Letter to the Editor Asks Why GSD Should Provide Water at the Park

Letter to the editor

[Background Image from By Johnny_Spasm (talk) (Uploads) – Own work, Public Domain, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=17846103]

Welcome to our letters to the editor/opinion section. To submit yours for consideration, please send to mskymkemp@gmail.com. Please consider including an image to be used–either a photograph of you or something applicable to the letter. However, an image is not necessary for publication.

Remember opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect that of Redheaded Blackbelt nor have we checked the letters for accuracy.

Dear Editor,

I wanted to make the following constructive comments (IMHO) to the 27 letters of support submitted to the Garberville Sanitary District (GSD) and State Water Rights Control Board/Division of Water Rights (SWRCB), in reference to the GSD Petition to provide a single metered water connection to the Southern Humboldt Community Park (SHCP).

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/applications/petitions/2019/garberville_notice.pdf

After reading these public comments, I wanted to remind those 27 supporters of a couple of facts:

https://www.garbervillesd.org/files/e7b3dc1be/Letters+of+Support-SHCP.pdf

1. When the Southern Humboldt Community Park (SHCP) took over operation of Tooby Memorial Park (Tooby) from the County (2004), Tooby had its own public water source/well, public drinking fountain and public water use for the onsite caretakers residents. We never knew why the SHCP Board dismantled the public drinking fountain and or why they never reinstalled it at some point.

2. If potable water at the SHCP was such an important, emotional and health concern, as stated in these 27 letters of support, then why did the SHCP conclude and state in their General Plan Amendment, Rezone and Final Environmental Impact Report, dated January 2017, the SHCP had “adequate supply of potable water” for all of its development plans from onsite sources within the SHCP property, and even stated they had laboratory water testing to verify it was potable and did not need GSD to provide potable water?

Maybe these people who wrote those impassioned letters of support should ask the SHCP Board, at their next public board meeting, where the “adequate supply of potable water” is located at the Park, where they can access this potable water and why they need potable water from GSD?

My last comment; what water is the SHCP currently providing to the people renting and living at the Park? And how are they able to provide water for domestic or residential use if that water is not safe to drink or consume?

https://www.garbervillesd.org/southern-humboldt-community-park-water-service-update

Thank you,
Ed Voice
Former resident and homeowner~1961-2015 Garberville/Redway

Facebooktwitterpinterestmail

69 comments

  • 🕯🌳Good morning Kym. Well Ed it almost sounds like a force move out or tenant harrassment. If you can prove that there keeping potable water from you or any other resident then there’s a problem.

    • Ed lives well outside of GSD delivery area. He is not worried about the water. He is still whining about losing. The park is here. Ed is gone.
      Ed, please find a new hobby.
      Maybe you can move back here, you seem so sad and lonely since you have moved away.

      • “Ed lives well outside of GSD delivery area. He is not worried about the water. He is still whining about losing.”

        You are correct, I do live “well outside of GSD delivery area” and so does the State Water Resources Control Board and Division of Water Rights, but yet they have authority over GSD, including how and where GSD can sell their water. Oh and the Park is also outside the GSD jurisdictional boundary, or what you call “delivery area”.

        I am “worried about the water”, the surface water in the South Fork Eel. And I didn’t “lose” anything, the wildlife habitat, threatened/endangered species, wetlands, open space and Ag land protection lost everything in the Park Boards rezone and development plans.

        “The Park is here. Ed is gone” Not gone yet and don’t plan on being gone anytime soon…

  • William Shakespeare

    @ED VOICE get a life…

  • Just shut up Ed.

  • Ed….at this point you’re defining the word “crank”. Its over find another bone to chew.

    • When the Tooby outfit left the property after the sale to Bob M. the water system was still intact. The two houses, chicken coop, barn and water troughs down by labyrinth had water. The water came from a metered city source up by the highway down to Yellow house, Earnie’s old house, then across field to houses. A lot of pipe. The pipe run between Earnie’s house and the park houses began to degrade and rupture so much that they were looking at replacing it all. At some point the decision was made to abandon it and go with the large storage tank for all their needs and new pipes were installed. Historically, they had city water and paid monthly bills. No reason to deny them now.

      • Sorry, that narrative is not accurate. In fact it sounds just like the propaganda and misinformation the Park Board had been spreading ever since they have been trying to get potable water from GSD.

        Here’s that link again, documenting the Park non-historical water connection with the GWC and GSD. The excuse used by the Park Board for turning off the meter from GSD was, they were not going to pay the water bill because they claimed there was a leak in the line between the yellow house and the meter, which was on the east side of 101. Funny thing about that claim, no one ever found the leak and the Park Board was reimbursed those monthly connection fees for those years.

        Please read link and stop misinforming the public, unless you can backup your claim:

        https://drive.google.com/open?id=1iLfUtU2B9QM-v8_GMWrAQgx4-iXhyz-p

        • Mr Voice,
          There is definitely a leak on the line to the yellow house. Or was. Found it myself probably 35 yrs ago… Didn’t ever report that one. Probably still leaking there. Depending on where the meter is the leak may have been above it. Real lush spot on the bank above the freeway. Always wondered where that line went. Pipe is exposed there and was leaking profusely back then. I’d bet money it still leaks or well hasn’t been repaired. If the meter is near freeway level that leak would be above it. If the meter is up around the Hurlbut home well then that is where it’s been leaking all this time. Or just one of the places. Galvanized pipe doesn’t last long in the ground around here,so a leak between the freeway and the yellow house is almost certain.
          Thanks,
          Ed

          • Its too bad you never documented all these leaks you found and never notified GWC or GSD, but yet you bring it up now, after the fact and in total recall like it happened yesterday, wow, what a great convent memory?

            Here’s the story I heard; after 2004 when the Park Board illegally tapped into the waterline from the yellow house, it was also piped over to the Parks new 55,000 gallon water storage tank and when the they got a $2000 water bill, that’s when the Park Board claimed there must have been a leak. Of course, they never told anyone they had plumbed and were filling that 55,000 gallon water storage tank (guess it slipped their mind), that fact came up years later, just say’n…

            • That is the only leak I didn’t report. Don’t question my integrity just because it doesn’t fit your narrative. Question your own. I intend to notify GSD and the Park of that leak now that you have indicated its significance. I was unsure of that pipes origin or its destination until our recent discourse. If you don’t believe me about the leak you are free to check it for yourself. I did not represent which side of the meter that leak would be on. Part of the 17% loss you cited maybe? I will be making that call tomorrow.
              I am very curious about that meters’ location now. I was actually hoping you might have known and indicated it. Do you?
              Anyway, now you heard about that leak from me. And that is a fact. It goes way back. It is not a “great convent memory”. Happens to be the truth. Ok 30 + years for sure, 35 might have been a slight stretch. Sorry to burst your bubble.
              Let me give you a great convent memory to assure you my memory is somewhat intact.
              You had a bug 45 yrs ago, kind of a dune buggy. I remember it on it’s side on the Avenue. The smoke. The airtankers. And the look on your face when you got back to school. You were lucky.
              Am I making that up, too?
              Maybe I am wrong. Could have been a different Voice.
              One shouldn’t jump to conclusions about people
              too often.
              You might be seen as a flight risk.
              Honestly,
              Ed

              • “Maybe I am wrong. Could have been a different Voice.”

                Yes, wrong Voice, that was my younger brother (1975). Not sure what any of this has to do with the Park or using proposed GSD water, its just a distraction from the facts about the Park or GSD.

                The problem is, I can provide publicly documented facts that prove my point. And all you have is the name “A.K.A Ed”, serving up innuendo and misinformation to avoid and deflect the facts using logical fallacies. But you are correct, I and my family have a history in Southern Humboldt, long before the Park Board…

      • “Earwig”, here’s more information that your assertion is misleading and alternative facts concerning water at the Park in 2001, see page 2 link below:

        https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1qq4OlQcPfdZ1UxdjN1enVTLUE

        I have all 16 issues of the “Constant Comment”, from June 2001 thru December 2004, it documents all things SHCP during those years. Its also good to remind people today of all the concerns and questions the public had about the Park and its overall management and operation during that time and nothing has changed concerning those concerns…

        • Ed, on page 2 LaBoyteaux is calling for the park to be serviced by the community water district, which is what you seem to be objecting to. You are not making any sense.

          • That was back in 2001, what I am referencing is the fact the Park did not have potable water, let alone treated water available to them at the Park, as some people on this thread have stated they had. And, in the Park Board EIR, general plan amendment, rezone request and documents submitted in 2016 and 2017, what the Park Board stated to the Planning Department, Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors was, the Park had their own onsite potable water sources and did not need or want GSD water for their development plans. Does that answer your condescending question?

            • Mr Voice,
              Condescending,
              Really. You are most certainly projecting.
              In case you are not aware of this fact, the burden of potable water availablity is actually on the county to assure prior to sale or transfer, or development, I believe, of a home or dwelling.
              I would venture to say you have not purchased property in Humboldt or you might be aware of that fact. That is why it is required in the first place.
              This requirement need not have been satisfied by municipal water. Bottled water of a sufficient quantity onsite satisfies this requirement.
              50 gallons in my case.
              I do not know what the parks requirement may have been in gallons, but remember, bulk potable water was available for purchase, on site delivery.
              This may have been considered their “on site source” as far as anyone knows but them.
              The lab tests could have come from GSD itself, available through the distributor if necessary.
              Lab test results are also available through links supplied by the water bottlers.
              Dig a little deeper and you might actually be able to answer your own questions, unless of course they were rhetorical all along, which I suspect, since your position does not change at all according to additional info.
              You simply ignore it and bellitle it’s source.
              By the way the leak I told you about above the freeway has been reported to GSD. The meter was not apparent at freeway level when I checked today. So the meter is probably above it. Especially since that may have been Hurlbut property.
              Generally speaking,a water company will forgive a high bill once that is due to a leak that the customer is not aware of every so many years.
              I don’t know if this is written into GSD policy.
              I gave GSD my phone number but they haven’t gotten back to me and no one in the office knew where the meter was located.
              You should back off on your suggestion of theft of water or other wrongdoing without proof even if you think you are only spreading a vicious rumor…
              Sounds a lot like libel to me as well.
              “I heard”is hardly a disclaimer.
              I might be wrong, but you sound paranoid.
              See how that works.
              Thanks,
              Ed

              • How many different names are you making comments under, “Awen”, “Earwig”, “VFF” and my favorite “Community 27, kinkers 1. Game over.”

                So if I am so wrong and you are so right, back it up, put your money where your mouth is, provide the public documents that prove me wrong. Can you do that? Because all I’m reading is talk, talk, talk, no substance, just non-stop prevarication, propaganda, fear mongering and a mixture of good ol’boy mentality and black market culture all rolled (no pun intended) into one…

                • You had stated this very clearly:

                  “I do not know what the parks requirement may have been in gallons, but remember, bulk potable water was available for purchase, on site delivery. This may have been considered their “on site source” as far as anyone knows but them.”

                  So its your WAG (wild ass guess) that “bulk potable water” was somehow included as a “on site source” for water use at the Park, correct? That this was only in their mind, not what they said out loud or included in their General Plan Amendment (GPA), Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Conditional Use Permit (CUP) the Park Board submitted to the Planning Department, Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors?

                  And whom would this “bulk potable water” come from? The reason I ask, not one word of this was included in the Park Boards GPA, EIR and CUP. Here is what is stated, in part, which starts on page 3-36 of the Park Boards GPA/EIR:

                  “The SHCP has four existing water sources that serve the site, as well as a dual piping system (see Figure 3-11). The first source is the South Fork Eel River which is currently used primarily for irrigation and for livestock. There is an existing infiltration gallery in the river and a pump house in Area 3. Waterlines are installed from the infiltration galley throughout Area 3 – Main Agricultural Area and the Park Headquarters – Area 2.”

                  “The second source is a spring. This water source comes from a spring on the adjacent property (APN 222-091-11) with a legal deeded easement. The spring fills the existing 55,000-gallon water tank on the adjacent property. This spring provides potable water to the project site through the existing water delivery system to Area 2, Area 3, Area 4, and Area 5.”

                  “The third source is from the Tooby Memorial Park Well which has been serving the water needs in Area 1 for decades. There is existing water system infrastructure within this park and the water supply is adequate. The final and fourth water source is upland well in Area 4. This well would be connected to the existing water system and utilized to fill the off-site 55,000-gallon storage tank during the forbearance months.”

                  https://humboldtgov.org/DocumentCenter/View/54894/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-Southern-Humboldt-Community-Park-April-26-2016-66MB-864-Pages?bidId=

                  They only discuss four (4) physical potable and non-potable water sources located on the Park property, and account for all four. Not one word about who, what, why, when or where they will use “bulk potable water”.

                  And by the way, the Park Board has estimated they will need between approx 800,000 to 900,000 gallons of potable water a year for their future development plans in the Area’s mentioned above, which does not include irrigation or non-potable water use for farming, livestock or sports fields, just domestic and commercial use by humans. This information is also included in the link above, “Water Supply and Demand Analysis Memorandum”, starts on page 625 of the PDF link.

                  • Thanks for that info. Spring that’s potable? Sounds iffy without treatment. Its surface water and subject to contamination. I figured it would be the well that was potable but it might not be deep enough to be potable. Got to be 100 feet deep or so. Look they probably figured GSD was in their best interests and changed their minds about needing it. I can’t blame them for that.
                    Ed

                    • Thank you for acknowledging the facts. However:

                      “Look they probably figured GSD was in their best interests and changed their minds about needing it. I can’t blame them for that.”

                      The Park Board using GSD water is not in the “best interests” of the South Fork Eel, and just because they “changed their minds about needing it”, does not amend all of the studies, reports and analysis that was included in their General Plan Amendment, Environmental Impact Report or Conditional Use Permit. This needs to be done.

                • Mr Voice, you are clearly dealing with multiple commenters. Very strange you would assume they were all the same. Maybe your way of minimizing the fact that many people disagree with you as if there was only one. Clearly your powers of perception or reading comprehension are not 100%.
                  Jumping to conclusions again building up those frequent flyer miles…
                  For example your interpretation of park board member Van Sant meant they had achieved certified park status when they really hadn’t.
                  My interpretation was that they were assisted in the midst of a process in which they may or may not ultimately succeed.
                  You suggested she was misrepresenting the truth.
                  Nowhere did she state they had achieved certified park, etc. status.
                  Ambiguous, yes, but you are making absolute assertions and suggesting she lied. How inappropriate. Try Occams razor. Words have many conflicting connotations and I’m pretty sure you may have misinterpreted statements others have made as well. I may be wrong, but you seem to be the kind of person who can’t admit they might be wrong, maybe even the kind that think they never are.
                  Interpretations need corroboration. That they are not a certified park supports my interpretation and she was truthful.
                  Somehow you seem to think it means she was not.
                  You should give people the benefit of the doubt.
                  Thanks,
                  Ed

                  • “You should give people the benefit of the doubt.”

                    I would if there wasn’t any “doubt” they were not telling the truth, the whole truth. And by “doubt”, I mean the documented facts that lead me to that conclusion, time and time again. Giving someone the “benefit of the doubt”, means you “doubt” they did it, given their past history or track record, with no facts to lean one way or the other. In the case of Carol Van Sant on the Park Board, this was not her first rodeo embellishing the truth about the Park Board, their values, mission and most importantly, their development plans.

                    You do know, people like Carol Van Sant are chosen and appointed only by the Park Board to become Directors, not elected by a membership or process made in a public meeting, right? And the Park Board only appoints people that have the same moral compass and values as like the inception of the Park Board back in 2001/2002, all hand picked and appointed by Dazey, excluding any public process. That process has not changed since day one.

                    So why should I give anyone on the Park Board the “benefit of the doubt”, when they continue to have Board meeting closed to the public and not disclose anything to the public concerning the Park until after the fact, i.e. development plans?

                    Take for example this private backroom deal between GSD and the Park Board to get a metered water connection. Nothing was ever made public until 72 hours before it happened at a GSD meeting in 2019. Why is that? What happened to the public process or public notice. Nothing in the local newspaper or KMUD news, no press release, nothing, until after the fact. The Park Board and GSD get months and months of private meetings, phone calls and emails to get everything up to speed and set in motion, while the public gets 3 to 5 minutes to ask questions and submit public comments after the deal has been made and is a done deal, outside of public meetings!

        • Here even John L agrees that the park should have GSD water. Your confusion is apparent. To accuse people of misleading and false statements only weakens your presumption of sanity. Yes there were many leaks, massive amounts of water was being lost and the bills were high as well.

          • Again, yeah he did, back in 2001. Your name fits, since you cannot hear very well or listen. It was your post that incorrectly stated:

            “When the Tooby outfit left the property after the sale to Bob M. the water system was still intact. The two houses, chicken coop, barn and water troughs down by labyrinth had water. The water came from a metered city source up by the highway down to Yellow house, Earnie’s old house, then across field to houses. A lot of pipe. The pipe run between Earnie’s house and the park houses began to degrade and rupture so much that they were looking at replacing it all. At some point the decision was made to abandon it and go with the large storage tank for all their needs and new pipes were installed. Historically, they had city water and paid monthly bills. No reason to deny them now.”

            ARE YOU DENYING YOU SAID THAT?

            And what does it matter if John L wanted the Park to have GWC or GSD back in 2001, he has his right to his opinion, just like you and I do. And if you recall, John L changed his opinion once he found out about the development plans the park was going use that water for…

            • Of course I don’t deny it, it all true. anybody reading this should realize that Ed is out of control. Is he dangerous? I don’t know but the park should put a restraining order on him for his continuous defamation of character and false and misleading accusations. Line from yellow house to storage tank? False and I’m sure you got a reaction out of that. He insinuates here that he speaks for John Laboyteaux.

              • Oh yeah and with a name like “earwig”, everyone is just holding their breath to read your next Alice in Wonderland story, “off with her head”. However, unlike you “earwig”, I can back up everything I put in print. You of course believe what is stated below…

    • No Dave, I like this bone. Here is what was stated by then Park Board Member Carol Van Sant in December 2016, page 2:

      https://www.garbervillesd.org/files/afa942c3d/Comments+Submitted+1+to+COB+3-20-2017.pdf

      “A good measure of support can be based on community financial support. The community had to raise $650,000 dollars, to buy this beautiful historic 430 acre property, and the community has had a huge role in sustaining it during these long years of process to become a County certified Park & Farm. In addition the Park Board has depended primarily on the community to raise more than $350,000 to pay for the EIR.”

      Then let me ask you Dave, why is the Park in debt $475,000, i.e. paying and producing their “EIR”, when she states more than $350,000 was raised by the community? Where did all that money go if it was not used for the “EIR”, please read the debt letter from the current Park Board in 2019:

      https://drive.google.com/open?id=176XLwBuE-ZYh23sFHSFnYynFD-bPADA6

      It would appear the Park Board does not have the public financial support it claims it has, but what else is new! The best they can do is private loans and notes, with interest against the Park property…

      • And, there is so many things wrong with that one statement:

        “The community had to raise $650,000 dollars, to buy this beautiful historic 430 acre property…”

        That was only the down payment, make up of approx $312,000 in private loans and notes with compounded monthly interest @ 10% (Tim Metz $92k, Gilbert Gregori $100k and Mark Drake $120k) of which the Metz and Drake loans were paid off in 2008 and Gregori is still on the books and collecting interest.

        So did she lie and just embellish the truth? Because its one or the other, depending on your point of view. After all she did write this to the Board of Supervisors, guess she was not under oath, so help me god…

        • And the other disinformation she untruthfully states was:

          “and the community has had a huge role in sustaining it during these long years of process to become a County certified Park & Farm.”

          When did the SHCP ever become a “County certified Park & Farm”? Its private property, owned by a corporation and operated by a privately appointed Board of Directors, without Board meeting open to the public. There is nothing “County certified”, except the land use classification and zoning which were changed to, Public Facilities and Public Recreation, nothing about certifying it to be a “Park & Farm”, of which the Park Board rezoned out of AE!

          And the Park Board got approved to keep their existing residential development rights to the property called “transfer of development rights”. Too bad Humboldt County does not have a program, and or if Humboldt County ever adopts a Transfer of Development Rights program.

          “The project applicant proposes to be able to retain and transfer the existing residential
          development rights of the Agricultural Lands and Agriculture Rural Plan designations that currently apply to the property. These land use designations represent 54 potential parcels.”

          Don’t forget, the Park Board has threatened to sell the Park if they didn’t get the development designation they wanted. And those “residential development rights” would sure add a significant financial intensive to sell or lien any or all of the Park property to obtain more private loans…

  • Thank you for your Voice.
    Acknowledged terrible situations.
    To the Park Board: “Someone needs to find out who took the frozen strawberries!”.

  • Community 27, kinkers 1. Game over.

    So, Ed, let me get this straight.
    You are questioning the representation of the quality of the water at the SHCP.
    Or is it the quality itself you are questioning?
    I could see that just the regular testing fees could be quite prohibitive, not to mention paying an employee with the proper certification to do so, for so few users.
    Yet you seem to begrudge these people quality water from GSD.
    In good faith? Really? Makes no sense.
    I think there have been historic hookups at multiple locations there that should have prescriptive rights grandfathered in.
    It’s water. I say hook them back up.

    • Where are you getting your alternative facts from? The Park property has never, let me say it again, has never had a legal metered water connection with either the Garberville Water Co or GSD, they have no “prescriptive rights” or “grandfathered” rights. Its all a myth, fallacy and lie created by the Park Board.

      If facts matter to you please read the following facts from GSD, who have documented the non-historic water connection at the Park or Park property. Of note, read the last paragraph on page 5:

      https://drive.google.com/open?id=1iLfUtU2B9QM-v8_GMWrAQgx4-iXhyz-p

      • 4.9d Ed. Service connections.
        Mentions something to the effect of (upon division of property seperate services must be provided) with references to other sections not provided by your link. Nowhere does it state that these new services shall not be provided due to new stipulations on funding for a tight line to Kimtu.
        It was all one property at one point. Meter at the yellow house. These connections by far predate GSD.
        I believe it was Garberville Water then. You should try and research what kind of agreement Art Tooby and Fred Hurlbut had back in the day. When all that was required was a handshake and then things got done. Any rules someone dreamed up after that are the alternative facts, kinker.
        Stop begrudging water to a community you are no longer a resident of.
        You are no longer in “the sphere of influence” here. You don’t qualify for the Board, and you don’t get a vote.
        You have relegated yourself to the “circle of concern”.
        You have become “Just a Voice”.
        That’s all.
        Please behave accordingly.
        If you must, stir the pot in your new neighborhood.
        If you are really that obsessed with conserving water you could always cancel your own service…
        Think of the money you would save…
        You chose to leave us. Now, if you would only choose to leave us alone.
        Cut the cord, Bro, it is holding you back.

        • You are correct, the yellow house (Art Tooby) did get water from Fred Hurlbut (Garberville Water Co), but not “back in the day”, back in the 1980’s. And yes it was a hand shake deal. However, even that service to the yellow house was outside the GWC place of use, that’s why the meter was up and over on the other side of 101 from the yellow house and why GSD had to conduct a large and expensive annexation process to make everything legal. However, the Park was left out of that annexation process by GSD. If you do want to know all the details of that deal between Tooby and Hurlbut ask Bill Jones, he helped put that line down the hill to the yellow house from the meter when he worked as caretaker for Tooby…

          As for your other thoughts and aspirations, I’ll pass, but thanks for asking…

    • Even if the Park is approved to obtain a metered water connection from GSD, they are still required to follow the following BMP’s by the Humboldt County Deportment of Environmental Health:

      https://drive.google.com/open?id=1M3nVYSMKTwTlVBs45FeSK4YyfeXrAcns

      So no matter if they supply their own so called potable water from the Parks onsite water sources or use GSD, they are still required to preform monthly water testing…

      • That’s classic Ed ! The Humboldt County “Deportment” of Environmental Health.
        I guess we are talking about “ICE water” now…
        Look, let’s face it, the trouble arose when GSD decided it would sacrifice a few customers between Garberville and Kimtu to satisfy the State funding stipulation that the new 8″ line was “tight” (No service connections attached). The problem could have been solved by adding an additional supply line to serve those existing customers at the time of construction albeit at significant cost to GSD. New codes probably would have required a significantly upgraded pipe even for those few services. This additional line may have pencilled out better had they considered it by servicing the new park with it.
        To be fair the State funding for the 8″ line may not have even allowed an additional line in the same trenchwork, but that may have been negotiable and should have been done then if possible. Otherwise that area was effectively cut off from development regardlessly.
        As I understand it there is nothing to legitimately hook them up to without compromising GSD’s agreement with the State that there be no attachments to the Kimtu 8″ line.
        That the SHCP is somehow not meeting their regulatory requirements I find dubious at best.

        • Sorry, I stand corrected, its the Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services Division of Environmental Health. Other than that, are you asking a question or just talking out loud to make a point?

          • Fountain of youth

            I wasn’t trying to correct you. The ice thing was just a pun on a simple typo and my oft misunderstood sense of humor.
            You clearly have a better understanding of the parameters of the GSD than I do.
            I assumed customers along Sprowl Crk Rd and Kimtu were served via those roads and must be in the service area.
            My mistake.
            You’ve done your homework, obviously.
            I’m not talking out loud, but my point is it would be gracious to provide quality GSD water to Tooby Park and
            the Community Park in a reasonable amount as a civilized offering to those visitors and their children who might partake and ensure them of an experience they might wish to repeat.
            I’m not sure how many fish etc. you will save by bashing people or denying them drinking water. Unfortunately upstream conservation leads to downstream use. My suggestion long ago was to utilize Ruth reservoir water for users along the Eel after the pulp mill closed instead of pumping out of the Eel or its tributaries. Call it a pipe dream. I, too am fond of my home and the fish etc. That I understand.
            My Uncle used to steelhead fish the LA River back in the day.
            I’d hate to see the Eel turn into that.

            • Here is a map or figure of the GSD Place of Use, jurisdictional Boundary and SOI. If you notice, only the Kimtu Meadows Subdivition (20 homes) are included, not along Sprowel Creek Road or Kimtu Road past the “Yellow House”, just the 20 homes at Kimtu, its more of an island of service, just like the homes and properties at the Connick Creek subdivision:

              https://www.garbervillesd.org/district-boundary

              My point was, why did the Park Board lie publicly about their onsite water sources being potable and they were not going to use GSD water! And then changed the facts, after the facts were approved and not amend their General Plan Amendment or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to reflect the significant change in water use coming from GSD? I mean, that is the point of doing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). And on top of all of that, now the Park Board is claiming they are $475,000.00 in debt because of their EIR to rezone the Park. Its nuts and dishonest to say the least…

              http://humboldtlafco.org/wp-content/uploads/6B_GSD-Service-Extension-Request-ot-Waive-Fees.pdf

    • “You are questioning the representation of the quality of the water at the SHCP. Or is it the quality itself you are questioning?”

      Both. The Park Board lied to the public, lied to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors when they submitted and stated, in writing:

      “As discussed in Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, of the DEIR, the project would have adequate supplies of potable water… However, since the site was excluded from the 2014 annexation process by GSD, the project applicant has moved on to address the park’s water needs. The applicant completed a water supply and demand analysis, which showed there are adequate potable water supplies within the control of the applicant to develop the project. Further, the project includes a proposal for the use of an upland well as part of the overall water supply strategy. Water withdrawn from this well would not affect flows on the South Fork Eel River, which would be the case for water supplied from GSD. Thus, the proposed system of providing water from a range of sources available to the applicant is more environmentally beneficial, and annexation to GSD is not necessary.”

      So after all that BS, the Park will be using all their own onsite water sources, including use from the South Fork Eel, on top of using GSD metered water, that also comes from the South Fork Eel. So you tell me who to believe…

    • Sounds like community 27 and a number of others didn’t even bother to read his letter. Or follow the verification links to his succinctly stated points. Issues that on the face of it imo seem like valid concerns. I don’t understand the vitriol response, of “shut up.” I mean , at least try to address his points. Otherwise, by demonizing him immediately he has won by default. Keep the wheel squeaky ed!!

  • I followed through a quite a bit of the attached documentation. It seems that Mr. Voice has a very solid well documented case that he has spent a lot of time and money developing. Seems that all he wants is to make sure the rules that exist are followed. His motivation seems to be protecting the local rivers. Something we should all be behind.

  • The River Matters

    Water is a precious thing. But the Garberville Sanitary District is selling it to nearly everyone asking for service. Why? They are in deep debt. They need more money nowadays to pay for loans, high salaries and decaying infrastructure replacement. GSD neglected infrastructure maintenance for the last fifteen years by focusing on leap-frog development. And we see every year now that the river is almost gone in high summer.
    The Park Board is a leap-frog developer which is why they rezoned the Park for commercial use. They also are in deep debt. Already the Park’s ag activities (cattle, farm, vineyard) take over 7 million gallons of water a year from the river. A more commercialized Park (with concerts, festivals, camping, sport’s fields) using GSD water will take even more, most of it during summer low-flow, and will be competing with all other users including the proposed new hospital which will need (at minimum) 5 million gallons a year. GSD is fast approaching it’s take limit imposed by the State of 80 million gallons a year. Which project is more important?

  • Yes, Steve

    Thanks Ed for being the persistent person you are. We need more folks like him.

  • Why did the park board take out the drinking fountain that was a Tooby Park? That one would have been sufficient.
    And why have “drinking fountains” at all the event sites? Are those “drinking fountains” gonna each have a spigot for the vendors and other high water uses at events?

    • ” Are those “drinking fountains” gonna each have a spigot for the vendors and other high water uses at events?”

      That question has been asked and answered during public hearings at Humboldt LAFCo by GSD and food vendors would be able to use the “drinking fountains” for water. They claim that water use is secondary (yeah right). IMHO, it was the only way the Park Board to get potable water located at all the public assembly and commercial use area’s for events and development throughout the Park. I mean who could say NO to “drinking fountains”, right?

      If you think about it, it was a pretty good dodge, the same kinda dodge the Park Board has always used…

  • Water for residents first!

    Good on you, Ed Voice, all of your points are spot on. It’s EXTREMELY shady the way the SHCP pulled a bait-and-switch of this caliber. People need to realize that this is an issue of priceless natural resource distribution. When private parties like the SHCP force their mouth under our trickling faucets, it’s inevitably going to effect everybody in bad ways down the road. Permanent residents should be the district’s first priority. Tap water at that park isn’t necessary at all.

    I defy anybody who disagrees with you (and me, and truthfully most people) to predict when fresh water will begin to stabilize as a resource, because if a person isn’t aware that the creeks and rivers are drying up, they’re in for a rude awakening. Sadly, I predict within 20 years we’ll all be consuming mostly recycled sewage, as they’ve already had to do in cities everywhere.

  • I love Bob McKee, I honestly think he is a good person and that he has done a lot for the community over the years. The only question I have is “when are the new lots going to be for sale?”

    • You would need to ask Mr. McKee.

    • Concerning the SHCP, let me explain what McKee did do for the community? McKee paid approx $500 an acre for the whole Tooby Ranch and sold the land, which is now the Park, to Southern Humboldt Working Together for approx $3000.00 an acre (x 430 acres). Now you have to remember, all the donations Dazey solicited (approx $650,000) and received for the SHCP (in 2000) was given directly to McKee for him to help purchase the whole Tooby Ranch. The Park sale price in 2000 was $1,125,000. On top of that, McKee collected compounded interest on one of the Park’s note/loans that was approx $483,000 from 2000 to 2008. And out of that deal, McKee was able to keep and retain 80 acres of the SHCP property for himself. Yeah, McKee is all in for the “community”…

  • clean safe drinking water for all

    Only Ed Voice would try to stop clean safe drinking water from being available for the kids and adults of so hum to use.

    • That would be true, if it were true, but again you did not read the links and information I provided or read any of the local news articles published since June 2019. Its not just “Ed Voice” that is protesting this project, its two other local residents and the Redway Community Services District. I guess you missed that part?

  • Clean safe drinking water for kids

    Why are you against safe clean drinking water for children to use at the park?

    • I am not “against safe clean drinking water for children to use at the park?”, those are your words, not mine. I am protesting the process and how the Park Board and GSD are circumventing the CEQA process by obtaining a metered water connection from GSD, its that simple. You are putting words in my mouth that I never stated. Read my protest, its posted in my letter to the editor above. Here is another link. Please read it and tell me where I was “against safe clean drinking water for children to use at the park?” And if you want anymore information from me, use your name, your real name, not these made up childish names, anonymous this and anonymous that…

      https://www.garbervillesd.org/files/cade65fbd/E.Voice+Protest.pdf

      • Mr. Voice,
        I appreciate the information you have provided on this subject. Per your request my name is also Ed. Really. This is my first comment today. I don’t want to be confused with trolls.
        Have the Park (Tooby Park) and the Farm (SHCP) merged and are one or both seeking meters?
        Only the park board knows why they would change positions on their water situation.

        I’ve reported multiple significant leaks to the GSD. Some they were aware of some they were not. As soon as they fix one thing something else blows.
        I think it’s safe to say their system is dated and leaks like a sieve. Way more water goes to waste than an additional meter or two.
        That GSD and prospective users would need to duplicate bureaucratic requirements seems redundant and prohibitive. EIR for a meter, really? Ouch.
        GSD has a permit for x gallons out of the Eel. They sell it til they are tapped. Where it goes should be first come first served.
        Do you see flaws in the process because you are opposed to the project, or are you opposed to the project because you see flaws in the process?
        Thank you,
        Ed

        • Fresh water is disappearing worldwide.

          “Do you see flaws in the process because you are opposed to the project, or are you opposed to the project because you see flaws in the process?”

          [edit] I don’t know Ed Voice whatsoever. You’re intentionally presenting a loaded question.

          There’s a process by which the FDA can allow more rat poison in your food. Do you oppose allowing more rat poison in your food because of flaws in the process, or do you see flaws in the process because you’re opposed to allowing more rat poison in your food?

        • According to GSD’s last water diversion report statement to the division of water rights for 2018, GSD loses approx 14 Million gallons a year after they treat the water and pump it thru-out its distribution system and infrastructure. That is a total lose of more than 17% of the 80 Million gallons they are licensed and permitted to take from the South Fork Eel. There is a PDF attachment near the end of the report:

          https://rms.waterboards.ca.gov/PermitPrint_2018.aspx?FORM_ID=388428

          As far as water meters are concerned, GSD and the Park are only approved one (1) 3/4″ meter for everything included in the agreement between the Park and GSD. And the meter will be located near the GSD water treatment plant off Tooby Ranch Road, coming off the main 8″ transmission line. Neither GSD or the Park has disclosed how, what or where they are piping water to Tooby Park or any of the other locations GSD water will be used from the meter to the drinking fountains and the two residents/rentals.

          “Do you see flaws in the process because you are opposed to the project, or are you opposed to the project because you see flaws in the process?”

          My protest speaks for itself, please read it and you will find your answer…

          Thank you,
          Edv

        • “That GSD and prospective users would need to duplicate bureaucratic requirements seems redundant and prohibitive. EIR for a meter, really? Ouch.”

          Who said anything about doing an “EIR for a meter”? The Park did an EIR, but neglected to include “a meter” and water use from GSD. Its easy, they make an addendum and amend the EIR to include the “meter” and water use from GSD, easy peasy.

  • Why is Ed Voice against clean safe water for kids?

    It’s a simple question which you haven’t answered.
    Your actions are preventing clean safe drinking water for kids, therefor you are against clean safe drinking water for kids.
    Why? Are you against clean safe drinking water for kids?

    • If any one is denying water to the children it was really the park board when they took out the drinking fountain at Tooby Park.

  • 🕯🌳I feel your pain in different place,in a different way Ed. Wish you luck.🦄👍🏽

  • and are you still beating your wife??

    ha

  • Mary Ella Anderson

    You go, Ed. The whole Community Park thing was a scam from the beginning. If you look at pictures of the area before the park took over the Tooby property, G’ville was a clean and apparently prosperous town. Currently it looks like a town that is dying from want of care. And the park wants more water? Where are all the faux SoHum environmentalists and what are they doing about climate change? Typing misspelled comments that can’t distinguish their from there. Ed is trying to protect the environment. The park is trying to get rich quick, the established SoHum economic plan.

    • You are absolutely correct, the whole “Community Park thing was a scam”, it was a land grab, paid for by public donations and public funding to a 501c3. One of the main reasons given by Dazey (from day one in 2000) for people to donate and “save the property from haphazard development”. It ends up, after the smoke cleared, the Park Board transferred and conveyed 80 acres to McKee (APN 222-091-011) and 80 acres to Dazey (APN 222-241-010 & 222-091-009) from the lot line adjustment in 2009 without paying a dime. And since 2017, the Park Board, without Board meeting open to the public, are planning the same haphazard development they claimed they wanted to “save” in the beginning.

      If this is the Park Boards idea of saving wildlife habitat, wetlands, open space and prime Ag land, what does that say for their values and mission as stated:

      “The Southern Humboldt Community Park’s primary goal is to administer careful utilization of park resources for the greatest community benefit. We recognize the importance of protecting current park resources for their own sake as well as to provide for future community needs.”

      https://www.sohumpark.org/community/stewardship-of-park/

      “We believe the inherent beauty and value of the natural landscape is tied to our cultural history. It weaves vitality and meaning into the fabric of our daily lives. So, we acquired 430 acres of meadow, forest and historic ranch structures along the Eel River to establish a regional park. Our goal is to create opportunities for recreation, culture, agriculture, education and celebration and to ensure the enjoyment of this rich, diverse land for generations to come and to conserve the Park’s scenic, historic and natural resources.”

      https://www.sohumpark.org/

  • Cut to the chase.

    There’s a bottom line. The park board gained approval through the promise that there would be no need to tap water. They promised this in several ways. It’s all in writing. It’s their original plan. They assured everybody, time and again. Now they are reneging on that promise.

    Further, the manner in which events have unfolded, as has been closely watched by a lot more people than just Ed Voice, shows that the board’s decision to renege on their original plans could hardly have been made late in the game. In other words, it smells like a classic bait and switch, all too common among shady developers everywhere.

    That should never fly in this county. Deny the park board’s petition. Unless they were pretending to understand the importance of properly managing our most precious natural resources, they should understand why, and graciously stick to the plan they promised. It will still be a great park, and everybody will appreciate that they honored their word.

    • Exactly!

      Its just like the old growth redwood lumber milling operation the Park Board conducted within Tooby Park recently, at the beginning of 2020. Claiming those old redwoods had posed a safety threat to the Play Ground area at Tooby Park, so the Park Board had them cut down. And now years later (this month) milling them up into lumber, for whom?

      And, what the Park Board stated on their newly revised website “Continuing Work with Cal Fresh”:

      https://www.sohumpark.org/2019/09/park-news/continuing-work-with-cal-fresh/

      “The Park continues to partner with Cal Fresh, California’s statewide program addressing food insecurity among vulnerable populations – low income families and individuals, the elderly and the disabled.”

      When in fact, that statement could not be further from the truth. In reality, the Park gets reimbursed by the County to administer a Calfresh Outreach Program through a County program administered by DHHS, and the Park coordinates goods and services from other partners, that are then distributed/delivered by third party partners/volunteers (meals on wheels) to local Calfresh recipients.

      Also, the Park doesn’t provide this service as a free community service, it’s not reliant on public donations, the Park is paid to administer, operate and provide these services under contract with Humboldt County, to the tune of approx $48,000 per fiscal year, which includes being reimbursed for personnel, operation, consumables/supplies, transportation/travel, administrative experiences and overhead costs (see page 27 on the link below). And, the Community Park Farm sells produce, eggs and meat to this Park program, which is operated by a private for-profit business (Mykal Coeiho), and then reimbursed back through this same County contract/agreement with the Park Board.

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/16vMKsONW_4HEdSsRiqzZJcdO8HQO5SI_

      However, this may all seem very kosher, except for the Park Boards “Articles of Incorporation”, which states, in part, from Article “Six”:

      “Six: The property of this corporation is irrevocably dedicated to charitable purposes and
      no part of the net income or assets of the organization shall ever inure to the benefit of
      any director, officer or member thereof or to the benefit of any private person.”

      Which you can read here, page 3 and 7 of the PDF link:

      https://drive.google.com/open?id=1FOg0QV-rEDyQXLDIlf7d8LJwoarOU4Zb

      So how is it that the Park Board can lease “property” of the organization to a private for-profit businesses that only benefits a “private person” and pay this same “private person” from their “net income or assets of the organization”, that is reimbursed through their contract with the County to provide produce, eggs and meat?

      It would seem, in leasing the Park Farm or “property” for row crops, livestock or wine grapes to a “private person”, aka Mykal Coeiho, he is not only benefiting from “property of this corporation”, but also personally profiting from the “net income and assets of the organization” by selling his produce to other for-profit businesses, aka grocery stores, restaurants and at the farmers market.

      So it begs the question:

      1) Is the Park Board above the law and not having to comply with their Articles of Incorporation?

      2) Has the current Board of Directors read and understand its Articles of Incorporation?

      3) Or do they not care one way or the other?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.