HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1.c - John Stonebraker - FW_ comment re_ 3.1.c Five-MileFrom:Clerk of the Board
To:BOS
Cc:Nuzum, Danielle; Pack, Joshua
Subject:Public Comment - FW: comment re: 3.1.c Five-Mile
Date:Tuesday, March 25, 2025 7:54:39 AM
Please see public comment below.
-----Original Message-----
From: John S. <john@upperridge.info>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 7:29 AM
To: Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net>
Subject: comment re: 3.1.c Five-Mile
.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening
attachments, clicking on links, or replying..
I would like to express my own strong support for a state budget amendment to remediate the sedimentation within
Five-Mile Basin for which the state is largely to blame. And also express my concern with the repurposing of
AB1000 into a blanket CEQA exemption for this specific project.
On January 28, I advocated for beginning the environmental study of the sediment removal/flood hazard mitigation
project as soon as possible, even before funding for implementation was secured. On February 25, I advocated in
favor of the proposed budget amendment to commence the environmental phase and design. On March 18,
circumstances aligned so I was crossing Big Chico Creek to notice how high and muddy the water was within
Bidwell Park. Perhaps more so than I'd anticipated, though it's difficult to quantify without a study.
What I do not want is a cost-cutting contract that leads to unnecessary harm downstream. The belated removal of
decades of sediment within Five-Mile Basin will inevitably have environmental repercussions of its own, some of
which can and should be mitigated to become Less Than Significant. That's what CEQA should be used for. There
are already exemptions within PRC 21080(b) including emergency repairs, projects to restore facilities damaged by
a declared disaster, and specific actions necessary to mitigate or prevent an emergency. It should not be necessary to
hijack an unrelated bill already referred to the Natural Resources committee to add 21080.65 just for the Five-Mile
remediation.
But perhaps CEQA has been corrupted so badly that this is the best, not just simplest, way.
It would be nice if the state, rather than CSA 24, could pay for the design phase of this critical project including best
practices to mitigate undesirable consequences of Five-Mile sediment removal.
Department of Fish and Wildlife may already have some ideas they'd like to incorporate. Overriding considerations
demand that the project proceed regardless. But we should not have to invoke this nuclear option.
John Stonebraker
Magalia, CA