out special stick on badges. Seating will be on bleachers. While the FEIS is unyielding in its determination to remove all long term sites from the lake, only the Record of Decision will define the final plan - and it has not yet been written! You can have an impact on the outcome!
The City of Winters, which will be drastically affected by the BOR proposal, has received the support of Congressman Richard Pombo, Chairman of the House Resources Committee, for a Congressional Town Hall Meeting to address the concerns of Winters and the Lake Berryessa community regarding the shortcomings of the plan and the flawed process that created it. Winters is a main access point for Lake Berryessa and would be severely economically damaged by the BOR Plan.
The Mayor of Winters will chair the meeting which will include a panel of stakeholders asking pointed questions of the BOR followed by a period for members of the public to ask questions.
Chairman Pombo's staff members will attend this meeting. They, and other public officials, will also make a visit to the lake prior to the meeting, in order to be more knowledgeable about the various issues.
Since this Town Hall Meeting is also an official meeting of the City Council of Winters, be respectful and be polite. But be sincere and be forceful. A sign-up sheet will be available for those who wish to ask questions. Do not expect to be allowed to make long statements. You will probably only have about a minute to ask your question. Ask questions that affect you personally. Ask questions based on your principles. Ask questions based on your experience.
At meetings like this the Mayor or moderator will request that questions not be redundant for the sake of time to allow everyone to be heard. It is not important how many times the same question is asked, but how the subject of the question impacts the outcome. Think about your question. Write it down and read it, rather than making it up as you go. A series of potential questions is given at the end of this message as food for thought.
You all know the story. See Linda Frazier's letter below for a great description of the issues. The Bureau of Reclamation has released its Final EIS for Lake Berryessa. It was a rousing disappointment. It continues to promote Alternative B in which all mobile homes will be removed and the resorts completely demolished and rebuilt. It will cost taxpayers huge sums of money to replace services that already exist built with private money.
It ignored all the opposing public comments, economic analyses, and common sense proposals that were made during the last two years. NONE of the positive economic proposals nor common-sense plans - such as Alternative A+ and the Resort Operators Plan - presented by a broad range of community stakeholders - were incorporated.
************************************************** **************************************
Dear Winters Businessmen and Residents,
On Saturday, November 19, you have an opportunity to participate in a critical democratic process. Please join us in a meeting at 1pm at the high school gym where along with the Winters City Council, you may ask some hard questions of the United States Bureau of Reclamation.
The Bureau is not in Winters willingly - They were literally ordered here by the Department of the Interior after our council members dared to question whether the latest federal agency proposals would negatively impact our community.
And what of this plan - the Bureau of Reclamation's Alternative B - it recommends ripping out most of the current improvements that belong to the business people that own and operate them. Alternative B demands that 1300 long term sites be eliminated even though in many instances these sites are not in conflict with short term use. It categorizes the water surface area in such a way that if followed, motorized boating on Lake Berryessa will most certainly be reduced and it arbitrarily determines what activities will be offered at each resort with no economic reasons for making these business decisions.
So, how does this really affect the City of Winters? Does it really matter what happens at the lake? Is it worth a Saturday afternoon to come and try to talk to more bureaucrats? Let me give you an example - My husband and I have been at Markley Cove for nearly eighteen years. After years of hard work Markley has become a thriving business serving 15,000 launch customers a year. Ninety nine per cent of these customers come through Winters on the way to or from the lake. They stop and purchase gasoline at the Chevron or Pisani's. They pick up groceries at Town and Country, supplies at Berryessa Sporting Goods or a meal at Tomat's or Roundtable Pizza. These are not strangers that will come once a year. They come week after week so they know what Winters has to offer and they make their plans to stop in town.
The current Bureau proposal states Markley Cove will be the Lake Berryessa Houseboat Rental Center. To quote the Bureau, it (Markley) would include some rental boat slips, fuel sales and launch activities to the extent that the houseboat operation has space available for its needs - end of quote. Markley is a very small area - I can tell you it does not have space for a rental houseboat operation, boat slips and the current launch activities. The loss of 15,000 customers that stop in Winters on a regular basis to spend their money will most definitely impact the Winters economy.
This scenario is being repeated at every resort. The Bureau is choosing to bulldoze assets and demand a new business plan based on unproven expectations. Their own economic analysis states the lake businesses should try to attract the “more affluent” customer base that goes to Napa to taste wine. Does this make sense? Are Napa's customers going to come to the lake - are they somehow more desirable than the boaters and fishermen that come to the lake through Winters?
Let me refer to an Economic Analysis done by Adam B. Summers, M.A. and Michael R. Summers, Ph.D. that reviews the Bureau's preferred proposal (Alternative B). This analysis clearly states that Reclamation has largely ignored significant risks that have a direct bearing on the feasibility of their proposal. The costs of removing facilities or compensating concessionaires for their investments in such facilities are assumed away…Costs that could easily total tens of millions of dollars. Also ignored is how Reclamation plans to pay for other proposed improvements such as trails, visitor centers, etc. Given that it is highly unlikely there will be any significant increase in congressional appropriations for the management of Lake Berryessa, where does Reclamation propose to get money to fund these improvements?
It becomes clear that the Bureau of Reclamation Alternative is not feasible. There can be no economic justification for removing the current facilities or creating new unproven business plans that jeopardize current use and replace it with some pie in the sky ideas.
As Summers and Summers conclude, the inescapable conclusion is that Reclamation's real reasons for its proposal are non economic. They appear to be based on special interest groups and ideological whims. They seem to be meeting the needs of environmentalists that want hiking and kayaking while ignoring the skiers, fishermen and families that having been “coming to the lake” for years.
Rather than pitting these long-term and short term users against one another, Reclamation should celebrate the fact that Berryessa can accommodate all types of visitors and activities. Rather than destroy a business that is thriving and serving its customers well, it should look for an area that needs and wants a houseboat rental center or a hotel or whatever and work with the business person to incorporate that need into a feasible plan.
Yes, Lake Berryessa is a vast beautiful area with seven small resorts that have served the public well over the past forty years. These resorts cover approximately 12 miles of the 170 miles of shoreline. The Bureau of Reclamation can take what is at Berryessa and build upon it to make it better or it can wantonly attack the resorts trampling property rights and ignoring years of service to the public.
The Bureau can respect the current users such as Markley's boating customers while it encourages new customers by working with the resorts to make improvements and develop new facilities or it can ignore our current customers and suggest that other customers are somehow better or more desirable.
The Bureau of Reclamation can be a catalyst for positive change or it can cause the breakdown of the entire area and create an economic disaster for the city of Winters along with it.
At Markley Cove, we have attempted to work with the Bureau for eighteen years. We have survived droughts and recessions. We have made significant financial and emotional investments. Our resort is not perfect, there is room for improvement but we have certainly tried to serve our customers well and we have paid for everything we've done out of our own pocket. The other resort owners are in the same situation. We have made these investments, yet it seems like we are the enemy and the special interest groups have the Bureau eating out of their hand. The saddest part of our entire business history at Lake Berryessa is that after eighteen years we can not trust the Bureau to do the right thing for us as business people, for you as a customer or for the city of Winters that relies on the sales revenue generated from the lake customers.
I do know that on this Saturday the Bureau of Reclamation has to face your city council and answer their questions. I also know there will be congressional staff from Washington D.C. observing this exchange and trying to determine for themselves whether the Bureau is giving straight answers or whether it is more smoke and mirrors.
Hopefully, you will take the time to come and see for yourself,
Linda Frazier, Markley Cove Resort
************************************************** *********
Sample Questions
The reasonable private use of public land for a fee is a long-standing American principle, especially when that use supports the common good and provides additional revenue for operations that could not otherwise be funded. Why does the BOR believe that this benefit should only be given to private corporations (which are legal fictions acting as private citizens) and not real private citizens?
Why did the BOR not complete all the elements of the 1993 ROD, especially the 50 miles of trails, and what guarantee do we have that they can implement any new plan, especially one that is so economically questionable?
Why is the sewage issue always raised when long-term data shows, and Reclamation acknowledges, that there are no significant water quality problems attributable to the concessions or long-term sites?
Why did the BOR not hold formal scoping sessions under NEPA, but only informational meetings that were billed as “not a formal meeting”?
Why can't the BOR provide an empirical analysis showing the actual demand for services, by type of recreational category? How does the BOR justify using questionable visitation numbers that swing wildly by plus or minus 300,000 visitors per year to make any sensible predictions of visitation needs?
Why can't the BOR provide an identified revenue stream to support all operational costs of the services necessary to provide for the health, safety, and use needs of the public?
One characteristic of the success of the present lake model in meeting citizens needs is the historical integrated diversity of the lake community with its wide socio-economic spectrum of users. Historically, there have always been long-term sites in a wide price range available to any qualified person. Anyone may become a long-term site homeowner for approximately the same cost as a modest RV. Why is the BOR discriminating against a single class of lake users - the extended stay visitors?
Why does the Bureau of Reclamation have a policy that is directly contradictory to another major federal agency, the USFS which allows long-term use as a policy: 15,570 recreation residences occupy National Forest System lands throughout the country, 6,314 are in the Pacific Southwest region (California)?
Why is the BOR unable to manage concession contracts professionally?
Why does the BOR appear to strongly support only plans based on special interest groups and ideological whims? They seem to be meeting the needs of environmentalists that want hiking and kayaking while ignoring the skiers, fishermen and families that having been “coming to the lake” for years.
Given that it is highly unlikely there will be any significant increase in congressional appropriations for the management of Lake Berryessa, where does Reclamation propose to get money to fund many elements of their plan?
Why is BOR is discriminating against the long term users, especially when there is plenty of short term use available and more which can be developed?
The BOR plan requires intensive short-term use during the summer season to be profitable. Why has the BOR not considered assisting in providing the public with facilities and services on lands outside the resorts?
What is the BOR's written economic justification for removing the current facilities and creating new unproven business plans that jeopardize current use and replace it with some pie in the sky ideas?
Why has the BOR refused to allow resorts to increase the number of campsites in the past?
What serious practical reason prevents the BOR from developing an additional small amount of shoreline for short-term users, a new boat ramp for example?
Why has the BOR ignored the Summers & Summers report?
Why has the BOR ignored the Resort Operators Plan?
Why does the BOR support the discredited Dornbusch report?