SERVED PAPERS FROM DWA !!! !

[Perry]

It sounds like your only possible violation was your encounter with Warren when he told you not to pass through DWA land. And that's assuming that he encountered you on DWA land, instead of the public land before it, which is legal.

[bluerail]

My encounter with Warren was on snowcreek road about 50 yds from Hwy. 111

pretty sure thats public land.

this whole thing is very bizarre

[OtherHand]

This appears to be a rather poorly founded attempt at intimidation by targeting a relatively high profile individual. The DWA only has authority on property under their control or ownership, which is Section 33. It is unfortunate that the individuals approached by DWA apparently on public land didn't request law enforcement be called to settle the matter. If the encounters occurred where described, the DWA personnel were either engaged in bluffing or needed to be properly educated in land rights. So the question remains to be answered, are they arrogant or stupid?

The key is in knowing what's public land and what isn't. Per the San Berdoo National Forest map, Sections 28, 29, 32 and 34 are all national forest. Section 27 is all BLM and Section 21 is mostly BLM with the exception of the property immediately around the housing area.

Section 22 and most of the area around Highway 111 appears to be private property (a small amount of Indian land is within Section 22). But unless it is posted per Section 602.8 of the California Penal Code, it is free to cross.

The BLM has a very good tool for looking up lands ownership. It's called GeoCommunicator and may be found here (warning, there's a little bit of a learning curve):

http://www.geocommunicator.gov/blmMap/M ... MAP=Energy

The other excellent source is the Riverside County Assessor records, whose maps will show private ownership.

Once you know what is public land and what isn't, you can travel with a clear conscious. If the DWA folks attempt to detain you, it becomes an unlawful detention and a civil rights violation. There are some serious monetary penalties for civil rights violations.

From the mapping posted of the "new" Snow Creek route, it appears totally outside Section 33 and thus beyond the DWA's jurisdiction.

[Andy]

Assuming that the impending hearing will be public...please post the time and date so we can make a showing...by that I mean wearing our "Free Bluerail" t-shirts

[brad]

maybe they are the ones growing the weed, thats why they dont want you up there.

[lee]

I am sorry to read about your dwa problem, Steve. I really enjoyed seeing SC under different conditions over time with your pics. Count me as one of your supporters.

[zippetydude]

I'm curious if anyone here knows a local reporter who would be willing to cover this . . . how much public money, in this time of economic downturn, is being spent by the DWA to pursue an idiotic grudge match? Consider the time and money spent on their "sting" operation, the hours used up following this board to keep track of, apparently, every word Steve says, just in case he might have touched forbidden land...

Hit 'em where it counts - get Warren fired, and he'll shut up, and his successor might be a bit more humble, realizing who really works for whom.

z

[brad]

TINA- Where are you

[lilbitmo]

I'm throwing in my "2 Cents"

The morning of the "Ninja Sting Operation" they were lying in wait and had every opportunity to come down to the parking area (along Snow Creek Road) to explain their position on their land and their rights to protect their land and choose not to. The property is not market as required by law, one sign every 1/3 of a mile. If the goal is to be "Stewarts" of the property in question, then something’s stinks to high heaven. They are doing more to damage the public's view of their rights to protect that property with each move they make. Should they spent quality time explaining their "reasons" for protection, instead of trying to "police" areas that they do not have "legal right to do so" (those areas outside the one square mile property line), they would more than likely get the full cooperation of the hiking and climbing community to the fullest extent possible.

They could spend money and/or time on good public education and neighborly promotion but they have chosen not to, something is seriously wrong with their approach - what are they trying to hide? I think every hiker should show up in court and ask the court this simple question.

Furthermore, are they trying to tell me that Whitewater's (water) and Snow Creek's (water) don't feed the same "aquifer"? Are they saying that the water they control goes straight into the "consumers" faucet's, I don't think so - they treat that water, so if it comes down to "cost's" for treatment (less if they have less contaminants) then wouldn't it be more cost effective to educate and help build a route around the creek or provide (wag bags) or something to encourage protection? Or do they like communist/fascist/dictators feel that intimidation is the best policy? What gives - this is America, we have a right to our public lands, since when does the Water Agency dictate to the State or Fed's who can go around their property and access that beautiful "coulier" - this is inherently wrong on all parts - what gives "Wally" and "DWA Management" is this the way you want your public to think of you?

Furthermore, the climbing season is very short each year in that area, would it not serve everyone’s interest to allow access for 8 weeks each year, so that it can be a compromise for everyone, instead of using scare tactics to keep everyone off that slope, you don’t own the State Park, you own one square mile at the base of a mountain, what gives you the right to think you own more? Or that you get to control the whole side of the north face of San Jacinto? John Muir must be rolling over in his grave right now – this is no different than the Hetch Hetchy mess, only at a smaller level – the rights of the consumers of Palm Springs by way of DWA does not out weight the rights of the citizens of the State of Califonia – this stinks.

[Nick-SJM]

If you wish to let your opinions be known to the Board of Directors of the Desert Water Agency (remember that a well thought out reasonable communication will always accomplish more), their E-mail addresses are-

Patricia Oygar POygar@dwa.org
F. Thomas Kieley III TKieley@dwa.org
James Cioffi JCioffi@dwa.org
Ronald E. Starrs RStarrs@dwa.org
Craig A. Ewing CEwing@dwa.org