Santa Clarita Land Grab . . . . 70,000 ACRES!

All,
You are going to see more and more of these.
Congressman Bill Knight a Republican no doubt that represents Santa Clarita has proposed Bill HR 3153 that would transform the St. Francis Dam disaster (a dam that collapsed 87 years ago) into a National Memorial. But it also happens that it would also declare 69,812 acres of land from the dam site in Saugus to Castaic as a wilderness area. As a wilderness area, naturally a mechanical aperatus of any kind to include your bicycle would be banned from this area.

The online Santa Clarita Signal posted an article about the proposal here: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.signalscv.com/section/36/article/140680/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.signalscv.com/section/36/article/140680/</a>

Both AKAKTM and I (and several other locals have posted comments on that article on the Signal. I encourage everyone to register for free and do the same. I don't ask much of any of you, you are my extended family... but I am asking you as a brother to assist with something we hold so dear (land to ride our bikes on) to participate. This is Mikie's back yard and I need your help...
I copied and pasted what I wrote on the Signal below. Thanks in advance!
Mikie

Posted: August 4, 2015
7:27 p.m.

I certainly can appreciate the passion that Mr. Knight has for his Bill. Who wouldn't for adding a National Memorial to their efforts. I would like to add that there are a large number of law abiding, tax paying, wilderness pass obtaining, Amercian voters who do not feel that same passion for this BILL as it stands. I believe that special interest groups who have worked this mode of operation for years have convinced Mr. Knight that a Wilderness addition of 70,000 acres was a smart thing to do. I agree strongly that we should be good stewards of our natural resources.

At a rapid rate, all across the United States coalitions of zealot conservationists' are working the same agenda, so we need to be careful as to the planning of such Wilderness Acts. As the owner of imtbtrails a local recreational cycling organization of over 650 members, I represent a very large body of people that oppose the Bill as it stands, as common sense would dictate.

There is no doubt that a Memorial is long over due, however coupled with an additional SEVENTY THOUSAND ACRES of LAND permanently handcuffed from current users and future generations in close proximity to the community that has used a large portion of this to excersize, hike, spend time with there families, and participate in many outdoor activities is exessive to an extreme.

This is a Bill I must boldly state needs amendments to be agreeable, not only to just the people of the Santa Clarita Valley, but to all of its outlying neighboring communities and visitors that are drawn to this area as well, that support the local communities with their patronage.

There can be no acception to a meeting of comprimise otherwise it would place Mr. Knight in a public position of making unilateral deciions that does not reflect the will of ALL the people who he represents.

As the Representative of this community Mr. Knight it is imperative that this Bill as it stands does not go through as is.

I sincerely appreciate the hard work you do and look forward to our meeting Mr. Knight, and I appreciate the fact that we still have the freedom and opportunity to voice our opinions...

 

And I reiterate here...Knight alone is pretty much irrelevant. All of the other congresscritters must have the fear of the voter put into them. Contact your own congresscritter and let them know you (and they must) oppose this...not the designation of a memorial at the dam site, but the designation as wilderness. Here's what I wrote to my own Honoranble Congresscritter Ed Royce:

"I most adamantly request that you oppose HR 3153, introduced by Representative Knight, which would impose a wilderness designation on areas currently open to hiking, equestrian, and mountain biking. It is imperative that we lose no more land to the opportunities of improving our health and enjoyment of lands which we, local Californians, deserve to enjoy.

I am an avid mountain biker, and am disgusted with the perennial removal of public lands from the enjoyment of mountain bikers. Please help us prevent the removal of even more land from our preferred pastime, which not only improves health but has the added benefit of volunteer maintenance and improvement of local trails.

Mountain bikers can be your strongest ally in preserving the national forests in California, but only if they are included in the recreational opportunities allowed on OUR public lands.

Please oppose HR 3153 as introduced, and amend it to exclude wilderness designation. The mountain biking population of southern California (and there are many of us) will greatly appreciate your support."

This is how you defeat this stuff... Knight is probably bought and paid for.

 

^^^Well Said^^^

 

Just another small point to add:

70,000 acres is just a mind boggling amount of land- for those of us who spend time out there, or for those of us who worked on very large farms as kids... :roll: Unfortunately, the vast majority of the voters who recreate on the couch with the iPad have zero concept how much that actually is, and it's just a number on the paper for them.

Pardon my one handed typing! This injury is getting old quickly... :evil:

 

Thank you Mikie and thank you IMTBTRAILS!

 

I wrote Rohrabacher. Here is what I said:

Hello Congressman! (real name) here. I am the principal at XXXXXXX whom you met last June when you visited us. Thank you for doing that. Our students appreciate it. I am writing on a personal matter. I am asking you to oppose HR 3153 (Knight) that would designate nearly 70,000 acres up in the Santa Clarita Valley as Wilderness area. I am an avid mountain biker, and as such, I am opposed to shutting down huge amounts of public lands to this form of recreation. As a surfer, I know you would oppose any bill that prevented access to hundreds of miles of coastal access to get to the waves that you enjoyed so much. Mt. Biking is also non motorized recreation - much like surfing - that creates stewardship among its participants. It is surfers who actively seek to protect the quality of water in the oceans, and it is mountain bikers along with hikers and other non-motorized users who will seek to take great care of our natural resources. I have no objection to the national monument part of this bill, but the elimination of access to public lands for Southern Californians to enjoy detracts greatly from the reasons we all choose to live here. Thank you very much for reading and for considering the point of view of recreational enthusiasts like yourself who enjoy California's awesome natural resources, weather and climate.

Of course, Rohrabacher thinks climate change is the biggest hoax of our generation, and he would close shoreline in a heartbeat to placate corporate interests, and he would oppose most of the legislation that surfers would propose to limit pollution and keep water and air clean, and he probably chanted "drill baby drill" alongside Sarah Palin a few years ago, but hey, he's my Congressman, so I have to try. He is/was a surfer, so maybe that angle will help. I would think he would oppose wilderness designation because of the jeep, motorcycle and corporate interests who want to use the land for their less environmentally friendly land usage desires. In a strange way, that works.

 

If you feel like you have to shower after contacting your congresscritter, then you probably used the correct approach.

 

In this case, is there even a lot of quality trails and recreation that's supporting local economies? If not, what's so bad about it becoming wilderness? This just seems to be selfish thinking. If you think I'm being a defeatist, I'm not, I'm just all in on getting mtbs allowed in wilderness areas. Maybe the Idaho wilderness area might be the first to make a concession, especially if the businesses over there feel compelled to leave, like Deity Components, Progressive Cycle, and whoever else is up there. They know mtb is popular over there and wilderness excludes them, and IMBA has been lobbying to protect the mtb access to trails there.

I would be careful with wording it. I'd say that I'm all for land conservation, but that the wilderness designation would exclude access to mtb and I am not happy about that. If you word it like some of the others here, saying you are opposed to the bill, you basically make yourself an enemy. And when there's an enemy that poses a threat, people tend to unite to fight it. Don't make yourself an enemy. These guys looking to conserve the land are not enemies. I'd love to see land where nature flourishes, but I can't see using my bike sadly, unless the wilderness laws exempts human powered bikes. If you show some class, rather than behave in a way in which you are considered scum and need to wash yourself afterwards, maybe we might make some progress.

Who would buy out a congressmen that locks out all development, resource extraction, etc.? Definitely not the guys out to rape the land to swell their accounts. Conservationists? What money do they have? Don't jump to conclusions and start defaming them with such claims. At a quick glance, I don't see anything questionable where he's voting for greed over the greater population's well-being. See what he voted for here: <a class="postlink" href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/steve_knight/412614" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://www.govtrack.us/congress/member ... ght/412614</a>

 

Yes, they are the enemy. Removing land from recreational enjoyment is antithetical to conserving it. If we can't go there, we won't care.

 

Are you referring to me? Are you saying I did not show class and behaved in a way in which I am considered scum? Are you suggesting my letter just did more harm than good? I hope not. The letter is benign and honest, and makes an attempt at connecting with the Congressman in a similar and mutual interest. Please tell me the sentence I quoted was not aimed at me.

 

I'm purty sure it as aimed at my comment about showering and effective connection with the congresscritter.

 

Scum to those who are for land conservation. You can make a lot of enemies this way, and you might just be labeled by them as allies of the industrialists and developers that want a shot at the land. They can jump to conclusions just as easily as some of the other guys here, even though that's not true in anyway. There's a conservancy group there headed up by a hiker that supports the bill and going against the bill would no doubt create tension between them and bikers. Are you saying they are locked out from hiking it, yet they are for the bill? You can suggest an alternative, like making it a National Protection Area or something, rather than starting out by stating you are against it and saying you belong to the mtb community.

Anyways, it's not a longshot at all to get mtbs into specific wilderness areas. Wheelchairs are allowed in there, so it's not really a ban against all things mechanized. Get it conserved, let nature thrive, then enjoy it when mtbs are allowed, IMO. CORBA seems to be the IMBA chapter overlooking the SCV, and they're watching conservation bills being passed, and noting the special rules regarding mechanized vehicles. Some bills mention that mechanized vehicles are allowed on specifically marked trails. It's a misconception to think that all wilderness areas exclude bikes... seems some people think it locks out other forms of recreation too.

Here's the bill, in case you haven't read it: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3153/text

A quick Ctrl-F on "access" showed that accessibility is being considered with the community hiking club (see link above, and contact Dianne Erskine-Hellrigel, who is president of the conservancy group and the hiking club) and some state land management departments advising on the specific rules, as well as vandalism and and theft of artifacts. Read a bit more and find no details, just mentions that the details will be ironed out with input from the public and certain reputable groups. Don't start overreacting yet and turn this into some drama. Gather facts and use them to help them make a wiser decision, rather than being emotional. Maybe they don't know the wilderness bill was interpreted to ban bikes. The least we can do is show up to those public hearings, regarding land use management and planning, in decent numbers.

 

Protecting wilderness lands these days means neglect it. Due to lack of forestry management let it burn to the ground. Wonder how many billions of dollars we lost in standing timber the past decade of wildfires in our forests. In fact we have spent billions fighting fires that never should have been so large...if we managed our forests the fires could have been contained faster.

Dean

 

I am VERY HAPPY that this thread is getting this activity. This is good stuff!

Varaxis,
Selfish thinking is making any area a wilderness area if it does not need to be. If there is one trail that goes through that area and it is used by a hiker, mountain biker, or an equestrian even on occasion is wrong. It reminds me of the eminent domain BS used to buy up houses to put in a freeway for the greater good. Many lives were damaged by that! Designate it as Wilderness B so we can still use the trail. Now that is compromise.

We discuss our political leaders as scum (at times) because they ARE SCUM at times. Rarely do political figures come out of office . . . . broke. Why is that? Mostly because they are brokering deals that line their pockets, not necessarily decisions that are good for the people they serve. This I know to be true. EXAMPLE: Rapid Transit Train in California just "happened" to go to Diane Feinstein's husband? That should be a conflict of interest and potentially insider trading! But another great topic to get fired up on later... :lol:

Any conservationist that drives for wilderness with the motive of removing cycling has a unilateral agenda unfavorable in my eyes. Why remove cycling? Impact studies that are not bias show that cycling does not have a significant impact on wilderness. All that do, have been from claimed "independent" studies funded by conservation groups... hmmm... I'm just not that naïve...

I don't believe anyone is oppose to the Bill for the memorial, other than the Wilderness Grab. You may be a bit out of touch if you do not know and understand it to be true that there is an agenda by "conservationist" that they want all cycling on pavement.
All the letters I have read to the Congressmen so far are an appeal to specifics within the Bill as oppose to a demand to eliminate the Bill. There is no ongoing "cash cow" to any zealot conservationist for converting land to wilderness. Why does it have to be about money?

I think that herzalot's submittal nails an ideology that the congressman could relate to. That was herz's goal and I believe it was a grand approach.
Removing access to existing trails is our concern. Creating Wilderness areas that have potential future to excellent trails, is our concern. Conservation has to make sense to ALL parties. There is a lot of Wilderness now. Why more??? Why not Wilderness B?

Bringing in the element of potential revenue loss to local businesses is an added incentive to Congressman and the voters that are business owners that hold them in office. Just saying I want my trails is ALWAYS not enough.
For example take Fruita Colorado. That town states very clearly that the revenue generated by the off road cyclist has saved that town. Saved that Town! Now bring in conservationist that think they have discovered a Green Irish Toad and the potential that Mountain Biking and off road has to threaten it's existence whether true or not and propose a Wilderness Land Grab around the surrounding Town of Fruita and you have a viable revenue loss. That's a extreme example to make a point but true of any area that has an array of visitors to any given area that support the locals through various activities to include mountain biking.

varaxis, as well. I know you always have good intensions as a poster on the Forum. You may want to re-read your thoughts at times to make sure you are wording it so that it construes exactly what you are trying to say. I was left with the impression as well that you may have been suggesting there was scum on the site and I know that you are an articulate writer so I know that was not your intention...
Thanks Man!

 

Varaxis, I am in the SCV area and work often with all of the user groups here frequently. I can tell you from first-hand knowledge that hiking leaders and many influential equestrian users do not want us on some (many of) the trails and they aren't shy about this. Much of the land being sought for Wilderness does not qualify as Wilderness (according to biologists) and from direct personal observation. Don't assume that bikes will be allowed. By default, bikes and mechanized equipment of all sorts are banned from Wilderness areas. We need to assume that if this land goes to Wilderness, bikes will not be allowed.

On a broader note, I still oppose designating this huge chunk of land (almost twice the size of the SCV) as Wilderness. Almost all of this land has been elevated to BCNM protection--one of the highest levels of protection afforded public land. What's important about the BCNM designation is that it still provides for management and control by local forest managers working with you, me and local municipalities to determine what's best for the land and people. Once designated as a federal Wilderness, we have little influence and all management decisions/uses for the land require an act of Congress and the signature of a President. There's already about 300,000 acres of land plus the SOT (6 times the size of the SCV) to the East and West of the SCV that strictly prohibit any bicycle use and restrict any development or even new recreational uses.

This land North of town/Castaic is the area we'd like to develop when Tapia becomes developed. We are working with the city, county and developers to preserve as much land as possible in the Tapia area, but as population grows and our sport grows, we need more, not less opportunities. Make no mistakes, the activists Wilderness types are aligned against the MTB community and will take all the land possible and exclude MTB use forever. We need to be respectful and cordial, but be prepared to advocate and fight for our rights. We will work with Knight and the Wilderness advocates and I expect try to come to some compromise that works for all. In the mean time, we need to generally support protection of land, but oppose new Wilderness.

 

I can only find major wildfires incidents in forests that are not considered wilderness, but are actively managed and a majority of the fires were caused by people, as opposed to lightning or some other natural source. Take a look yourself:

http://inciweb.nwcg.gov/state/5/
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewe...e=embed&ie=UTF8&mid=zp8nK_5H0MFQ.kzTmU5XK-qJQ

See if it's wilderness with this: http://www.wilderness.net/map.cfm?x...47.5679&xmax=-12704362.5444&ymax=5161307.7659

It is a cheap option to protect the land, as the idea is to let nature take over. They're still managed, but they require less since there's less people people in there, and therefore less demand for it.

AKAKTM, good information. That is the kind of fact based knowledge we need, and need more of.

 

Just so nobody thinks I'm making this stuff up, below is the language of the 1964 Wilderness Act with respect to prohibited uses:

"PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES
(c) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport (including bicycles), and no structure or installation within any such area."

The parenthetical statement is mine and it's been ruled as such by the courts. Bicycles are specifically to be prohibited in Wilderness as the are considered mechanized. Likewise, wheelbarrows and chain saws are prohibited. Anytime land is designated as Wilderness, cyclists lose and as such, we should generally oppose Wilderness, but make clear that we support appropriate protections for land.

 

I was just contacted by THE SIGNAL and was asked if I would be interested in getting interviewed regarding the article:

Hello,

This is Luke Money from The Signal. I am working on a story regarding the local opposition to Congressman Steve Knight’s proposed Castaic Wilderness area and I noticed that you had commented with your thoughts on my most recent article on the topic.

I was wondering if it would be possible to interview you for my story, or for you to put me in touch with any like-minded people who would be willing to share their thoughts with me. Ideally, I would like to interview people tomorrow so I can get the story in this weekend’s edition.

I can be reached by phone, 661-287-5525, if you would care to give me a call. Feel free to pass around my number to anyone you think would be willing to talk with me on this matter.

Cheers,
Luke Money
City hall, politics and education reporter
luke@signalscv.com

 

Oh crap! I just discovered that I am not in Representative Ed Royce's district anymore. I am actually, by just about 1 block, in the Honorable Loretta Sanchez's district. She will pay no attention to what I say, but I have forwarded my previously noted comments to Rep Royce anyway.

Dang.

 

Very cool Mikie, talk to them if you have the time.

It is true there are not a lot of existing trails in the area that this bill proposes as Wilderness. In fact there are only a couple I know of - Fish Canyon Trail and Burnt Peak Trail, which are in the Fish Canyon-Salt Creek Unit. These trails see little use from any user group and are all but impassible to my knowledge beyond a certain point from the bottom. They could be resurrected though, which would make them a key connector for bikes from Castaic Lake up to Liebre Mountain and open up some long distance biking options in the area. More importantly, this bill would prohibit bike access to any trails built in the area, forever. Given the fast growing population in SCV, the need for MTB trails will only grow. Furthermore, Wilderness designation generally prohibits the construction of any new trails thus it will force an ever-growing base of users from all groups onto a fixed number of trails.

I am very interesting in long distance MTB options, so I commented on the SoCal National Forest Land Management plan update process last year for the Cleveland and Angeles National Forests. When the Forest Service ultimately proposed Wilderness designation that would limit access to trails I filed objections for each forest and was able to attend a resolution meeting with the #2 guy at the Forest Service (Pacific Region) plus the head guy for each forest. In the Angeles NF the Forest Service had initially proposed to create a bike-legal corridor along Fish Canyon and Burnt Peak Trails that would preserve bike access to these trails. In their final decision they decided such a language-based exemption would create "too much Wilderness boundary" which they would have to manage, and opted to remove the corridor and make the whole area Wilderness.

Steve Messer from CORBA attended the objection meeting with me, and he made some great points which resonated with the Forest Service officials. In particular he described the difference between "front country" trails, and "backcountry" trails and pointed out that those who desire the raw and primitive experience of backcountry trails are severely lacking access to that type of trail due to restrictions such as Wilderness designation and prohibition of bikes on SOT. And we are continuously losing more access due to never-ending designation of new Wilderness. Hence that is why we requested the two trails be exempted from Wilderness.

In the end the Forest Service decided not to reverse their prior decision. They opted to maintain the full Wilderness designation including both trails subject to our objection. However, they made a key concession. With the acknowledgement that neither trail receives singificant MTB traffic they concluded that allowing continued MTB access to these trails would not impair the Wilderness characteristics of the area. This is important because, as they pointed out and stated, designating the area as Recommended Wilderness does not automatically prohibit bikes. Such a ban must be done by issuing a Forest Order. The agreement that we came to with the Forest Service in that meeting is that they would designate the entire area as Recommended Wilderness, but they would not issue a Forest Order banning bikes from the trails. This would allow for continued MTB use while allowing the USFS to manage the area to preserve wilderness characteristics. A major factor in their decision to not exempt the trails from Wilderness in the management plan is the idea that the plan means nothing when Congress eventually gets around to making a Wilderness Bill. Congress can add, subtract, or do anything they want regardless of what provisions we could win in the management; it is up to us as a user group to lobby Congress to win any concessions we want in a Wilderness bill. And that brings us to where we are today.....


If you are able to write in comments, here are a few key points you can make:

- despite a massive fast-growing population nearby, bikes will be permanently banned from a huge area of Angeles National Forest

- Wilderness designation will eliminate a key connection and possible long-distance biking routes between Castaic Lake Recreation Area and Liebre Mountain

- if designated Wilderness Fish Canyon Trail and Burnt Peak Trail will likely disappear due to lack of use; USFS does not have funds to maintain them and neither trail leads to a destination hikers and equestrians will want to access

- all of the units contain major firebreaks which should make them ineligible for Wilderness designation; these can easily be seen on satellite imagery:

Red Mtn Unit: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.5884323,-118.4948029,1948m/data=!3m1!1e3

Fish Creek Unit, old road / firebreak is even labelled “Forest Rte 7N13.1” https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6696661,-118.5475298,1225m/data=!3m1!1e3
Tule Unit: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.625698,-118.5075742,213m/data=!3m1!1e3
Elderberry Unit: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6019434,-118.6168849,1853m/data=!3m1!1e3

- other types of land protection exist which could permanently protect land while preserving MTB access (current backcountry-non motorized actually does this well)

Two solutions exist you can recommend:

1) remove Wlderness proposal from the bill; there are other ways to protect the land which will not ban a major user group
2) add to the bill a language-based exemption for Fish Canyon and Burnt Peak Trails; this will allow Wilderness to proceed while maintaining MTB access

A precedent has been set for grandfathering an existing use even in HR 3153 because this bill exempts grazing from Wilderness designation. Precedent has also been set in other areas such as Rancho Cuyumaca State Park where they agreed to create a multi-use corridor around two trails located in State Wilderness (link - Page 4-73, Item 8, Final General Plan and EIR http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/21299/files/FINAL_CRSP_GP_EIR_Feb_2015_reduced size.pdf). Forest Service willingness to create such a corridor is also precedent setting. Link: NEPA Project Page: http://data.ecosystem-management.org/nepaweb/nepa_project_exp.php?project=35130;"
NEPA Objection Response – see Pages 5-6, under Instructions to Responsible Official:
http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/1155...i.com/11558/www/nepa/76364_FSPLT3_2354705.pdf

Hope this helps give people something to write in about. It is important to send comments to your local Congressman, to Knight, and to the entire House committee on Natural Resources which is reviewing the bill.

 

Thanks Evan!
Just left him a message stating I will drive down to Castaic and meet him at the Sports Complex at 6:30 this evening.He is meeting another person there as well so I will jump in on the opportunity...

Thanks for the points of discussion buddy.
And thank EVERYONE who are stepping up and stepping out. It rejuvenates me to see the growing participation here on the site!

 

Luke Money. Wow. What a name.

Go get him Mikie!

 

This is the text of my email to Congressman Knight:

Dear Congressman Knight,

I am writing to you as a 28 year resident of Castaic, to voice my concerns regarding legislation you recently introduced (H.R. 3153).

While I think that a proper memorial for the St. Francis Dam disaster is long overdue, I do take issue (on a couple of different levels) with bundling the part of the bill that would designate almost 70,000 acres of the adjacent area as the Castaic Wilderness Area.

First of all, I am disappointed that there were no public meetings that I am aware of to allow the community to voice their concerns on such a potentially far reaching bill prior to it being introduced. The potential to impact the surrounding area is, in my opinion, sizable, and therefore merits the courtesy of holding such meetings before a bill like this is introduced.

Additionally, I am also concerned that when a bill is introduced that is titled as a disaster memorial, would actually have a much more far reaching component, be relatively obscured by appealing to the emotions of supporters. I mean, how could you be against a disaster memorial, right? I find it unfortunate that this appears to be an attempt to pass a Wilderness Act under the guise of a disaster memorial.

I know this sort of action is not uncommon, but I find it disingenuous to bundle these two issues together when they are mostly related only by their geographical proximity rather than the issues they address. While I am generally opposed to the arbitrarily exclusionary provisions of the Wilderness Act, I also believe that if such legislation is to pass, it should do so on it's own merits rather than being obscured behind the veil of a disaster memorial.

So, while I do support the Title I section of H.R.3153, I am asking that Section II be omitted. If you still feel Title II is an important issue, I would appreciate a much more forthcoming and transparent process to take place. One where the local community that stands to be impacted by it's scope can take part in the political process prior to the introduction of the bill.

On a more positive note, I am heartened that you have agreed to meet with some members of the local cycling community to allow them to express their opinions. I would like you to know that I appreciate all of you taking the time to have this meeting, and please know that many members of the local community are in agreement with their position on H.R. 3153.

Thank you for your service, and thank you for your consideration on this important matter.

Regards,
Daddy Dirtbag

 

October 21, 2015



Mr. Michael Watson

23920 Valencia Blvd
Santa Clarita, CA 91355-2175


Dear Mr. Watson:


Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts regarding the wilderness section of H.R. 3153, the Saint Francis Dam Disaster National Memorial and Castaic Wilderness Act. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.


As you may know, I introduced H.R. 3153 on July 22, 2015 to honor the over 400 people who lost their lives in the tragic Saint Francis Dam collapse of March 12, 1928. This bill would establish wilderness zones in order to preserve the landmark for future generations. As your Representative, I understand that many of the trails in this area are used recreationally for hiking, biking, and off-highway vehicles (OHV). This is why I specifically excluded the most frequently used trails from the proposed wilderness zones.


This wilderness designation would serve multiple purposes. It would significantly improve the water quality of the creeks that flow into Castaic Lake and would also preserve several different Native American habitation sites and burial grounds. I am meeting with several constituency groups regarding the designated wilderness area to make sure that this bill meets the needs of the people who recreate on this land and to ensure we are doing what is best for our communities in and around the Santa Clarita Valley. Be assured that as your Representative, I will continue to support legislation that will benefit our communities, and I thank you for reaching out to me with your thoughts on this important matter.


As always, I appreciate your feedback and look forward to hearing from you in the future. It is an honor to represent you in Congress. For more information on constituent services, current legislation, and to sign up for my E-newsletter, please visit my website at www.knight.house.gov.

Sincerely,

Steve Knight
Member of Congress

 

Does not need to be wilderness to honor the dead. Preserve it don't close it. What if some of the surviving family are wheelchair bound. They would not have access.

Dean

 

This is VERY GOOD NEWS!
Knight resubmitted the Dam disaster bill as a stand alone. No 70k land grab attached!
This goes to show that when we unite and use logic, and stay calm, we CAN make a difference and our voices are heard. Doing nothing only let's the other voices get their way. We need to always participate, always contribute, always care.
I'm so proud of everyone that's put the effort forward. I'm so proud of you guys!
http://scvnews.com/2016/05/18/knight-resubmits-dam-disaster-bill-as-standalone/

 

Awesome!

 

Great job everyone!

 

I miss @Varaxis...