Sweetwater and Loveland

Discussion in 'Freshwater' started by Everydog, May 17, 2020.

  1. Everydog

    SDFish VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Messages:
    836
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +1,533
    How to enforce social distancing. Just remove water.

    upload_2021-3-25_8-1-39.png
     
  2. Everydog

    SDFish VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Messages:
    836
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +1,533
    I really stirred up the pot. Looks like the limited role our partners in government at the USDA Department of forestry have embraced is public treasure giveaway facilitator. And yes, trying to be obscure to the public as they do it.
     
  3. Everydog

    SDFish VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Messages:
    836
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +1,533
    Someone accidently cc'd me an email. I found out that Issa and Anderson office did contact the Descanso Ranger, I
    I guess they were happy with his excuse that the grantee for the easement , which the USDA Department of Forestry is, has a limited role.

    Which government agencies doesn't have such a limited role in protecting public treasure? You would think Issa, Vargas, and Anderson would want to know?

    Limited role my ***, they didn't have a limited role in trading the land away...why cede the public benefits from that deal back for nothing ?
     
  4. Everydog

    SDFish VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Messages:
    836
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +1,533
    I requested more emails from SWA using the Brown Act.
    The Descanso Ranger and maybe other from the USDA dept of Forest had a meeting with SWA on March 12 to discuss their relationship and goals. I don't know if I can get the minutes from that meeting if it occurred.

    To his credit the Ranger, in a different meeting brought up my desire to have them give me "reasonable milestones' for opening the lake seven days a week.

    Gregory Kazmer. An assistant to Joel Anderson had a Very Clubby attitude towards SWA and a pretty dismissive one about us. I wrote him an email a minute ago. It seems like he is friends with the SWA Engineer he was working with.

    Here's what he got from the little man.

    Have Some Respect:

    Hi Greg,


    Seems like you were pretty clubby with Mike and have kind of a nasty attitude about working for Joe Public. Somehow that's not surprising. So does the Sweetwater Authority. You will get along fine. Wish I could say the same for the public in this kiss up kick down environment.

    Russell
     
    #284 Everydog, Mar 26, 2021
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2021
  5. Everydog

    SDFish VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Messages:
    836
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +1,533
    From what I could tell from the Emails the lake is only on a slippery slope.

    Getting good feed back from CA Senator Jones' office in El Cajon. I have some work to do for them. They can't go to bat too much really but their help will provide the right kind of drum beat. They want to help solve as many problems as they can.

    Why Don't we have similarly oriented people in Joel Anderson's office and especially , very especially Juan Vargas' office. Rhetorical question.
     
    #285 Everydog, Mar 26, 2021
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2021
  6. Everydog

    SDFish VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Messages:
    836
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +1,533
    Only four speakers last night . Everyone did great. There is no way to do this wrong. It would be good if we could get the numbers back up. PM with any question. You guys that are talking to us at the lake, or hearing the rumors, please PM one of us.

    One can listen to how the meeting goes here. Just the first few minutes will get you through the Pledge of Allegiance , and then public comments. Sometimes when our topic is on the agenda more happens. But this is good.

    https://www.sweetwater.org/DocumentCenter/View/2294/2021-03-24-SWA
     
  7. Everydog

    SDFish VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Messages:
    836
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +1,533
    All land contiguous to the Loveland Reservoir was transferred to the Sweetwater Authority from the Cleveland National Forest or Bureau of Land Management. . Here's some other reasons we are not a bunch of entitled fishermen and hikers and the public really matters on the lake property use. .

    I really doubt in all their lack of sympathy ( some have actual disdain for us), many of those SWA people have tried to remember this.

    I doubt the Descanso Ranger, or most of these money serving government officials we have tried to involve, has any notions like this running through his head either.

    I am guessing Juan Vargas and Joel Anderson would just like to keep their heads in the sand while the immoral/illegal taking and obstruction of our rights by the SWA taking continues.


    *We lost the right to do dispersed camping there.

    * A big part of north Jamul and Alpine became Landlocked from each other when there was a connection through these public lands before. Now that we have more people in both areas and it's growing the riding and hiking trails in both communities would have been developed, Kids could have asked for permits to build sick mountain bike trails.
    *We lost the ability to work with the government on public property to build parks, hiking trails , horse trails etc. now we have to deal with the greedy SWA if that is ever to happen. My guess is that the SWA would want to get rid of fishing, or make the public pay for fishing in exchange for these things now.

    *We lost the right to hunt, I am not kidding, People can pull tags and hunt right up to the CNF SWA boundaries, of course the hunting would be much better if in the public had rights on property lower down the hill , every single parcel that touches water was formerly Federal , or in other words our land.

    *There were even potentially mining claim staking opportunities, a bit silly now ,but when all the land swaps across our nation are considered the credit for these kinds of losses should be remembered in favor of the public. In fact in the documents I have gotten from the SWA , curtailing mining on the properties in questions was mentioned by our partners in government.

    *Maybe this is a reaching a little bit , but with current and possible future development, We will now possibly have to go through the SWA to connect north Jamul to an El Cajon/Alpine junction, probably around Sloan Canyon school. Imagine what we will pay for that in either treasure or political clout to the SWA.

    *In a sense , this is what they are cancelling when they take/give the easement protected rights away. This is of course rotten to the core. Giving away what public treasure we got is absolutely wrong.

    *The most important issue to go with this argument is that since the 1997 land swap we need more recreational rights not less, This is not only due to the rights and potential new use we lost with the land swap but also because of the obvious fact that the population and therefore the need and demand have grown tremendously. All land use people know this will continue to happen in the county including east county of San Diego.

    All levels of government have land use people , they work to secure new parks and other recreational amenities for the public. Letting this one be taken makes no sense at all. I know many of them basically work for
    developers and other large interests, but when our representatives and public servants are trading in public treasure which is inevitable in some cases , they must be very diligent. In this case this appears to be on track as a complete giveaway.
     
  8. Everydog

    SDFish VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Messages:
    836
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +1,533
    If anyone wonders why in the hell I would write and post such a long thing, it's because It also goes to the people in government who maybe should help and to some SWA people. Usually toned down insults , not always.
     
  9. Everydog

    SDFish VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Messages:
    836
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +1,533
    I am going to try to get into discussion directly with congressman Vargas' Land use staff for us.
     
  10. Everydog

    SDFish VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Messages:
    836
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +1,533
    I also made another request to have meeting with Juan Vargas' land use staff here.
    Request a Meeting
    I suspect that this will not be responded to despite the fact that I was very diligent in explaining the need.
     
  11. Everydog

    SDFish VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Messages:
    836
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +1,533
    Please email a thank you to one of CA Senator Jones' aides. She has been very patient and putting in significant time into helping us get answers to questions from the SWA , DFW, California Public utilities , The forest people, Juan Vargas' , Supervisor Anderson office.

    She has asked some of them to answer to her office and she will relate those answers back, and asked some of them to answer directly back to me.

    Lori Brown lori.brown@sen.ca.gov

    Director of Constituent Services for

    Senator Brian Jones

    (619) 596-3136

    (619) 596-3140 fax
     
    #291 Everydog, Mar 31, 2021
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2021
  12. Everydog

    SDFish VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Messages:
    836
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +1,533
    This what the Senator Jones' constituent services aide is sending out. A couple of us advocates made it based on counseling Ms. Brown gave us to formulate our concerns and desires as questions.


    Juan Vargas’ office:

    a. Will you acknowledge that the U.S. government was granted certain rights in favor of the public in a 1997 land swap exchange intended to run in perpetuity with the land transferred to the Sweetwater Authority?

    (See supporting documents: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1gnCqp8tmd2WbmAe5s2KL8y-gY2eIr3Xd?usp=sharing)

    b. Could you please send a strong message to the SWA to adhere to all stipulations of the public use easement immediately? (supporting document: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KqVFj9hYqQyUn2O_q0QTh998getngcYO/view?usp=sharing)

    c. Will you organize a meeting with constituent, Russell Walsh, and accountable staff from Congressman Vargas’ land use department to discuss the damage to and potential loss of public treasure granted to the U.S. government in 1997 in a Cleveland National Forest land swap exchange?

    d. Will you ask Karla Langham and Stephanie Allen, or their supervisors, to reopen Russell Walsh’s case with the USDA Dept of Forestry?

    e. Could you please provide your opinion on the validity of these requests and/or what action you have taken to represent your constituents on this matter?

    USDA Department of Forestry:

    a. Would you please fully explain why the USDA Dept of Forestry, as grantee of the easement, claims to have a “limited role” at Loveland such that it is difficult for forest managers to request compliance from Sweetwater Authority? (See supporting documents: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1gnCqp8tmd2WbmAe5s2KL8y-gY2eIr3Xd?usp=sharing)

    (Gillingham report – see page 65, sections 5.5,5.6, & 5.7)

    b. Would you participate, as forest managers and easement grantee, in meetings between the land use staff from Juan Vargas’ office and members of the public?

    c. Would you organize, and/or participate in meetings with the Sweetwater Authority and concerned members of the public?

    d. Will you send a strong message to the Sweetwater Authority advising them to restore and maintain all the requirements of the easement, and those that are defined at the lake kiosk, flyers on the Cleveland National Forest website, and flyers that were recently removed from the Sweetwater Authority website, until this lake dispute has been fully vetted with a democratic process and accountability for all parties?

    https://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/cleveland/recreation/fishing/?cid=stelprdb5275770&width=full

    https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5275773.pdf

    https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5275774.pdf



    e. Will you acknowledge that the Gillingham report’s discussion on omitting the fishing program entirely and draining the lake to 1150-acre feet is incompatible with the SWA agreement to provide a fishing program legally established via the easement granted to USDA Dept of Forestry in 1997? (See supporting document: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KG7IThsYLZd1XIkTDRHe4vN0IElgRBsL/view?usp=sharing)

    f. Will you acknowledge that the SWA’s attempts to sell quantities of water that leave the reservoir below historical emergency levels and too low to support the fishery are incompatible with the agreement they have with the U.S. via the easement granted to USDA Dept of Forestry in 1997?

    CA DFW and other appropriate agencies:

    a. Can you describe any environmental issues related to the opening of large amounts of shoreline at Loveland Reservoir needed to give public access to fishable shoreline at current low-water levels?

    b. Will CA investigate what can be done to protect the fishery and wildlife environment from Sweetwater Authority plans to drain the lake to 1150-acre feet or any level that isn’t compatible with past and current public fishing program set asides. (See supporting documents: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KG7IThsYLZd1XIkTDRHe4vN0IElgRBsL/view?usp=sharing

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zxqD8GzA4_3vZ-jGIKOtL4_1ucCcrjZW/view?usp=sharing


    c. Will State Senator Jones ask the DFW to abstain from citing legally licensed citizens for being at Loveland reservoir for easement protected activities during easement* protected hours?

    (DFW should not help the Sweetwater Authority obstruct our rights. Of course, we support enforcement of all other California regulations.)

    *easement granted in favor of U.S. citizens: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KqVFj9hYqQyUn2O_q0QTh998getngcYO/view?usp=sharing

    d. Will State Health Agencies advise the Sweetwater Authority to open the lake in accordance with the easement and expand the recently removed shoreline and incorporate the full operating schedule of sunrise to sunset for implementation of best public health practices for outdoor recreation in our communities?


    County Supervisor Anderson:

    a. Could you collaborate with colleagues on the County Board of Supervisors and other county officials to advocate for protecting public access for hiking, fishing and birdwatching at Loveland Reservoir?

    b. Would you advise the Sheriff of San Diego County that land use issues conforming to the easement between lake users and the Sweetwater Authority are a civil matter and that citizens should neither be harassed nor cited for usage which abides by the easement, specifically sunrise to sunset 7 days a week excepting some holidays? (easement granted to U.S. citizens: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KqVFj9hYqQyUn2O_q0QTh998getngcYO/view?usp=sharing)

    c. Initiate formal mediation on behalf of the region to attempt to make our communities whole with regards to the lake amenity and

    d. Would you take legal action against the USDA Department of Forestry or other responsible party and the Sweetwater Authority if the public is not made whole in accordance with the existing fishing program and public access at Loveland Reservoir?

    e. Will County Health Agencies advise the Sweetwater Authority to open the lake in accordance with the easement and expand the recently removed shoreline and incorporate the full operating schedule of sunrise to sunset for implementation of best public health practices for outdoor recreation in our communities?


    Sweetwater Authority: Please elaborate on your position in your responses.

    a. Will you comply with all stipulations of the easement until this lake dispute has been fully vetted with a democratic process, legal proceedings if necessary, and accountability from all parties?

    b. Will you return the operation of the lake to 7 days a week from sunrise to sunset and increase the amount of available shoreline such that it is between 3.6 and 5 miles?

    c. Can you describe any environmental issues related to the opening of large amounts of shoreline at Loveland Reservoir needed to give public access to fishable shoreline at current low-water levels?

    d. Will you make available additional vehicular access from Sequan Truck Trail for other-abled and elderly citizens at least until water levels until water levels are compatible with the fishing program as required by the easement and the kiosk at the lake and the flyers on the Cleveland National Forest website and recently removed from the Sweetwater Authority website?

    e. Will you maintain all the requirements of the easement as written and commit to the fishing program as described in the kiosk and website documents described above, until this lake dispute has been fully vetted with a democratic process and accountability for all parties? (We understand that the water level is currently so low that you cannot meet your obligations, and that is why we are asking for additional accommodations such as extended shoreline and more reasonable access for elderly and other-abled citizens.)

    f. Will you temporarily open access on the south side (Jamul) as a concession for making the fishable area too far from the parking lot on Japatul Road?

    California Public Utilities Commission

    Could you make it a requirement for Sweetwater Authority to have board members that represent the impacted communities of Alpine, El Cajon and Jamul? SWA has purchased more land and expanded operations in Jamul. They also plan to add a sand mining operation at Loveland Reservoir. These impacts merit representation for our communities. Our communities do not feel represented historically by the existing board structure.
     
  13. Everydog

    SDFish VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Messages:
    836
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +1,533
    My understanding is that the Descanso ranger had a private meeting about the lake and fishing program. I have requested documents on that meeting from the SWA and am asking to government to do the following.


    Dear Forest Managers,

    As a concerned member of the public I would like to be allowed to know specifics about your goals and direction in your agencies current negotiations with the Sweetwater Authority on our easement protected public access and fishing program agreements at Loveland reservoir.

    Please provide access to agendas and minutes for meetings already held on this topic and for meetings going forward.




    Very Respectfully,
    Volunteer Public Advocate.
     
  14. Everydog

    SDFish VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Messages:
    836
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +1,533
    Fishing is not on the SWA board meeting agenda and not one improvement has been made at the excessively drained lake and there are no signs of any that I can find. Nothing, but these things take time and effort if they are to improve.

    Some of us will submit comments for the board meeting anyway. Focusing on the easement stipulation of fishing from sunrise to sunset seven days a week and expanded shoreline and whatever anyone else wants to do.


    Easy to fill form for submittals here: A nice person from the SWA will read the comments, That's all there is to it.

    Sweetwater Authority, CA

    Please specify 6:00 PM April 24, 2021 for the meeting field.
     
  15. Everydog

    SDFish VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Messages:
    836
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +1,533
  16. Everydog

    SDFish VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Messages:
    836
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +1,533
    It looks like there will be news coverage of the Loveland fishing program situation. I don't want to say more on that because I am not in control there, but there has been activity in that direction.
     
  17. Werfless

    Werfless The Coach ..RIP my friends
    SDFish VIP

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2016
    Messages:
    23,183
    Trophy Points:
    370
    Location:
    The County
    Ratings:
    +56,722
    Name:
    D/Daniel/Coach/Werf
    Boat:
    One too many
    Sounds like a step in the right direction..
     
  18. Everydog

    SDFish VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Messages:
    836
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +1,533
    In the meantime, just a moment ago actually, the Federal Government, USDA Department of Forestry, has officially put the advocates very deep in a hole with a formal statement on the issues at Loveland Reservoir that puts the Sweetwater Authority completely in the drivers seat. No proof of any partner in government's respect of public treasure lost over the decades and in the current and future period at all.
     
  19. Everydog

    SDFish VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Messages:
    836
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +1,533
    The official government statement. Big favors for the Sweetwater Authority at the very least.
    No required water levels,
    No required shoreline
    Constructively Means no liabilities for the SWA anymore whatsoever.

    Meet Google Drive – One place for all your files
     
  20. Everydog

    SDFish VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Messages:
    836
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +1,533
    Sent this letter to Vargas' and a similar one to Anderson,
    They should stop the forest people from entering any binding agreements with the SWA based on the Descanso Rangers current understanding and stance on things.
    Unfortunately even without new agreements the government continues to hurt the public by doling out free passes to the SWA by sending them the same misguided messages that they are sending the public advocates.




    Dear Congressman Vargas' Staff,,

    The USDA Department of Forestry has recently issued an official statement with regards to their position on the issues we have raised about the operation of and threats to the continued existence of Loveland Reservoir .

    The explanations given for the government stance are misguided, legally weak and lazy, illogical and// or non relevant.

    I know it will be hard to interpret potential destruction of this lake from this document, which I am attaching, but if Mr. Vargas' office would hear me out, it is a straight forward matter.

    My California Senator's office has sent Mr. Vargas' office some questions from me that were aimed at restoring pubic use rights and heading of the possible , or even likely destruction or the amenity at Loveland.

    I have not heard back on those items. I have also submitted request for time with Land Use professionals on Mr. Vargas' Staff and those have gone unanswered/

    For the time being , I am pleading with Mr. Vargas' office to help with blocking The USDA Department of Forestry's ability to enter into any new binding agreements with the SWA.

    I will be attempting to accomplish this by any legal means possible . I would love to have your office assist with public representation.

    Your office will be kept appraised of these efforts and concerns.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads - Sweetwater Loveland Forum Date
Sweetwater and Loveland closed due to fire risk Freshwater Dec 9, 2017
High water Sweetwater!!! Freshwater Reports Feb 1, 2021
For Sale Sweetwater Pontoons now in Stock!!! Boats & Boat Accessories for Sale/Wanted/Trade Dec 5, 2020
Sweetwater 2/22 Freshwater Reports Feb 23, 2020
Sweetwater 03-30 Freshwater Reports Mar 30, 2019

Share This Page