March 23, 1999

SB 496 -- the South Yuba Wild & Scenic River bill -- was approved by the
Senate Natural Resources Committee today. The bill passed on a
party-line vote, with all Democrats supporting the bill and all
Republicans opposing. In the audience were numerous supporters of SB
496, including the Nevada County Board of Supervisors, who are the bill
sponsors. Members of the anti-environmental group, People for the West
(or for California, or for the USA, depending on who you talk to) were
also present in numbers at the hearing in opposition to SB 496, along
with Yuba County interests who want to build destructive dams on the
river.

After a pro-forma review by Senate Appropriations, SB 496 will be headed
to the Senate floor. We'll be contacting some of you in the near future
about other things you can do to support the bill, particularly if your
Senator is a key vote on the bill. In the meantime, consituents of
Senator Tim Leslie and Assemblymember Sam Aanestad should call their
offices and ask them why they are supporting interests that want to dam
and destroy the South Yuba River. Leslie's phone number is 916-445-5788
and Aanestad's number is 916-319-2003.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Union

Senate panel OKs Yuba as Wild and Scenic

The chandeliers, soaring ceilings and ornate plasterwork in the restored Capitol gave a dignified setting Tuesday for a state Senate hearing on a bill to give Wild and Scenic status to 39 miles of the South Yuba River.

But the contentious issue sparked lots of impassioned testimony, both for and against - and sharp comments between lawmakers - before the Senate Natural Resources and Wildlife Committee passed SB 496 by a 6-1 vote.

Consider the exchange between committee chairman Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Los Angeles) and Assemblyman Sam Aanestad (R-Grass Valley).

It stemmed from a comment made by Nevada County Supervisor Peter Van Zant, the first of about 30 people to address the Senate committee.

The Nevada County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to sponsor the Wild and Scenic bill, Van Zant said, adding that "our election speaks to the wide community support for this legislation."

Aanestad questioned the amount of local support for Wild and Scenic, saying calls to his office were 2-1 against the designation.

"I will tell you that it was not even a campaign issue," in the Nevada County supervisors' election, Aanestad said to the Senate committee, drawing a few boos from the standing-room-only crowd. Past county boards opposed the designation, Aanestad said.

"Do you think the people in Nevada County can recall these supervisors when they discover this plot?" Hayden asked, sarcastically.

"Don't make it seem like your state is about to pounce on you when your supervisors are asking us to do this," Hayden said later, when former Nevada County supervisor Fran Grattan made a similar argument.

"The same people elected me," rejoined Nevada County's Sen. Tim Leslie (R-Roseville), "and I'm adamantly opposed to the bill."

Citing concerns about downstream flooding and future water supply needs, Leslie made an unsuccessful motion to send the Wild and Scenic bill to the Senate Agriculture and Water Resources Committee.

"I don't want to see that additional hurdle," said the bill's author, Sen. Byron Sher (R-Stanford), who also sits on the committee.

The two senators, who seemed friendly minutes before the hearing, sparred once things got under way.

Leslie said he resented a "San Francisco" legislator introducing a bill in his district. He said state law required a study be done by the Secretary of Resources' office before any river is added to the state Wild and Scenic system.

"What is being proposed here is in violation of the law," Leslie charged.

Sher, a former Stanford University law professor, said such a study is optional and added that San Francisco isn't part of his district.

"These free-flowing rivers are much like the coast of California," Sher said. "These are assets ... to all the people of California."

Leslie cast the sole vote against the bill. Absent during the vote were the committees' two other Republicans. The committees' six Democrats supported the bill.

Next stop for the bill is the Senate Appropriations Committee. A hearing should take place in the next 45 days.