Printable View
Sadly, according to the link below, the latest effort to open Lake Matthews up for public recreation has been dropped because of an "ironclad agreement" between MWD and other agencies. Darn The Man and his lawyers!
http://www.raglm.org/pdfs/AB-1686_Withdrawal.pdf
Ya that's a bummer that lake is litterly down the street from my house
I wondered what the outcome of that agreement with the water agency was. Thanks for the info
Sad, even more sad that a few anglers on this forum weren't too interested in seeing Matthews open to the public. *sigh*.
Specifically citing a legally binding agreement in 2002 between Metropolitan Water District (MWD)
(owners of the Lake and surrounding property), California Department of Fish and Game, US Fish and
Wildlife Service, Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency, and the Audubon Society, Jeffries said
that even if he could further amend the bill to resolve the remaining concerns of some neighbors, passing
the bill would only lead to re-opening costly lawsuits that would have to be paid for by the taxpayers and
ratepayers of Riverside County and the State of California.
“I think the settlement agreement that closed the Lake and surrounding property was a bad deal for
residents of Riverside County, but our consultants believe it is bulletproof. Unfortunately, even a
compromise that could have left the Lake protected, but opened the 5,000 acres surrounding the Lake to
low impact hiking is prohibited under this agreement. This is what happens when you have an agreement
between four agencies and organizations that are not seeking a balanced approach with our public lands
—people lose. Despite the progress we were making, and the overwhelming support we’ve gotten for the
bill from neighbors and local officials, I cannot in good conscience force the taxpayers of the County and
the State to fork out unknown amounts of money trying to re-open a Lake that has been so successfully
sealed shut by the lawyers.”
All of the above agencies should be ashamed of themselves. Disgusting. Keep locking up public lands, brilliant idea!
Yup, only the privileged get to fish that lake. Most of the "privileged" work for said agencies save for a hand-full of other privileged cronies. While the folks who really pay for it all, tax and rate payers are locked out...Quote:
Originally Posted by carpanglerdude
I guess that's me...Quote:
Originally Posted by HawgZWylde
Here's what your missing...a pic from the last roundup I went to. Had to toss some of these fish in the trash because, there wasn't anything to even clean. I just don't know if this lake could ever improve. "Kwin" would know better than me but, I'm just not sure it could be turned into a lake that you would want to fish.
DVL_Local
LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by DVL_Local
Mark, you privileged cronie!
If a lack of diversity in the fish population, including forage base, is a reason to keep anglers away and lock up public waters, then we better close up a whole lot of lakes and ponds around here. Heck, most of the places like Rancho, Yucaipa, Glen Helen, etc would be empty puddles without the frantic trout stocking. Matthew wouldn't be worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by DVL_Local
I believe Kwin commented on this before: Lack of biodiversity, lack of an adequate, sustainable food web, drastic changes in water level and lack of structure and habitat diversity. If I can remember he said that after about 2 weeks, the lake would: "suck worse than any other place out there". I believe that is how he put it :-)
I do recall the post. Another body of water to fish is another body of water to fish, biodiversity or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormcrow
Drastic changes in water level sound like something very common for many reservoirs in the area.
