GLUE Members Report 12-12-06

First and foremost, I would like to extend the warmest of holiday greetings to all our members and friends. I hope the Christmas season brings you nothing but joy, and for that matter I wish the same for even our adversarial friends. Peace on earth, Grand Lake and good will towards men and let’s not forget the ladies.

2007 looms as a very important year when it comes to determining the future direction of Grand Lake. I would predict the Shoreline Management Plan will drag out to at least until the end of next year. Unless some middle ground can be found between the competing interest groups, what lies ahead will not be a pretty picture. If the final draft of the plan doesn’t change significantly from the one released in October, the public hearing phase of the process promises to be a bloody mess.

There’s the remote possibility the GRDA staff will go ahead and make some changes to the final committee recommendations, but I wouldn’t count on that too much. If cooler minds don’t prevail before the public hearings, we will be prepared with a very professional presentation of what we deem are reasonable alternatives to the vegetation management plan and the proposed zoning of Grand Lake. Many of you have expressed your concerns about the impact of this zoning on your property values and proposed changes in how GRDA property could be maintained between your property and the water.

I’m told the public hearing portion of this process will have three different venues…..Tulsa, Oklahoma City and Grand Lake. The authority appears to be making participation in the hearing process more convenient than in the past. It’s yet to be determined where the metro meetings will be hosted, but I would guess the Grand Lake meetings will be in Grove, at The Coves and perhaps Cowboy Junction in Vinita. Regardless of where they are, we have to be there in force if we are to impact our future and that of others. As I said when we started this GLUE deal, I won’t ask you to attend meetings just to take up space. But when I tell you we need to be there to protect the future, you better be willing to make it happen or don’t blame any one else for the result.

The real power brokers in this deal, whether it is the vegetation management plan or the shoreline zoning, seem to be the wildlife interest. The stakeholders, which were proclaimed equal by the Electrical Consumers Protection Act of 1986, have been defined by some to be commercial, recreational, adjacent property owners and environmental enthusiast. As I see it, they are anything but equal.

What we’re really talking about here is the small piece of property between an adjacent property owners land and that of the GRDA. If the band of land we’re talking about is truly public property, which we could debate for hours, why is one stakeholder group assigned ownership over the other three?  As some like to say when it’s convenient, “This Lake is owned by the tax payers of the state of Oklahoma.”

I would contend the public property in question is owned by all, not just the wildlife contingent. With that being said, I see no reason that group should receive preferred status. They are already being granted such according to the most recent smp maps by being assigned a minimum of 33% of the lake as sensitive. Could their aggressive claim of ownership be tied to the fact, that just like the GRDA, they receive no state appropriations? They are funded by license fees and moneys they can leverage from organizations like the authority. Could this not also be construed as a conflict of interest?

Regardless of which stakeholder group you belong to, you have a right to the use of the band of land in question. If we’re going to allow a state agency to assume ownership and demand mitigation every time we turn around, why it shouldn’t be the GRDA instead of wildlife since there are both unfunded state agencies. It would seem this process has lost sight of the rights of the very people many claim own the band of land in question and assigned those same rights to one stakeholder group.

The claims by the environmental enthusiast that the lake destroyed wildlife habitat when it was built just doesn’t compute. The land Grand Lake now occupies was primarily farm and ranch land which was privately held and purchased by the authority when the lake was designed. The shoreline created by Grand Lake dwarfs what was available to benefit wildlife before the construction of the lake and much of the wetlands created were virtually non-existent before. What about the people’s rights?

This lake has been a Godsend to all the previously mentioned stakeholder groups and then some. It not only has provided flood control and power generation, but has created an environment where you can kick back in about any mode you chose. Take your pick, boating, fishing, relaxing and socializing at the cabin or just taking in the wildlife, whose stopping you? But what about that fifth stakeholder group? That would be the people from what used to be the poorest corner of our state who now enjoy  and some self worth created by this great economic engine called Grand Lake. Are we really going to let a federal bureaucracy and same nay Sayers to join together to wreck something that just isn’t broke?

If I’ve got your attention, we’ve met the objective of this report. Stay tuned for your marching orders.

Water Level Petition

At Wednesday’s GRDA board meeting, GLUE has secured a spot on the agenda to present the water level petition. Thanks to many of you we have approximately 3,000 signatures and the endorsement of the South Grand Lake Area Chamber of Commerce and the Grand Lake Association.

This will be but step one in securing some relief from the ill fated millet seeding program which requires dropping the lake to 741’ for a minimum of sixty days. There are two possible alternatives to the existing plan which could be considered. The most likely to be embraced by the wildlife boys, and the most expensive of course, would be the provision of an off lake preserve for migrating water fowl. The acreage would be negotiable but would have to include irrigation and appropriate management for the best results. In wildlife jargon this is called mitigation.

The other possibility would be a study to determine if there is enough mud flat area above the 742’ elevation to continue to provide approximately 1100 acres for the existing millet seeding program, but without dropping the lake to 741’.

I’ll post a report on how we’re received at tomorrow’s meeting.

Cheers