Cache Creek Wild and Scenic legislation, is it needed?

Our wonderful environmental activist are up to their tricks again. Lois Wolk (D-Davis) introduced legislation AB 1328 to "protect" the upper Cache Creek area in Yolo and Lake Counties by placing it under State control. The obvious question is why? Protect it from what?

(1) Cache Creek from
one-fourth mile below Cache Creek Dam to Camp Haswell.
(2) Nothing in this subdivision shall prejudice, alter, delay,
interfere with, or affect in any way, the existing rights of the Yolo
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District or the Lake
County Watershed Protection District, or the implementation of those
rights; any historic water use practices; the replacement,
maintenance, repair, operation, or future expansion of existing
diversions, storage, powerhouses, or conveyance facilities or other
works by the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District or the Lake County Watershed Protection District; or changes
in the purpose of use, places of use, points of diversion, or
ownership of those existing water rights; nor shall anything in this
subdivision preclude the issuance of any governmental authorization
needed for utilization of those rights, except that no changes shall
operate to increase the adverse effect, if any, of the preexisting
facilities or places, or the purposes of use upon the free-flowing
and natural character of the river segment designated herein.
What Does that mean? Who deems the effects adverse?

The Sierra Club and groups like tuleyome.org, reflexpoint.org and cachecreekwild.org say they want the State to take control from the local Water and Flood control districts and the local farmers to keep the creek wild and increase access. They don't want to see a dam built on upper Cache Creek they say. That brings me to second point. When was the last dam built in California? Hmm? There was a plan to dam the creek for flood control that has been sitting for years gathering dust, however environmental groups would never let it be built anyway, not in 600 years.

How many people "hike" the trails around upper cache creek? It is a tangled mess of chemise brush and manzanita. I know, I have hunted deer in that area for years. It is very steep, very rough and a dangerous place to hike. There are many good trails on public ground all over the Blue Ridge, Cache Creek ridge and the Judge Davis trail to name a few. Why do we need to have the State of California ( they wanted the Federal Government, but backed down after major opposition) control this area that has small privately owned tracks throughout the riparian area? So the State can seize the private land at whatever they deem a fair price?

If these groups love the upper Cache Creek area, that's great, I love it too. They can hike up there right now, today, tomorrow, forever. There is no need for this legislation. The environmental lobby just hates to see land that they can control through proxy not be swallowed up by the government.