LAKEPORT>> Consideration of an ordinance amending Article 9 Chapter 15 of Lake County Code, updating the water vessel inspection program was introduced by Chair E. J. Crandell on Tuesday during the Board of Supervisors meeting.
Water Resources Chair Pwan Upadhyay noted the water vessel inspection process in the code cited above indeed warranted expansion. “Lake County code was originally established to protect Lake County’s water bodies from invasive species such as Quagga and Zebra mussels, he said. “These species are an ecological and economic threat to local water recourses and ecosystems. There is a need to update the water vessel inspection program, and it is a necessary step to safeguard Lake County’s water resources.”
With the recent discovery of Golden Mussels in the Bay Area there is now a need to expand an overall county ordinance, he went on. This amendment includes Golden mussels to provide a legal framework to ensure Lake County proactively protects against invasive species, he urged.
District 2 Supervisor Bruno Sabatier said changes were simple enough he did not have an issue with them. Yet the lake is already vulnerable to various other threats and is difficult to treat as it is presently. “However, if you find somebody who did not get a sticker, (for safety inspection), then you did not care enough to get your vessel checked out,” he said. “It’s a $100 fine and you will ruin the lake for others.”
“I know we’re following State law, I got materials from the Water Resources Board. But I know we have taken steps for violations such as cannabis, where we have increased the potential for fines. I’m wondering if it’s possible to come back to the board with stiffer fines for potential of contamination of the entire lake … because once the mussels are here, it’s very difficult if not impossible to resolve. And the cost could be exponential to achieve resolution. So, I feel it’s not a deterrent to set at $100. So, $100, $200, $500 or $1,000, if it’s four violations. I feel this $100 is not a deterrent.”
“I’m wondering if it’s a possibility of coming back with a different administrative fine other than just that of that adding Golden mussels, makes perfect sense,” he added.
“Are we allowed to flesh it out; amend the ordinance on the fly or do we come back with a new amendment?” Crandell asked County Counsel Lloyd Guintivano.
“You have two main options,” he said. “Either incorporate whatever amendments you have with administrative fines today, the other option is, if there’s details ready in place that’s consistent with proposed amendments, continue to another reading of the ordinance to lock into administrative fines issues, make that more robust.”
Sabatier said he thought they should move forward with what they have, and if there’s a possibility to make the proposed amendment more robust at a later time, because people were putting boats in the water already. Vice Chair Rasmussen was also in favor of looking at higher fines, yet he said he did not want to hold up progress on the current update. He did inquire if there was a general administrative fine on violations to county code or are these specific to each individual ordinance. “I don’t believe we have a blanket administrative fine; it goes code section by code section, there’s no ‘catch-all,'” said Guintivano.
District 1 Supervisor Helen Owen suggested eliminating the $100 fine and elevating it to $200. But Sabatier said he had no desire to provide specific details, other than to see stiffer penalties, because of possible repeat offenders. “I think with the State Water Resources Board and County Counsel, we know what limitations are and we’re not getting ourselves in the red and putting us in trouble, but knowing we want (a way) to stiffer fines and then coming back for options. I think we can bring this ordinance along now and then update it later.”
Crandell noted that it looked as if they could bring this ordinance forward for a second read. The ordinance received a second motion, and the initial amendment was slated for a second reading.
“If I may clarify for purposes of the reading, it would adopt the ordinance as it is presented right now with administrative fine portions of that based on your staff recommendations based on research and recommendations,” said Lloyd Guintivano, Lake County counsel.
