Yolo County Supervisors to recognize Earth Day
From today's Yolo County Board of Supervisors meeting:
Resolution No. 08-53
RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING APRIL 22, 2008 AS EARTH DAY
WHEREAS, on this thirty-eighth anniversary of Earth Day, Yolo County is taking this opportunity to appreciate our natural heritage, increase ecological awareness and environmental sustainability, and take active steps to reduce our carbon footprint; and
WHEREAS, the County of Yolo is fortunate to have such waterways as the, Sacramento River Delta and Cache Creek Watershed, and a commitment to the preservation of agriculture and open space with almost 95% (550,407 acres) of landscape designated for agricultural use, - all of which require our vigilant protection; and
WHEREAS, these lands, waters, air and other natural resources should be protected and preserved at all costs, and the goal of environmental sustainability is the legacy we wish to leave for those who follow us; and
WHEREAS, the County of Yolo has been proactive in promoting energy conservation, sustainable practices, and protection of our natural resources through the recent adoption of a new Green Procurement Policy; and
WHEREAS, our County is taking the lead in actively fighting global climate change; although the challenge is global in nature, Yolo County is making efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and serve as a model on what we can do now locally, to protect the earth; and
WHEREAS, the County of Yolo is proud that we will be joining others throughout our country and the world to observe this day and participate in events that promote respect for our planet, and we can take pride in the fact that our County is acting to improve our environment, not only on Earth Day, but everyday.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Yolo County Board of Supervisors, does hereby proclaim April 22, 2008, as “Earth Day” in Yolo County, California.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22 day of April 2008, by the following vote: AYES: McGowan, Thomson, Rexroad, Yamada, Chamberlain.
20 comments:
Sorry to tell you this Dino, but I really don't like the shade of green you have chosen. Must come from growing up in a green colored house.
Madame ABC
AWWW, never mind her, Dino. I got a huge kick out of the shade of green you chose :)
Everyone seems to be an Art critic these days. I am hoping Madame ABC is just kidding :)
The green hues are from the template. I considered blue, which would better represent the planet but not the movement.
I did not grow up in a green house, although I have nothing against green buildings. My Earth Day wish is that Woodland abandons its cookie-cutter approach to building designs, including the restrictions to the boring palette of earthtones. I know, I know... the irony of it all :)
The green is more Davis than Woodland. Whats happening we are being invaded by the greenies.
Our green waste toters have brown lids.
I find that strange as well that the green waster toters have brown lids. Holy crap Dino and I have the same thoughts. Hell must have frozen over.
I understand the reasons behind going green on the screen, just didn't like the hue. I wasn't kidding, but at the same time I know my opinion is silly in the scheme of things and chose to publish it anyways.
Madame ABC
I like the St. Patty's green....but you need a leprechaun, at least one.
5:08
Hallelujah! I finally got one right! : )
How about a Safety from Flood Danger Day? The county could order Cache Creek cleaned out so it could hold much more water during a big storm. Don't people and their homes matter more than dirt?
Flood Danger? There's no flood danger! Don't you remember that Brenda and her buddies declared that we're all safe just because they say so?
8:31
Those opposed to the flood wall weren't saying the area is not prone to flooding. First of all... why, after decades, did the Army Corp. of Engineers change the boundaries of the 100 year flood plain? The premise of the studies and subsequent alternative solutions never really came to light.
The proposed flood wall alternative was ridiculous. The monstrous expense would only be effective if Cache Creek broke in very particular areas... and it would likely trap water in areas between the wall and the creek. There are too many points where flood waters could simply flow around the wall and also be trapped on the Woodland side.
A stick of dynamite on a strategic north back location would divert potential flood waters for a few dollars. Cleaning out the creek, as 12:43 suggested, is a great idea.
Not to mention that new legislation, thanks to Lois Wolk, now requires 200 year flood protection. We would have built a wall for nothing and wasted all of that money. It was only good for 100 year flood protection.
The last time someone tried to even clean a little of the creek out they got sued. Do people remember anything? They changed the flood plains because the creek had changed as have the intensity of our storms. Nice to see you folks were paying attention. If we had moved ahead we'd have protection now. Instead we got bupkus and the costs will only be higher. The developers won that one!
I call BS. Intensity of storms have changed? We're talking 100 year storms, you know. If your suggestion that these new and improved (more intense) storms will increase the chance of flooding, then the one in a hundred likelihood is gone. That part of your explanation just does not make sense. I bet if we looked at the last century, we would not find an increase in storm intensity that would warrant a change in the flood zone.
On the other hand, I can see that a plugged-up creek is a changed creek... but who was sued for trying to clean it? It would seem that cleaning the creek would be restoring it (to put it in terms that Lois Wolk would understand).
The creek definitely needs to be cleaned out. Dino you are right again. Normal watershed maintenance would have dirt cleaned out and protect people in advance of flash flood.
Call it what you will, Dino, but the intensity of storms has changed dramatically just in my lifetime. We receive larger amounts of rain in a shorter span of time than we have historically. That, in addition to the physical changes that have occurred within the creek (mining) and adjacent to the creek (bedded fields, pavement, etc.) increases runoff.
As I recall, it was the County who was sued over trying to remove a gravel bar in the creek. I believe that Janet Levers and Sally Oliver may have filed or been parties to the suit.
Regardless of what you and your moronic friends think, Dino, the creek is a natural environment and unless you want to make it look the like the Los Angeles River (Brenda Cedarblade once proposed concreting the creekbed) then some care has to be taken in removing natural growth etc.
See, Dino, a little history, a little factual knowledge and a little perspective can change the way things appear. I'm always glad to have the opportunity to educate you.
Thanks again!
If I don't clean my gutters once a year, I may have problems during a heavy rain.
I don't know the last time the elevated sentiment of the creek was cleaned out, but you get the picture. A big series of storms would produce that 100-year flood to cover significant portions of Woodland.
Frank Sieferman Sr and several other farmers sued the county over removal of sediment out of Cache Creek because of high mercury levels. Cedarblade had nothing to do with it. There a little factual information for you.
8:01
Your empirical evidence does nothing to support your "lesson." I called you on your BS and all you did was reiterate your little "lifelong observation" experiment without any scientific data. I'd like to see the records that support your theory that storms have intensified over the past few decades. Now, of course, your claim is they are also more frequent.
The removal of gravel will undoubtedly affect the current of watershed from the range... but to what extent? Enough to build a ridiculous wall that MIGHT contain water from a levee break within a particular area? The collection of debris is one thing that plugs the creek... like 11:34 said, you can see the affects of leaves and twigs in your house gutter.
Furthermore, your conclusion that the bloggers here - including myself - want Cache Creek to be covered in concrete is just stupid. You would make a lousy science, history or philosophy teacher.
Post a Comment