Subscriber Comments for
Hot Springs Canyon

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

COMMENT 324338	2012-09-26 12:40 PM
I personally find it disgusting that property owners value their landscaping more than the health and welfare of our creeks and fish stock. But I am not surprised in the least. Greed and selfishness are rampant among the land holders of this particular area. And it makes perfect sense that they feel entitled to a public resource.
COMMENT 324339	2012-09-26 12:43 PM
Is there no other source of water for these 38 residences?
COMMENT 324343	2012-09-26 12:52 PM
I smell envy.
COMMENT 324352P	2012-09-26 01:06 PM
The Land Trust's approach is COMPLETELY wrong. Fix the water issue now while LT is entitled to 50% of the water with the 180 day notice, THEN give it to USFS. Why give it to USFS who will then have a POLITICAL decision to make and will also be encumbered with all the legal responsibilities around environmental assessment, public hearings, etc. If the most environmentally responsible thing to do, AND the reason WHY people contributed money to the Trust to protect the environment is to stop wasting it on rich Montecito estate landscape, then DO THE RIGHT THING and fix the problem instead of handing it off to the Forest Service as a hot potato. Since when is it a RESPONSIBLE approach to raise money, buy land to protect it, and then run for cover by tossing it over the fence to the federal government to solve? Is that really going to result in a decision best for the environment? I will NEVER contribute to the Land Trust again if they do this. Yes, this really does torque me off.
COMMENT 324353	2012-09-26 01:07 PM
In other words, the Land Trust cares more about the Montecito Creek Water Company than it does about the creek that has been entrusted to their care. As the legal owners, they could have invoked their right to claim 50% of the water at any time since they purchased the property it in March, but instead they have chosen to kick the can down the road and make it the Forest Service's problem. Considering the Forest Service won't take posession until the end of the year, and likely won't take up this issue as their first order of business, we're looking at another summer with all of the creek water being diverted to homeowners. Sad when you can't trust the "Land Trust" to do the right thing for the land.
COMMENT 324363	2012-09-26 01:26 PM
Michael Feeney has betrayed the public trust and punted to the USFS! When can I have my donation returned!
COMMENT 324366P	2012-09-26 01:35 PM
I appreciate the land trust releasing this statement. At least they explained their perspective politely, which is more than many of their critics are doing.
COMMENT 324369	2012-09-26 01:37 PM
There must be a public record of these 38 land owners somewhere in the recorded agreement affecting this Land Trust property. What does their landscaping look like?
COMMENT 324374	2012-09-26 01:44 PM
So now how do we get Cachuma to release more water into the Santa Ynez river? Imagine if we had an amazingly beautiful river flowing through the valley again....
COMMENT 324366P	2012-09-26 01:46 PM
352P -- well put.
COMMENT 324391	2012-09-26 02:16 PM
352, 353 state excellent points. It is so typical to pass along the problems to an agency which is so underfunded to start with by government they can barely function at a minimum level. This is a most disgusting predicament and needs to be resolved BEFORE it gets turned over. No, I am not envious of them using the water source, I don't need it thank you.
COMMENT 324393	2012-09-26 02:22 PM
The Land Trust for SB is one of the most reputable and well run nonprofits in this area, and over the past thirty years their policies and practices have preserved so many of our natural treasures.The recent campaign of misinformation about the Land Trust is regrettable and unfair, and I can say as a longtime supporter (who knows many others) that our trust in this organization will always be backed up by our financial support as well. I'm glad the Land Trust is setting the record straight!
COMMENT 324407	2012-09-26 02:42 PM
I would like to thank the entire Western world, for the outstanding job you`ve done with ALL of the earths resourses. Did I mention that the earth is DEAD and unable to support human life?.... Well done....
COMMENT 324352P	2012-09-26 02:51 PM
Looking at it another way, what's the point of having the USFS (and taxpayers) have to take responsibility for operating a water source that the LAND TRUST feels is OK to use for landscaping? Why didn't they just facilitate selling it to the Montecito Creek Water Company? The Forest Service doesn't have magic fairy dust that they can sprinkle around that is going to make everyone happy, so why not Land Trust do the right thing and have the BALLS to make the right decision now? I'm sure the Forest Service just thrilled about all this. Not.
COMMENT 324412	2012-09-26 02:53 PM
Why not go to the 38 residents and ask them to forfeit their rights to the water as a form of community service? The county could give them a tax break of some kind and the water can go back to the springs. Why did the land trust buy the property if they were not going to do anything for its benefit? I don't know what they used for their fundraising but I'm pretty sure it wasn't "Give us money so we can buy the hot springs land, do nothing to change how it is maintained, then give it to the USFS." Isn't it illegal to solicit donations under false pretenses?
COMMENT 324419P	2012-09-26 03:09 PM
The other thing omitted from the Land Trust's statement is the provision in the original agreement as to WHERE the water is to be taken. The Montecito Creek Water Company is entitled to take 50% of the water at a diversion dam quite some distance downstream from the spring, as they did for decades. Only recently has the Water Company sealed off the springs at their source, depriving the entirety of the creek of any water at all. It is the duty of the Land Trust to, as their mission statement declares, preserve this natural resource for present and future generations. Not preserve the lawns of 38 Montecito estates and certainly not to kick the can down the road to the Forest Service. At the very least they could put the Montecito Creek Water Company on notice that they reserve their 50% rights, AND demand that they take the water at the diversion dam as agreed.
COMMENT 324419P	2012-09-26 03:12 PM
I wonder how many of the owners of the Montecito Creek Water Company benefiting from this giveaway are also major donors to or on the board of the Land Trust. Follow the money.
COMMENT 324425P	2012-09-26 03:16 PM
Maybe the land Trust shouldn't have bought the property to convert it into public lands. Then some private party could have bought property and turned the land into an estate. Since the estate needed water they would then claim the other 50% of the water that the water company didn't own. End result, no hot springs water flowing into the creek ever again. That's what I hear being advocated. At least now there is a potential for 50% of the springs water flowing into the creek. I love the steelhead. Unfortunately because of the 6 months notice required for the 50%, the creek would have run dry before any of the hot springs water would have flowed into the creek. I wonder why the creek has run dry this year in the usually wet water holes. Given that the springs water has always been with held from the creek in the summer, I suspect the problem is a lowering of the water table. I would look into why the water table is so low this year-is it because we are in a low rainfall year or is too much ground water being pumped out of the ground.
COMMENT 324426	2012-09-26 03:17 PM
I agree that this was a reasoned and civil statement on the issue. That folks take issue with the sale of the property is perfectly acceptable but the vitriolic assault is not. Had the Land Trust not purchased the property when it did the window to the price set would have closed and the property made available to any developer who wanted it. Believe me, if a commercial developer got their hands on it the canyon would've become another subdivision of McMansions. Crying over spilled milk is childish. Things change, progress (or regress if you don't see it that way) unfolds and we adapt. Yesterday is gone..... there is no going back to it. How can we make tomorrow better without clouding the issue with entitlements and boorish behaviour?
COMMENT 324433	2012-09-26 03:26 PM
Anyone know exactly why the land trust didn't file the 180 days notification immediately after closing the sale in March? I can only imagine they didn't want to get mired in a lengthily and costly legal battle, but their right to 50% of the water is a contractual fact and it doesn't appear the water co has a leg to stand on. Yes, this is a "delicate issue" but what harm would there be to (re)gain access to their 50% of the water and let it run downstream unimpeded until further review?
COMMENT 324444	2012-09-26 03:38 PM
In the immortal words of Warren Zevon, send lawyers, guns and money! That's what it looks like this mess will need to get it straightened out.
COMMENT 324445	2012-09-26 03:38 PM
425: It has been an especially dry year in the southern half of the state. Last winter didn't offer much rainfall.
COMMENT 324352P	2012-09-26 04:15 PM
...and no water is going to flow downstream as long as all of it is being captured at the Springs itself, which is a new development subsequent to Land Trust acquisition. I also had the same thoughts as 423P... and would not be surprised if much of the money the Land Trust used to acquire the property came directly or indirectly from the owners of the properties whose landscape benefits from the water. Follow the money indeed.
COMMENT 324561	2012-09-26 06:15 PM
Let's just put it this way - Michael Feeney supplied his own rope to hang himself long ago and every step of the way he tightened the noose upon himself. It is self inflicted. This is just the tip of the iceberg regarding Montecito Hot Springs and the debacle that Land Trust for Santa Barbara County ensnared itself in. Next time rather then defrauding the public trust try transparency. None of that matters to me but forevermore Land Trust for Santa Barbara County will be the murderer of steelhead - an endangered species. It appears that Land Trust bought a dry to the bone "white elephant". I will leave it to the apologists to defend the indefensible.
COMMENT 324594	2012-09-26 07:32 PM
The Land Trust is not in the business of saving land for the public benefit. It is in the business of preserving views for it's wealthy donors, especially Montecito donors. But that aside, why hasn't someone brought up the issue of creek diversions. Folks, they are illegal period. Yes, they can be grandfathered in. But a good lawyer could probably squash any attempt to grandfather in this illegal creek diversion. And there are lots of good, expensive lawyers on the Board of the Land Trust.
COMMENT 324363	2012-09-26 08:02 PM
Tragically this pales compared to the dismissive insult of taking $10,000 dollars from the Pearl Chase Society and then insulting Kellam de Forest along with the Preservation Committee and not allowing those people to get up to the old hotel ruins so that they could proceed in it's efforts to list the springs for National Historic Landmark designation. Search his name and you will know why it was reprehensible that Michael Feeney would rebuff his efforts. How do these people sleep at night?
GILBERT	2012-09-27 03:29 AM
The Land Trust has done (is doing) a great job of preserving open spaces in S.B. County. Think Sedgwick, Arroyo Hondo,Point Sal, Carp Bluffs (partners w/ Save the Bluffs) and other lands to the tune of about 20,000 acres. This unfortunate situation with the Montecito Creek Water Company overstepping their legal entitlement should not detract from the Land Trust's fine record of preservation of open spaces.
COMMENT 324352P	2012-09-27 07:12 AM
Agree with Gilbert, on the other hand it's hard to overlook the turd in the punchbowl. LT could fix the issue now and get back in good graces with everyone but those whose estates benefit from landscape water. Oh well, sometimes you have to cheese someone off to DO THE RIGHT THING.
COMMENT 324363	2012-09-27 07:22 AM
Arroyo Hondo, Sedgwick Preserve, etc yes this is something to feel good about. So why in the world did LT for SBC insist on treating Montecito Hot Springs as an orphaned b*stard child? This is directly Michael Feeney and the primary donor Richrad Mazess frankenstein. it is those two's bound creation and this is not the fault of Montecito Creek Water Company UNLESS there is conflict of interest between the water company and LTforSBC. Montecito Hot Springs - it's historic hotel ruins and berry farm once was a vital and positive part of our community. It deserves attention and devotion like Sedgewick Preserve and Arroyo Hondo along with their other projects that look commendable at their website.
COMMENT 324561	2012-09-27 07:33 AM
@644P -Gilbert... this is absolutely not overreach with the water company they legally have 50% (not 100%). The problem is first that LT for SBC refused to have transparency and talk about the springs in hopes of facilitating the almost exclusive donor on the end of hot springs road and forever keeping the public out of the springs. The second inescapable fact is that LT for SBC controls 50% and they are adamantly refusing to be good stewards and conservationists and resolving the water issue before conveyance to the USFS. Michael Feeney is willing to destroy the organization to be shoe shine boy to the ulterior motives of the donor which is nothing more then a horrendous debacle and betrayal of the public trust.
COMMENT 324678	2012-09-27 08:17 AM
ah, hot mineral springs water...last night we drove all the way to Avila to soak for one hour. We were wishing that SB had the same resources available to locals...wouldn't that be nice? A local hot springs resort?
COMMENT 324683	2012-09-27 08:36 AM
SIMPLE QUESTION - Why has the Land Trust NOT officially notified the Montecito Water Company yet? JUST DO IT - there is no question as to doing it or not doing it - JUST DO IT. Seriously, this is ridiculous. I donated to the Land trust for this purchase and I have been regretting it more every day seeing how the Land Trust is not doing what was proposed. NOTIFY MONTECITO WATER COMPANY TODAY.
COMMENT 324369	2012-09-27 09:18 AM
38 land owners are killing fish. Talk to them. Maybe they will reconsider.
COMMENT 324363	2012-09-27 09:24 AM
@ 719 the ball or rather the water is in Land Trust for Santa Barbara County's present control of 50% of the water. This organization needs to walk it's talk. We already know what to expect from the other controlling 50%.
COMMENT 324561	2012-09-27 10:20 AM
Please tell me that Land trust provided notification yesterday for the water company to release water. The information that Land Trust provided yesterday is wildly inaccurate. The water company never releases water in the winter months. It is immaterial the Steelhead needs the water in the summer months! Where the heck is the Santa Barbara Independent are they shareholders of the water or sit on the advisory council to Land Trust. I guess Wendy McCall is quiet as well. Thank you edhat for informing the community!
COMMENT 324363	2012-09-27 12:05 PM
Land Trust for Santa Barbara County, you are surely monitoring comments to your article. Please explain: 1) Under what logic is it consistent with your mission to “protect wildlife habitat” to dedicate the 37 gpm of summer spring flow you own to watering estate lawns, instead of habitat? 2) Which donors, if any, are connected to the Montecito Creek water company? 3) How do you explain the apparent inconsistencies between the water company statements of diversion and reality? 4) What, exactly, are the "complexities" that you feel that the USFS is qualified to handle, that you are not qualified to handle?
COMMENT 324353	2012-09-27 12:38 PM
324423P: My thoughts precisely. A hefty donation to the Land Trust is a bargain compared to purchasing the property, with the bonus that they get to pretend they're benevolent supporters of the environment and the community.
COMMENT 324419P	2012-09-27 09:16 PM
The Land Trust's statement reads, "Since Hot Springs Canyon was purchased by the Land Trust in 2012, there have been no changes to the existing water system operated by the Montecito Creek Water Company..." This is false. Within the last two months there is new concrete and new pipes completely sealing off the springs at the source as well as new signage. Prior to this there was some natural flow into the creek. All gone now, bone dry.
COMMENT 324363	2012-09-28 09:42 AM
The real problem is a singular donor has made Michael Feeney act as a doormat and insists that no one will ever touch the springs again at the detriment of watershed restoration and steelhead habitat in Montecito Creek. Thank you Richard Mazess, Michael Feeney, and Land Trust for Santa Barbara County for willfully destroying thousands of years of history and human interaction and giving us the fraud of a dry dusty trail.
COMMENT 324683	2012-10-01 09:13 AM
This weekend (09/29-30) I hiked up to the Hot Springs and was appalled at what I found. Once again, the hot tub that we had spent hours building out of the area rocks was torn down, and the rocks were rolled down the canyon. Yet the Montecito Water Company's no longer used rusting pipes were still there. There are new Montecito Water pipes, and more concrete sealing off the hot springs. This situation is out of control. The Montecito Water Company is not only acting as if they are the sole owners of the property, tearing down the hot tubs, and sealing off the hot springs with concrete - but they are also acting irresponsibly by not even cleaning up their own mess! SBLT - Your organization has done so much good, why let this situation get out of control and ruin your reputation? Is it really all about the money?
COMMENT 326626	2012-10-01 02:33 PM
@324366P Banks will politely explain why they are foreclosing as people get upset about their ruined lives. Torturers can be quite calm and speak politely while their victims scream. Disinterest is not necessarily superior to passion.

27% 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