A little back story, the current system in place to provide funds for OHV trail maintenance, among other things, through green sticker funds was due to sunset or go away. The bill needed to be re-approved, preferably without a sunset date.
Before a pro-OHV bill could be drafted, the anti-OHV people got a bill (actually more than one) drafted dumping the program and benefitting their anti-OHV agenda.
Here is the latest on the possible loss of our OHV grant funding program…
Update on SB 249: with a lot of help and support from many members and supporters of the OHV community, something we initially thought may be impossible has actually been achieved!
Just a few short months ago, we never would have believed we could take out 90% of the objectionable components of SB 249, and rewrite the bill using current law as the basis moving forward. From that point on, our coalition worked with the OHMVR Division looking for improvements to environmental reporting and monitoring of SVRA’s, which will help defend our parks from frivolous lawsuits in the future. SB 249 now calls for removing the sunset, giving us a permanent OHMVR program and grants program both protected by statute!
All because of your calls and communications to your legislators, and justified anger at the original language in SB 249, we were able to convince the author and his sponsors to work collaboratively with us to craft an OHV bill. There is little left in the current SB 249 that was originally contained in the bill, although there are some compromises that won’t hurt the program but benefit the environmental community. We’ve evaluated every word in these bills to make sure there is no hidden language that could hurt our parks, our access or our grant funding to the best of our ability. It’s been a lot of hard work by a united OHV community that brought us to this point.
Now we need you to support both SB 249 and SB 159, the associated bill that renews the greensticker registration program. Call your legislators, and please ask them to support the current versions of these bills with amendments because the author worked collaboratively with OHV representatives to craft a bill the OHV community supports.
I’ve attached the two draft letters written in cooperation of the OHV community stating our united support for SB 249 and SB 159. I am asking all of you to use your contacts with local politicians, law enforcement and county government, along with your elected legislative officials ,and ask them to support both SB 249 and SB 159.
It is very important we get the votes in the legislature to pass both these bills so we get a permanent OHMVR program!
Please contact me with any questions or concerns. I wouldn’t pass along this request unless I firmly believed in these bills.
California Off-Road Vehicle Association
Draft letters attached
So here is where we need to support those working so hard to allow us to got wheeling. Email, write and call your elected officials. It doesn’t take much to figure out who your representatives are and to send them an email.
Send an email in your name, your spouse’s name, your kids names, your dog’s name. Flood their office with letter of support for these two bills.
It’s your right. Fight for it or lose it.
Recently, I’ve posted about the possible end of the CA State Parks OHMVR Division and CORVA’s (CA Off Road Vehicle Association) promotion of a bill to keep that OHV funding source in place.
There is now a bill that has been put forth to END this grant funding for OHV.
If you do nothing else this year for OHV, make a call or send an email to your local elected representative to support the continuation of the CA State Parks OHMVR Grant Program and oppose SB 249.
As a citizen of Nevada, not California, it’s a little tricky for me to contact “my” elected CA representative. But I will use the CA address of my family cabin at Tahoe and submit that I recreate (read as bring money to spend) in CA and the continuation of this grant program with promote me to continue to recreate in CA.
This is HUGE people. I don’t often ask for my readers to act. This blog is for your enjoyment and education. I didn’t start this blog to promote myself or any ’cause’. I try not to rant too often. But, I am promoting this cause because if we lose our OHV funds, our trails will close do to lack of maintenance.
The old saying is: “If you don’t vote, you can’t complain.” Well the new quote will be: “If you didn’t speak out to save the CA State Parks OHMVR Grant Program, you can’t complain when your OHV sticker funds go to maintain a State Park that doesn’t allow OHV use and our OHV trails get closed.” Not as catchy but you get my point.
Contact your politician and tell your friends to do the same.
The Eldorado National Forest (ENF) just put out an email about an open house regarding the OHV rant process.
This is a good opportunity for the user to tell the forest service how we want our grant funds spent. Regarding the greater ‘Tahoe side Rubicon area trails’, there is only one trail, the Richardson Lake Trail that runs up to Sourdough Hill. Currently, that trail has maintenance well in hand, been adopted by a motivated user, and should be good for years to come.
ENF does a huge amount of work on the Rubicon itself in cooperation with El Dorado County. There are a few spots along the trail that could use some work (read as fill material) in order to prevent temporary closures due to running/standing water on the trail. These efforts should be emphasized and supported.
The old saying is “If you don’t vote, you can’t complain”. This is similar, if you don’t take the time to inform the forest service what you want to see them do for your trails, don’t complain when it doesn’t happen. ‘m sure there is a way to email in any thoughts or comments you have if you can’t make the meeting.
It didn’t copy and paste well but here it is…
As a new CORVA (CA Off-Road Vehicle Assoc.) Field Representative, I felt the responsibility to phone in to and participate in the Board of Directors meeting Monday night. It is an open meeting, anyone call phone in and participate or just listen. For the most part, it was your typical meeting reviewing minutes, President’s report, old business, etc.
The one thing that jumped out at me was someone (sorry I didn’t note who brought it up) spoke about the new CA Senate Bill SBX1-1. Look it up. (I think there’s a similar one in the Assembly.) In a nut shell, it proposes the ability to change the allocation of the gas tax revenues that usually funds CA State Parks OHVMR grants to be used for all things vehicle related such as general highway repair, adding bicycle lanes to state roads, etc.
I’m not a legal scholar, so I’ve provided a link to the bill below for you to review the bill as well as copied the two paragraphs from the bill that I think sum it up:
(8) Article XIX of the California Constitution requires gasoline excise tax revenues from motor vehicles traveling upon public streets and highways to be deposited in the Highway Users Tax Account, for allocation to city, county, and state transportation purposes. Existing law generally provides for statutory allocation of gasoline excise tax revenues attributable to other modes of transportation, including aviation, boats, agricultural vehicles, and off-highway vehicles, to particular accounts and funds for expenditure on purposes associated with those other modes, except that a specified portion of these gasoline excise tax revenues is deposited in the General Fund. Expenditure of the gasoline excise tax revenues attributable to those other modes is not restricted by Article XIX of the California Constitution.
This bill, commencing July 1, 2016, would instead transfer to the Highway Users Tax Account for allocation to state and local transportation purposes under a specified formula the portion of gasoline excise tax revenues currently being deposited in the General Fund that are attributable to boats, agricultural vehicles, and off-highway vehicles. Because that account is continuously appropriated, the bill would make an appropriation.
This could be a huge blow to funding OHV maintenance and repair. Along with this bill, the entire OHMVR program is coming up for review (it will go away unless it gets voted to continue) and the OHMVR division will be rolled into the CA State Park system and no longer be a different division.
These are a lot of changes facing our grant source all at one time.
CORVA is on it. They are already voicing support to renew the OHMVR program. They are keeping an eye on how this system will be managed under CA State Parks directly. And they are aware of and will work to correct any bill that would defund or reduce funds to our OHV grant program.
As a life member of CORVA, I would ask that you help support the efforts of CORVA in this issue and the many others that CORVA champions. www.CORVA.org
This OHV season, the CA State Parks OHV Division made available almost $11 million dollars for OHV issues, projects, maintenance, law enforcement, education, etc.
The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) failed to obtain a single penny of it. In comparison, the Eldorado National Forest (ENF) received $438k and the Tahoe National Forest (TNF) received $650k.
There is a 30 day grace period for the agency requesting funds to ask that their grant be reviewed and rescored but don’t hold your breath. This is the second straight year the grant writers and administrators at the LTBMU have fallen short. I think it’s safe to say the LTBMU needs a new grant writing staff.
Here’s the problem, even though the LTBMU didn’t receive CA State Parks grant funding, they are still required to manage OHV on their forest. It’s just going to be that much more difficult without specific funding for OHV.
I’m using this lack of funding problem to push the LTBMU to reinstate the Adopt-A-Trail program they dumped two years ago.
If you or your club, group, business or organization would like to adopt an OHV trail within the LTBMU, email them, call them, hound them, do not take no for an answer, Right now I only know of the Twin peaks Trail in South Lake Tahoe, the Buck Lake Trail off the Rubicon and the Middle Fork Trail up Blackwood Canyon (just north of the Rubicon) that historically have been adopted.
That list doesn’t include the pre-Placer County Rubicon when the Lake Tahoe Hi-Lo’s had the entire east side of the trail adopted. For adopting a section of the Placer side of the Rubicon Trail, contact the Rubicon Trail Foundation.
Here is a list of OHV trails within the basin from the LTBMU website. Not all trails are listed. Check the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) for more trails.
Lake Tahoe – East Shore
- Genoa Peak Road 14N32
- Kingsbury Stinger 18E39.3
- Logan House 14N33
Lake Tahoe – North Shore
- Kings Beach 18E18
- Mt Watson 73E
Lake Tahoe – South Lake Tahoe
- Corral Trail 18E14
- Hellhouse Road 12N01D
- High Meadows Trail 18E33A
- Power Line Road 12N08
- Sand Pit 12N08
- Sawmill Pond 12N30
- Twin Peaks 12n30
Lake Tahoe – West Shore
- Buck Lake Road – 14N40
- McKinney / Rubicon Trailhead
- Noonchester 14N34A
Please step up, adopt a trail, push the LTBMU to work with the users!