Subscriber Comments for
Montecito Creek on East Valley Road

Comments in order of when they were received | (reverse order)

COMMENT 323563	2012-09-24 09:59 AM
Im as mad as hell and im not going to take it anymore!!! pillow fight
COMMENT 323575P	2012-09-24 10:11 AM
sounds like we're about to revisit some of the Owen's Valley history. this is like a modern day William Mulholland story!
COMMENT 323579	2012-09-24 10:17 AM
I'm not gonna take it anymore! "It's" is a contraction for IT IS. It Is Not the Possessive. Sorry for the hijack. Land Trust, why didn't you send the proper notifications?
COMMENT 323583	2012-09-24 10:26 AM
Seems like a well structured and documented case...Unfortunately, I tune out whenever people start using such dramatic, over the top language for a simple discussion. It's a fish, not some Chumash life partner and spirit guide, let's just tell the facts and leave the hype for plastic bag bans.
COMMENT 323587P	2012-09-24 10:34 AM
Thanks. "Please help" --- How, with details, do you suggest we help?
COMMENT 323600P	2012-09-24 11:17 AM
You may want to look at Val Verde.
COMMENT 323606P	2012-09-24 11:34 AM
The Val Verde Estate?
COMMENT 323611	2012-09-24 11:41 AM
Look - the Land Trust has had plenty of opportunities to voice in on any of these discussions. I'm not affiliated with any organization, but decided to contact them for their side of the story - or at least add their comments - and they have done nothing. When an organization goes quite - it really leads one to believe that they are hiding something they would rather not have the public know about. One thing that really is disturbing is that the Montecito Water Company has left many many rusting pipes up at the hotel. Is that any way to treat the land? They are being very arrogant with their actions.
COMMENT 323626	2012-09-24 01:58 PM
I think it is a shame that a select few can take over such a precious spot. There aren't a lot of natural hot springs in this area, and this has the potential to be one of the best. I have been up there and I think it is crazy that all the hot water is being piped down to private residences. And for what? So they can water their lawns? I think the hot spring should be opened to the public since it is now on public land!!
COMMENT 323647	2012-09-24 03:28 PM
Why won't the OP recognize that the water rights did not transfer when the property was purchased by the Land Trust. Owning the land does not automatically give you rights to the minerals or water underneath especially if those rights were already sold off in a separate deal.
COMMENT 323651	2012-09-24 03:36 PM
626: I, too, would like to be able to enjoy the natural hot springs. Unfortunately, how do you police this activity? In the "old days," which weren't all that long ago, my friends and I used to skinny dip up there. Mellow, and a restorative communing with nature. When was the last time you went to Pendola Hot Springs? That area is a long, arduous haul to get there, and it has become a family-unfriendly venue, to say the least. If there was an "open to the public" hot springs close to civilization, you would be opening up a whole can of worms. We live at a time when there are too many people and too much willingness to litigate. I say keep it private and don't encourage those who have no respect to destroy nature.
COMMENT 323668	2012-09-24 04:17 PM
@647 The fact is that Mark McCaslin (prior owner) does not have 50% of the water rights. The fact is this: Montecito Creek Water Company owns 50% of the water, Land Trust of Santa Barbara County owns and controls the other 50%. @626 How to police? The only way to police the springs is the return of facilities and caretaker. Does anyone recall prior to 1964 Coyote Fire? I do. There was not negative perceptions of the springs that the primary donor holds today when there was facilities with caretaker. The problems arrived after the fire not before the fire!
COMMENT 323712	2012-09-24 05:11 PM
Thank you for this post. Very informative - thank you again.
COMMENT 323753P	2012-09-24 07:24 PM
I remember one alcoholic E Mtn Drive resident used to scare the touristas out of the springs by telling them to 'watch out for the red anal borers.' After they would hurriedly leave, he'd have the place to himself!
COMMENT 323668	2012-09-24 07:44 PM
Throughout the west there are numerous hot springs on federal land. It is very common for non profits to form to manage hot springs. There are workable pragmatic solutions. Unlike the back country such as Big and Little Caliente - unless managed then indeed the springs will be trashed. That is coming. The real question we should ask before these springs are tossed to the USFS is do we want local control or a dysfunctional federal agency that has a dismal track record with springs to exacerbate the situation and try to avoid management or contract to a concessionaire. A fatal mistake on behalf of Land Trust was to not include the public and have real discourse on the issue. It is likely to come back and haunt them over the years.
COMMENT 323782	2012-09-24 08:52 PM
Whose bright idea was to give this to the USFS anyway? I would like to have my donation back Michael Feeney!
JUKINJAY	2012-09-24 09:44 PM
583, yes, it's a fish. It's also a natural and historic resource. From http://www.sblandtrust.org/mission.html "The Land Trust for Santa Barbara County protects natural resources, agricultural land and open spaces for the benefit of present and future generations." Their actions in this case seem to be antithetical to their mission. Their actions to date have resulted in natural mineral springs diverted 100% to water the lawns of Montecito estates, a bone-dry creek, and no benefit to present or future generations. Read the "What we do" bullet points on their link above, and compare to what they actually do.
COMMENT 323833	2012-09-25 07:57 AM
The Land Trust's motto should be "Trust Us". It is run by and for wealthy people. They throw a few crumbs to the hippie types and in return get lots of free labor. Their precious environmentalism is in the 'look' of their world. They could care less about fish that come into conflict with the 'land rights' of their wealthy patrons.
COMMENT 323853	2012-09-25 08:42 AM
The actions you describe, if I understand them correctly, would have required an analysis under CEQA which report would then identify the issues and impacts to that physical environment involved and any impacts that these actions had to the abutting or downstream owners with reparian or subterranian water rights. Such an analysis would include verification of the amounts of water being taken. What does the environmental assessment or EIR say about the issues you are raising?
COMMENT 323668	2012-09-25 08:45 AM
I attended the Land Trust for Santa Barbara County "public" presentation at the Montecito Library and noticed how there was a very deliberate attempt to squelch any discussion of the springs by Michael Feeney. I imagine there was a reason not to include the public in open discussions because the public did not matter only the insular group of neighbors on Hot Springs Road and East Valley and those receiving water. I can only imagine that Land Trust would get donations for years to come for delivering the goods.
BURNTTHISTLE	2012-09-25 09:29 AM
The flow in Hot springs and Montecito Creeks doesn't look any different than it has in in a average summer over the the last 30 + years. This land was not purchased to open up a public hot spring
COMMENT 323668	2012-09-25 09:43 AM
What is not realized is that a sizable amount of water flowed to Montecito Creek up until between 1964-1971 at which time the springs were capped. Prior to that capping the 50% used by the facilities were flow through systems that flowed back into the creek. SO for 50 years the Hot Springs creek bed has been dried out. 1860 - no diversions 1887 - the beginning of diversions 1897 - diversion water rights formalized ONLY 50% of the water! NOW the other 50% of the water is available for watershed restoration and steelhead. Now exactly why was the land purchased? To continue to damage the watershed and deny water to the steelhead?
COMMENT 323944	2012-09-25 11:48 AM
The Land Trust does not take care of it's Mission Canyon property either. The land has become an eyesore of junk and parked vehicles. The mulch placed on the land was infested with weed trees that are now a fire hazard. The Land Trust has allowed designated open space to be turned into a garbage dump.
COMMENT 323668	2012-09-25 12:50 PM
@944 the USFS has tremendous issues of managing it's land. Pot farming being a glaring example. What is actually needed is community dialogue or discussions on how to steward the springs and land. Arroyo Hondo nor Sedgwick Preserve has the issues you observe, correct? My suggestions is for Land Trust for Santa Barbara County partner with the various stakeholders and the public to address how to resolve watershed restoration and allowing the public to soak in a naturally immersive experience as enjoyed for literally thousands of years. Every problem awaits creative solution. Santa Barbara collectively has what it takes to honor the historically significant springs.
COMMENT 323957	2012-09-25 12:50 PM
OMG, another version of agenda 21, but private players watering lawns instead of paying attention to endangered species. I guess that's how we will go extinct too. Is a non profit corporation still a corporation? Why does it all work so smoothly bringing the water for lawns and land to federal control without a mention of public need or right? Why are people too absorbed with dysfunctional politics while allowing resource to be diverted and dominated when laws can be invoked to prevent it? A mass mental problem? What was that free speech stuff? What did it mean after all? Did we ever find a way to bring it meaning?
BURNTTHISTLE	2012-09-25 02:16 PM
944, the Mission Cyn. property is a conservation easement. The Land Trust has no control over this. They do not own the land.
COMMENT 323668	2012-09-25 06:15 PM
Do you want to protect steelhead or shall we go ahead and drive the fish to extinction? I think it is clear that the land trust has made up it's mind. I guess the next question is will the USFS be better conservationists then the land trust?
COMMENT 323668	2012-09-26 10:00 AM
Considering that the USFS is successfully sued so often to follow it's own environmental laws I believe the prospect of the USFS doing the right thing for watershed restoration is slim to none.

29% of comments on this page were made by Edhat Community Members.

*** One comment was removed from this thread by the Edhat Board Nanny for violating Edhat Comments Board policy. Click Here to see it.

EDHAT COMMENTS POLICY