Future/Fate of Ca Lakes (VERY LONG)

Right now Southern California has two substantial lakes with questionable futures. Currently we have two separate strands in regards to Castaic closing and Diamond Valley not allowing water contact. Both are turning points for recreational water use and need organized and focused attention. Some of us have already taken initiative and moved forward on these topics, but will it be enough?

Those of you that have grown up on the water or raised your kids on the water can remember a time where the boundaries and regulations were not so constricting. As time has gone on some of our lakes have tighten the noose on contact, square footage, or have just closed. The red tape is to thick for me and my experience to fight any of it except complain.

With having sold Natiques in San Diego for six years new owners would ask me "where do you go" so I would run off the list and always end up at the river. Well the river as far as good water goes is at its max for supporting any more growth. With new casinos and the explosion in wakeboard boats (not to mention easy financing for “small penis or “go fast boats”) it's normal season is packed. Which leads us back to reservoirs with calendar restraints and capacity limits.

The chain of events following the closure of Castaic or the fate of Diamond Valley along with population growth I believe will start a slow down fall of wakeboard and ski dealers in Southern California. I know it sounds over the top and a little dome and gloom but if Castaic closes where do all the North LA and near by demographic riders go? The other lakes are already to full and the growth of population and sport are not going to stop. So as time goes on the only option is to pack up and go for a ten-hour plus drive to Powell or Shasta. Yes those places are really nice but none of us can justify going there on a regular basis. Which in turn I believe will start to turn people in Southern California off from wakeboarding and boating effecting the dealerships and pro shops. It's bigger than just our sport because lack of water also affects the I/O industry as well. This leads me to Diamond Valley. It is giant. Has anyone seen it from the air flying home? It really would be a great addition to our pathetic chain of lakes. When it was conceived the idea was to have water contact and recreation. Well we sure got sold on it. Who do you think paid for it? We did. Now we got stuffed for the bill and someone got a pot of money. The benefits to this lake would relive the other lakes from population overflow, decease the impact on those lakes, allow more generations of families in boats and would increase boat and product sales. With the price of boats being one more problem who wants spend that kind of money for crowded lakes and one and two trip seasons.

I'm sure I have missed good points or lost some of you on the way but I think the overall picture is clear. We have to act. Other people acted against using the lakes and look what has happened. Some of us have a strong legal background, others have years in the industry, some are shop/dealership owners, manufactures, and the rest are just plain motivated wakeboarders. If we truly want this we can change the tide, we must organize and fight. With the State of California going into a historical change there could be no time like the present. The lakes are not going to get any bigger.

Great post Corey. Seemingly, Southern California likes to slap it's residents in the face every time the budget get's ammended. Just look at the school system and you will see a clear indicator of how the legislature likes to decrease the quality of life around here.

Castaic's closure means that the line at Piru and Pyramid will double. Already it is nearly impossible to get a campsite at Buena Vista. That leaves windswept Silverwood, or get in the truck and haul 3+ hrs to bigger lakes north and east.

You are correct in thinking that there needs to be an interest group that can watchdog and lobby for the Southern California lakes. It's our land and our tax dollars. Swimming beaches, picnic areas, campgrounds, RV areas, and designated usage zones on the lakes would attract multiple users who could join in.

Unfortunately, i have no idea about starting grass roots organizations, and the legal process of bringing suits against the government. I believe that LA County has a legal obligation to keep Castaic open, but will duck out if nobody blows the whistle.

let's do this! what can be done to open diamond valley to a body contact lake????who do we need to get in front of??? how can we band together as a association???WHAT CAN WE DO????

-POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!

I'm interested.

Corey,
Good post!

What troubles me is that they sell the idea to the taxpayers by offering recreation. Once it's approved they start changing the rules.. I don't like sneaky people.

I agree that the 'no body contact' type of thinking will eventually affect the rest of California and I don't think waiting until it does is the best approach. If folks *are* actually willing to step-up and be heard, it would be important to not this die out assuming the single objective can be met. There would need to be a relentless, dedicated group that is able to follow through until the end, then, move on to the next objective. The 'no body contact' people are bull dogs that do not quit, we would need the same type of organization/dedication.
The problem is, people have jobs and families that, in the big picture are far more important then the recreational use of a public water-way.

So, how do you propose we gather these people?

Perhaps, gathering a list of the willing, their skills/profession and availability and let them get-in-where-they-fit-in?

B-

Corey,

Great post. I am in too. If anybody has a direction we can go, let's do it. I know the other post has some people with experience that we could tap into...and I believe some people are getting some research done to help give us a direction.

Let's not let this fade away.

Josh

Someone needs to research the facts and draft up a report. We are all upset and making lots of statements here, but does anyone have the actual basis for why DV is not open to recreational water contact? I am not talking about what some Ranger said 6 months ago or something like that, I mean someone must find out what the process has been and how the decisions have been made. There must be public records, and we should have access to those records. Someone can start by contacting someone associated with DVL and go from there.

The list should be expaned to Castaic, DV, and San Vicente in San Diego, which unbelievably is closed 6-7 months per year on weekends to water contact, and year round is closed on Mon-Wed. Why? After a lot of hard work by about four or five of us, it is very clear that the sole reason that this is the system is because of the strength of the fishing lobby.

If someone will get me a thorough report on how we have arrived at where we are at, I will be glad to evaluate the situation from a potential litigation perspective.

Unfortunately, I have found it very difficult to get people to follow through on these types of issues and take the hard steps that are necessary in this type of situation. We must have a thorough understanding of who makes the decisions regarding DVL, Castaic, and San Vicente and then how they made the decisions that have gotten us where we are. Any volunteers, at least as to DVL?

I appreciate everyone’s response on this, and like most the same problem of personal time ponders ability. We all have a life outside of wakeboarding and the time committed to a project like this would be full time. Before I wrote the thread I had talked to a few people in regards to the problem. We all had agreed that time is the biggest fight.

One of the positive things I do see with an industry backing is that crap that goes on between boat dealerships would have to be hung up. This problem and the future of boating in Southern California will affect all of them. It's a common ground and all the support is needed to accomplish what might seem unobtainable. If combined the boat industry would be a big financial backing. They would be investing in the future of their revenue and growth.

The legal issue is the next biggest problem. With money being a question, who wants to tackle a project like this? Not only does the person have to be talented but they also need the personal drive of Erin Brockavich. Combine that with scientific data, one has a chance.

To be honest I had no intension of leading the fight, but with right team I just might.

I'm in. We could probably try to put together an information package for all of the dealers and pro shops in SoCal (including big chains like Sports Chalet). I'm sure that we all know a few insiders who might be willing to get us in the door with the rest. If someone can put together an information package with accurate information, public contacts, and a list of legitimate reasons why these community/commerce members should take an active stance on this issue, We can at least start to get the ball rolling.

I would be willing to work with someone on the information package, and help with the distribution.

There is a one major group of people that you need to address for this research...... active Cal State & UC students... especially the ones who are the recreation majors and/or all others who use the aquatic centers

From being a student/wakeboarder at CSUN, the lower lake of Castiac is the only area that we have to ride on. If Castaic is closed for good, the class is cancelled and the team/club has to find another lake to practice on, which in turn could mean paying $$ for use of a private lake if Piru and Pyramid are blown out. I've sent the emails to help Castaic so it's only a matter of time until we can use the lake again.

Litigation is expensive, takes a long time to achieve its ends and doesn't change the underlying dynamic: the people who made the law to close the lake are still in power and are free to make a new law that gets them around a court ruling. Litigation has its place, that is for sure, but I wouldn't make this a one-pronged attack.

Another option is to work to elect Arnold, contribute to his campaign and if he wins ask his people to lean on the group that passed the law that closed DVL. Yep, that's how the system works. Or work to elect new people to the board that passed the law to close DVL. Maybe start a petition to recall them and force an election then field candidates who will open DVL. I like the political approach because it is direct, gets to the heart of the problem and might even be less expensive.

Does the political process matter? Look what happened after Bush was elected. There's much less nonsense from the environmentalists because they've lost their political cover.

"the people who made the law to close the lake are still in power and are free to make a new law that gets them around a court ruling."

Can you be more specific? What law are you talking about and who are the people that made it?

I don't know who passed the law that closed the lake. I understand that that is one of the factual matters we will need to develop.

But the underlying assumption is solid: the lake is closed because of a law. That law was put in place, no doubt, by the majority vote of elected officals from the appropriate governmental agency. If we can create a new majority, that is one way to change the law. A law can be changed through litigation, but as you and I know, this would be very expensive and typically these types of suits take years to finally resolve. Example: the Glammis dunes. I believe they were closed in 2000. A lawsuit was filed, and is still, I understand from Bill J's post, winding its way through the courts.

I think somebody said DVL is a MWD project.

We need to identify remedies. I see three: litigation; direct political action by electing sympathetic people; indirect political action by having a higher election official influence the situation.

At this point, we should be identifying all possible options, then as we develop the facts we can separate the wheat from the chaff.

Andre,

I will call and see what records are available and what official reason is given for the closure of DV.

I will contact you when I find something out.

Josh

You seem to have already identified the cause without knowing the facts. Interesting strategy.

Josh, that is terrific. No matter where we go from here, I can't see how that is not the first step. Let's get an understanding of who made what decisions and what the basis was for those decisions. It may turn out that Steven is right, I guess, and that Gray Davis and Cruz Bustamente have been conspiring against wakeboarders along with other Democrats, but I think we ought to figure out the facts first before we start jumping to conclusions.

Paul: are you trying to be sarcastic? You're coming off as acerbic and arrogant. Is that your intent? I don't want to misunderstand you before replying further.

Oooo, acerbic..

Good word!

[Barry steps forward] Acerbic... a..c..e..r..b..i..c Acerbic.
[Barry steps back]

Spelling B-

Steven, no I am not being sarcastic. I don't know what "acerbic" means, and I feel bad that you think I am arrogant. To me, jumping to conclusions and casting blame without any idea what the underlying facts are is arrogance. Trying to make what should be a bipartisan issue into a partisan one to promote your own potentially unrelated political ideology is arrogant.

All I am trying to do is get everyone to slow down, save the political grandstanding, and get an understanding of the particular issue we are dealing with. If that is your definition of arrogance, so be it.

I am sure you would have a lot to bring to this cause in terms of passion, knowledge, and skill, but if those assets are, as I have stated before, trying to direct this into a rallying point for Arnold, that is something I want no part of.

I also checked the link someone had put up for the USA waterski waterways assistance program. They have a booklet on how to go about this kind of thing. http://www.usawaterski.org/pages/waterwayscomm.htm

I will be calling them to get some info from them as well as their booklet.

It does not appear that the World Wakeboard Association has a program like this to help, but I will contact them as well to see what they can offer.

I will post what I find out.

Josh

Paul, given your very strong feelings, political leanings and stated position that you agree with many of the goals of the environmentalist agenda, should you really get involved in this matter at any level? Can you be objective? Could you strongly advocate a position even if it might cause democrats or environmentalists to lose political credibility? I know for a fact that there are certain types of legal matters I could not handle because of my own personal beliefs and I decline to get involved in them.

Additionally, what background and legal experience do you have in environmental and land use matters, a very specialized area of the law? My understanding is that you are a personal injury attorney.

1. Yes, I can fight for what's right even if its adverse to Democratic or environmental purely political interests.

2. I have no legal experience in those matters. I am a litigator. Steven, I'm not applying for this job, I was offering help. That offer is obviously withdrawn, at least so far as working with you. I am more than happy to work separately with others here.

3. I am not currently a personal injury attorney. Another conclusion with no factual basis, just like yesterday's statement that I am "no doubt" a member of CTLA. Although, again, I would not be ashamed if I were and I may be in the future. I suppose you think there is something wrong with providing legal representation to someone who has been wrongfully harmed.

Steven, I do not think it would be productive for you and I to converse further, so go ahead and take whatever potshots you have left that you would like to take at me. I will most certainly not respond. To others here, I appreciate and support your efforts and would be glad to help if needed.

Paul, I will take you up on your offer to have the last word:

1.) If you do not have the legal competency, especially in specialized areas, you should not be giving legal advice. Or, at a minimum, you should disclose to these people that you are talking in broad generalities and that they should seek out counsel competent in these types of matters before making any decisions.

2.) When I called you about referring a business litigation case to you, you told me that you were a personal injury lawyer, so cut the crap.

3.) Before you flame into me, remember one thing, my friend: I'm not your wife driving the boat when you're having a bad day riding.

josh, let me know if i can help out in anyway. im definitely interested in contributing. i've emailed the waterways education committee about getting a copy of their handbook and alerted them to our concerns about castaic and dv.

I have a copy of the Waterways Education handbook in Microsoft Word format. Unfortunately, it's 165 pages, so printing it is a bit of a chore unless you have a laser printer. Let me know if you'd like me to email you a copy.

If any of this is going to work EVER, the back and fourth has to stop right NOW. Trust me, I have slung mud on Wake World by the truckloads, but this subject demands the highest amount of respect between one another.

The foundation in which we work has to always remain united. That is are only shot as a group, and that group has to grow. If people are turned off in the beginning than there is no point. The last things we want to act like are politicians, but as professionals the foundation will never change.

I really believe in this, I hope the rest of you do too.

count me in to do waht i can...

Steve, your last post was right on. You are definitely not alone in your views. Thanks for continuing to contribute constructive posts both on this thread and the one I started.

Whatever happened to "united we stand, divided we fall?" Guys, I think it would be wise to put political differences aside and work together for the common good. (Ugh, I HATE saying phrases like that!) The more lawyers on the team, the better (wow, I REALLY hate saying that! ). But seriously, spending your time and energy fighting one another will not get DV open. Ever wonder why the environmentalists and fishermen get their way? Because they don't spend all of their energy fighting fellow environmentalists or fellow fishermen.

Personally, if I were ya'll I wouldn't care if Paul was a cross dressing, sheep rapist. If he could help out in any way, I think it would be worth it.

BTW, no offense to all you cross-dressing sheep loving, wakeboarders out there. And no offense, to you either, Paul. I was just making a point.

Fuel, I very much appreciate the sentiment and am most regretful that my participation has somehow sidetracked what should be the common goal among everyone regardless of political party affiliation. Then again, that has been my point from the beginning, and as a result I have had personal attacks hurled against me in the form of insinuations and accusations about both my profession and my marriage (which I found particularly bizarre). I think if you look back, you will see I did not personally attack anyone in this, and only expressed repeated concern over the strategy being suggested. To the extent I went beyond that, which I do not think I did, I am very sorry.

Perhaps most disturbing of all is that I have been accused of unethical conduct in advising you all without having "competence" in the area of environmental and land use law. First, I don't think I have advised anyone of anything legal yet. Second, every single day lawyers take cases headed toward trial without an expertise in the underlying subject matter and handle them with great skill by learning what is necessary to successfully navigate the case through the litigation process.

In fact, Cal. Rule of Professional Conduct 3-110(C) states: "If a member does not have sufficient learning and skill when the legal service is undertaken, the member may nonetheless perform such services competently by 1) associating with or, where appropriate, professionally consulting another lawyer reasonably believed to be competent, or 2) by acquiring sufficient learning and skill before performance is required."

I consider myself a good lawyer and my reputation is important to me. How this got from my concern over blaming the situation on the Democratic Party without first understanding the underlying facts of this situation to defending my professional ethics, area of practice, and marriage is beyond my comprehension. Again, for the role I played in that I apologize to everyone.

Going forward, it is crystal clear that myself and Mr. Cowen are simply unable to work together, and given my schedule it is best for me to bow out of this battle anyway. Seperately, however, if anyone would like to contact me privately concerning this issue I would welcome that.

Good luck everyone.

_________________________________________________
Going forward, it is crystal clear that myself and Mr. Cowen are simply unable to work together, and given my schedule it is best for me to bow out of this battle anyway. Seperately, however, if anyone would like to contact me privately concerning this issue I would welcome that.
_________________________________________________

Paul,
You're mistaken. What's crystal clear is that you and Mr.Cowen have different polital views, that doesn't mean you two can't work together. You guys may disagree on every other political issue, so what!? The important thing is that you both agree that the public should have access to public waterways.
If the words of a political opponent are going to run you out of the game, your skin is far too thin. What either of you think on any matter other then public use of public waterways does not matter.

I'm sorry you feel otherwise.

B-

Anyway, I'm in.. contact me if you need me.I have plenty of time to waste.

B-

You know this exact type thing was happening up here at Lake Nacimiento. I am not sure the action that was taken but I know that no body contact was the overall goal. I actually did a report on it in high school like 5 years ago, so I will look around here to see if i can draw any pertinent like information. I think the difference was the organization trying to get it was actually the City of San Luis Obispo, I can't recall. The recreation Major blurb up top was motivating, I am in fact a new Recreation Major at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, but I don't really have enough experience yet to be of much service(i'm transferring from the JC here in SLO). i am planning on choosing the concentration that has to do with Aqautics Training. Talk about the coolest major ever. Keep up the good fight, and for pete's sake man, let's get past our differences and bask in the glory that is our common bond, wakeboarding. (I thought about becoming a preacher. JK) Paul you seem like a good fellow and to at least have your support is wonderful. this is not the time to blame and point fingers, the only positive direction that can be taken is through action not words, unless of course, closely followed by action, you get the idea...

Hmmmmm... 2 attorneys in a open forum site. One questioning the others' legal abilities & his ideas for finding ways/solutions to keep a common interest from closing.
And you wonder why things in this world are the way they are .......
Why even bother to offer help when someone is going to belittle you?

Hey Phantom,
How the gator wrestling coming along? Haven't heard from you in awhile... hope all is well.

B-

****Thread Interruption******
Not too bad Barry ~
No Gator Fan here! Even though I'm surrounded by them. I'll stay loyal to the West Coast and Kansas St. for now.
Still looking for that elusive boat to ride behind, but at least I've attempted sliders/kickers and surface 360-540's with pretty good success so far.....

**** NOW BACK TO YOUR SCHEDULED TOPIC****

David, I would love the emailed copy of the WaterSki handbook.

I also have an email into the WWA regarding a similar department they may have for assisting in opening waterways, but have not heard back yet.

I found some articles in the LA Times and OC register that I will buy (only a couple bucks). If any one else is interested, I can email them (if they get sent that way to me).

Here is the link to the LA Times article(s)if anyone is interested.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/59630978.html?did=59630978&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&desc=Do menigoni+Reservoir

I also have a call in to the DV MWD people to try to get a real answer on the body contact issue.

Josh

A couple of excerpts from articles on the web:

"In October 1998, Metropolitan banned swimming, water skiing, windsurfing and other body-contact sports on Diamond Valley Lake to prevent pathogens from polluting the water."
http://splash.mwd.dst.ca.us/mwdh2o/pages/news/press_releases/2001-11/BoatingPolicy.htm

"We should try to keep the drinking water reservoir as clean as possible and eliminate as much as possible any additional contamination," Coolidge said. "You can argue that you can just treat the water ... but then you also get into the issue of whether the drinking water population should bear the cost of treating the water because of recreation."
http://www.nctimes.net/news/2001/20011016/102737.html

Diamond Valley is controlled by the Metropolitan Water District, whos board is made up of representatives from member agencies. Info for board members: http://splash.mwd.dst.ca.us/mwdh2o/pages/board/bio01.html

Bill,

Good post! That is helpful.

Josh

Here is the Waterways document. It's actually in Adobe Acrobat format and is almost 3 megs.

Waterways Education 2002 Complete Waterways Manual 10-16-02.pdf (2792.4 k)

It is really a shame that we have a qualified litigator offering to help and he has been harassed due to his political views. I am a die-hard Republican but I see no reason whatsoever I could not work with Paul or any other Democrat on this issue. This really is an issue about balance, and often the environmentalists don't see the whole picture in the their zealous pursuit of their positions. If a group was formed that could appreciate the environmentalist position, but counter it with facts of our own, then I think we could make a very strong case to have the no body contact rule overturned.

Assuming that a change in Governor could alter this issue, is I think, a major stretch. The governor in California is constitutionally one of the weakest governorships out of all the states. The legislature has a lot more power here than in other states, so while the governor change will help, it is not a panacea.

Also, If you think that boaters are the only ones upset about this, think again. Residents of the surrounding communities were all told that the recreational opportunities at DVL would offer economic growth and jobs for that area, and lead to increased property values for their homes. Obviously that has not happened. If you could get local civic leaders on our side, and also some major developers (like hotels, casinos etc.), then you would be joining forces with some powerful lobbies with strong economic interests in making this lake more than a big fishing pond. These people will be of all different political views, so if you can't separate that from the end goal, then you probably do not belong in a leadership role in this type of campaign.

Another helpfully ally could be Boat U.S. They are a huge and well funded boaters' rights group and fight these types of issues every day on behalf of their members. If you're not a member, consider joining and writing to them for help. They love to win these types of fights and it is certainly possible they would offer some legal assistance.

Josh or Paul or Corey or whoever takes the lead on this, I am offering to help as well. As a start, I can contact Boat U.S. and see if they would be willing to help.

Using the info in Bill J's post I called the SDCWA today and after going through a couple of people they directed me to someone who can provide background on the decision to ban human contact at DV and Skinner. Person wasn't in so put in a message and should hear back today or monday. Hopefully the vote to close the lake was close thereby giving us some hope that the vote can be changed.

Any negative impacts of human contact could clearly and undeniably be remedied by water treatment. Interesting quote from the Orange County Water people on why they didn't allow water contact and then treat the water. Using their logic, whenever a governmental service is not used by all of us it shouldn't be paid for by any of us. Guess the coast guard, lifeguards, customs and public schools should be disbanded.

Steve, I think it goes beyond that. Are you telling me they can assume the pathogens don't exist in the water and therefore they don't have to treat it? You have got to be kidding me! The water filling the lake is either from Northern California or more likely the Colorado River - so there's been plenty of bodily contact already!

One of the first things I would want to know is the difference between the way water is treated from a reservoir allowing bodily contact versus one that doesn't, and the associated costs.

Another organization that should be involved (and already was involved in getting the no power boats decision overturned) is the Southern California Marine Association, SCMA. Here is a link to one of their articles from Oct 2001 regarding boating access to Diamond Valley:
http://www.scma.com/news/oct2001.pdf

By the way Steve, thanks for jumping in their and making some calls!

I sent a letter to Boat U.S. Government Affairs requesting their involvement, in either advice or direct help. I'll let you know what I hear back.

Spoke for about 30 minutes with Terry at the SCMA. They are an orginzation that advocates for boat access. Their members are boat dealers.

He thinks MWD is well within their legal rights in closing the lake to water contact. He did not think that suing to force access would work.

His take was that MWD doesn't want to be bothered with everything that goes along with water contact activities-- especially potential litigation for personal injuries. Their focus is to buy and sell water. Recreational use is not part of what they see as their mission.

He thinks they are overreacting on the contamination issue. Terry believes that MWD said it would cost 20 million to install the filters necessary to treat the water for contaminants introduced by water contact. That was MWD's price quote.

I asked about the fact the water is coming from areas where it has been used for recreational uses. He said the contamination levels in the water as it arrives is within limits. Hence, MWD believes that recreational use on DV will put the contaminants over the acceptable levels.

The city of Hemet wants the lake opened to water contact because it would bring money into the community. Their local congressman is working on the issue. I'll call the city on Monday and follow-up with the representative.

I asked about the political make-up of the MWD, and Terry wasn't real clear about this. He believes that the directors of MWD are appointed by the member agencies and that the directors on the member agencies are elected officials. I proposed this strategy and asked his opinion: first,identify which agencies are for and which are against water contact activities; second, work to elect pro-recreation candidates to these boards so that they send directors to the MWD who vote for water contact, thereby changing the balance of power towards water contact. Terry said this could work but that he wasn't certain about the political nature of the MWD.

I asked Terry what SCMA's plan was: they were going to continue to try and work with the MWD and try and convince them to change their minds about water contact activities.

Bill, thanks for getting this stuff.

wow, lots of info - real info, not just rumors. Understanding where each water district stands will help us figure out how much of a battle we have ahead of us.

Great job Steven!

Thanks to Steve, Bill and everyone else that is taking time out of their day to pursue answers to these issues! We all appreciate it very much!

I talked with a planner at the City of Hemet. He was involved with the process 3-4 years ago leading up to the MWD's vote barring body contact at DVL.

Why does MWD bar body contact? They claim body contact will contaminate the water.

How intense is their opposition to water contact? MWD will open another 70 acre lake to the east of DVL and it will have a beach for swimming. Many at MWD fear that water from this lake, a mile and a half of so away, will filtrate into DVL and pollute it. The planner said it was like pulling teeth getting MWD to agree to swimming at this 70 acre lake.

Any current efforts by the city to try and get DVL open to body contact? No.

Any effort by Mary Bono's office (congressperson)? No.

Has the city acquiesced to the decision? Yes.

Misc.:

The body contact issue was put to a vote 3-4 years ago. He didn't know how close the vote was.

He gave me the name of Linda Poggenpohl, who is MWD's PR person for DVL. I might give her a call though I'm not sure how helpful she'd be if she sensed that we were seeking to change that rule.

Other info: the lake is 5 miles long and 1 mile wide.

There is an element of personal preference in the decision. He felt some involved believe their version of lake enjoyment is the best for everyoneelse.

He believes that MWD is well within their rights in barring body contact since they own the lake.

Final thoughts: 1.) if MWD's logic was adopted by every lake operator, it would seem to me that all but a few of California's lakes would be closed to body contact. For example, San V is San Diego's drinking water resevoir. 2.) It doesn't look like there is any other group actively seeking to open the lake to body contact. It looks like we would have to start things up from scratch. 3.) Why should DVL care about body contact? They are in the business of selling water. The end user in almost all cases, no doubt, will treat the water before they put it into the drinking water supply. For example, San V. Any water purchased and put in that lake will later be treated. I don't think DVL is a direct provider. 4.) It looks like the political option is our best viable option right now. Hopefully the vote on body contact was close in which case we would only need to work towards changing the boards on a few water districts. Other option is to try and work with the powers that be, as the SCMA is thinking of doing.

Spoke with a MWD person. I'm leaving the names off cuz I don't want to start a war with the city or with MWD etc.

Their board has 37 members from 26 member agencies. Larger water districts have more directors than smaller ones. The breakdown can be found here: http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/board/bio01.html

MWD person reiterated that the reason for the closure was contamination related. She said DVL is an emergency drinking water supply to be used, in her example, in the case of "the big one" where an earthquake severs all other water supplies, etc. Inferentially, then, the water in this scenario would be pumped directly into people's faucets, bypassing some or all treatment.

Why can't they treat the water coming out of DVL? What would that cost be? Didn't ask these questions.

The lady at MWD was familiar with the vote in October 1998 to bar body contact. She didn't know the exact outcome but said "it wasn't even close."

I've got a request in to MWD for a copy of the minutes or a vote breakdown.

Interesting information.

Anybody else got any ideas on how to proceed, let us know.

Again, Canyon Lake (about 10 miles away) is used for drinking water. Canyon has been monitored and closed several time this year, not because of body contact, but because of sewage spills, and contaminated run off.

The logic just doesn't work. What about suit from a discrimination stand point. They are obviously discriminating against anyone who would want to swim or ski in the water despite obvious holes in their reasoning.

Or the fact that the public was purposely misled by the MWD touting the project as a huge recreational facility, then limiting it to no body contact recreation after the project was approved. There has got to be some sort of law broken there (misrepresentation?)

Does SCMA have any legal council/advisors?

We all owe a debt of gratitude to Steve for taking a lot of time out of his busy schedule to chase down answers.

I don't believe any water leaving DV would go directly to anyone's pipes. That would leave the MWD open for all sorts of drinking water contamination issues. Even in emergencies it has to pass stringent standards which do not allow for trace amounts of oil and gas and other compounds those may carry. Water leaving DV would be piped to other smaller reservoirs where it would be filtered.

Perris is the holding reservoir for much of San Diego's water supply. If anything was to happen to it or it's pipeline to SD then DV could take over with it's own dedicated pipeline to SD.

Thanks again Steve for all your phone calls and research!

Let me get this straight. Did DV use gov't money (tax dollars) to build a lake for themselves promising it would be open to recreational use by said taxpayers, and then change their minds after the lake was built?

Man, I hope that isn't the case... If so that is just another example of BS corporate welfare.