Merced River Stakeholders protest letter to EMRCD grant proposal
BETTENCOURT FAMILY PROPERTY
TELEPHONE 209/358-9400; FAX 209/812-1818
11570 Shaffer Road, Winton CA 95388
e-mail: pferrigno@elite.net
June 2, 2007
State of California
Department of Water Resources
Division of Planning and Local Assistance
DWR Watershed Program
P. O. Box 948236
Sacramento, CA 94236-001
Re: CalFed Grant Application: Lower Merced River Watershed Management Plan
To Whom It May Concern:
We are property owners and farmers on the Merced River; we farm 815 acres which is contiguous to the River. We have lived in this community since 1852 and we have been active in the Merced River Stakeholders group since its inception in 1998-1999. As a family we have supported many activities of the stakeholders group; in 2001 we hosted 100 VIP guests of the Wild on Watershed tour for a luncheon along our river.
The Merced River Stakeholders group was formed as a part of the initial project to design a Merced River Corridor Restoration plan. There have been lots of meetings (5-12 per year) which we have faithfully attended to help align the interests of the property owners and the agencies/other interested stakeholders; generally, at least three members of the family attend every meeting.
In 2000, we formed a group of property owners which we have kept informed of issues as they developed; when necessary we could muster a large group to attend meetings. Members of this group are our friends and neighbors; many of these friendships span several generations.
Our reason for giving you this history is to illustrate our commitment to the Merced River watershed; and, to establish our credentials and standing to comment on the above-referenced grant.
We oppose the grant for the following reasons:
1. There is little grassroots support for this project: Appropriate process was not followed in allowing the stakeholders to review or comment on the subject/scope of the project. We are in the Snelling MAC district but we were not even notified of the meeting, if one was held, at which the endorsement of this grant was awarded;
2. There is little chance that the grant applicants will be able to accomplish their stated objectives: 98% of the property in the lower Merced River watershed is privately owned; at least 85% of the property is owned by stakeholders who will allow no access to their land for purposes of executing this grant; and,
3. This grant will destroy the existing cooperation among property owners, agencies, and other stakeholders because it totally violates the trust which we have fought to build.
The methodology for accomplishing the work product of this grant is seriously flawed; the grant writers propose a series of work groups (ten) which will meet only twice in a three year period. A rational person will immediately understand that the role of each work group will be to rubberstamp the activities of staff, who will “gather and synthesize extensive existing information”. No qualifications are given as to the education or experience of those tasked with performing the work of the grant; Stillwater Sciences has a role in the project but will not be performing the day-to-day work.
The above-referenced grant was submitted by EMRCD staff (one of whom is the facilitator for the Merced River Stakeholders group); this group chose not to follow the agreed-upon protocol allowing review by the Merced River Stakeholders before presenting any proposal which affects the watershed (this particular betrayal by the MRS facilitator is very troublesome). There was no opportunity for discussion of the concept before the initial submission; there has been no input or cross-cultivation of ideas among the many stakeholders who should be represented in this effort.
The first that the Stakeholders group knew of the grant request was when the concept proposal was approved in principle by CalFed, at which time we were informed that our input was invited but the concept could not be changed substantively without compromising the potential success of the final grant product.
Despite our specific requests, we still have not received a copy of the final rendition of this grant, making it quite difficult to comment on a point-by-point basis or to know the particulars of the grant, e.g., assigned project number, etc.
It appears from the information we have received that one of the goals of CalFed in the awarding of these grants is to “ensure the long-term sustainability of watershed management”; another goal is to “develop a plan to address recreational opportunities”.
We can assure you that neither goal has any chance to be accomplished by excluding the property owners from the planning and execution of this project.
We want a voice in determining the future of the Merced River watershed; it is unfair to expect us to sit by and let our destiny be determined by professional grant writers with the goal of using this project to fund their own salaries for the next three years. They will then move on to the next project which promises acceptable remuneration leaving us to deal with the consequences of whatever planning they have done.
At the request of the review committee we will make a personal appearance before the committee to discuss this situation and/or present additional written information.
We urge the committee to not fund this grant; in this time of scarce resources every dollar needs to be spent wisely and judiciously on projects which will protect and foster stewardship on the Merced River.
Sincerely,
/s/ by Gladys Barbara Bettencourt
Patricia Bettencourt Ferrigno
Michael D. Bettencourt
Nancy Bettencourt Deavours
Lorrie Bettencourt McDowell
Sharon Bettencourt Dragovich
cc: Deidre Kelsey, Supervisor District 4, Merced County
Diana Westmoreland-Pedrozo, Merced County Farm Bureau
John Garamendi, Lieutenant Governor, State of California
Dennis Cardoza, Congressional District 18
Jeff Denham, Senatorial District 17