HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01191993 - 1.42 y
MT. DIABLO AUDUBON SOCIETY
P.O. BOX 53
WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 94596
r
3 3 January 1993
RECEIVED
son
LCLERKBOARDOFS_j
5199Mee
UPGreetings:RE:Wetland Ordinance et aiRAc
It is the general view of knowledgable, enlightened individuals that our
remaining wetlands are vital, natural components of the bio diversity that
has been a part of our world for centuries. Remaining wetlands are vital to
humans, birds, animals, fish etc.
With such thoughts in mind we offer the following comments and
suggestions in an effort to develop, promptly an adequate county wetland
ordinance to "back-up" the wetland elements of the General Plan.
The public and many decision makers have an understanding of the import
of wetlands. Our view, which we believe is shared by all who understand
the issues: the County has a responsibility-to ensure existing wetlands are
not destroyed, or used for purposes inimical to their value as habitat, etc.
To that end County decision makers and personnel must have adequate
powers to deal with all facets of .the various issues that enter the wetland
issue debate.
Some members of the current Task Farce have indicated displeasure with
any proposed wetland regulation by the County. This, on the basis "such
would be an added layer of bureaucracy" ergo another problem for those
who might wish to make use of some wetland area.
It is not our purpose to create additional burdens. To that end we suggest
in this age of computers it should be possible to create a permit system
that would accomplish several things at once. We would suggest, that
apart from the creation and implementation of adequate County regulation
there be a separate committee and/or process whose purpose would be to
develop a comprehensive permit system for the County. We would believe
those who would be interested in reducing regulation -provide funding so
the County could undertake necessary work, study and action to try to
implement such a process. G) Printed on 100%RecydedPaper
We have indicated as clearly as possible that we have NO interest in
merely creating MORE regulations, We have also asserted by letter and
orally, it is not our desire to create problems for agricultural (or like
activity) people. We believe Section 444f of the Olean Water Act already
exempts certain types of activity from wetland regulation.
However, we do not believe it will be possible to propose major landuse
changes that may well involve present or former wetlands without having
to comply with County regulations and/or US Army Corps of Engineer
scrutiny as well as possible EPA action.
We are willing to try to develop a consensus wetland ordinace. However
any such ordinance must have meaning, be subject to stern review by
County forces and/or'bthers. It must also be the intent of the ordinance
that county wetland areas will NOT be diminished.
Lastly, there has been discussion about the County assuming major
responsibilites, ober and beyond those involved in the proposed wetland
ordinace and General Plan. We are willing to explore such ideas. We
believe such an effort should NOT deter or delay creation and
implimentation of the proposed county Wetland Ordinance>
Respe ully,
A. B. McN ney
Vice President-Conserv ti Fn
cc :Conservation Committee