Van Norden Meadow:  Why develop what doesn't need developing?

by Tom Appelbaum

The idea of using any part of Van Norden Meadow for anything other than current usages is a puzzler to me.  As it is, the meadow is a multi-use property that must surely satisfy most if not all of anyone's outdoor needs. Besides the Winter fun, hiking, running, treking, fishing, kayaking, birding, and taking in the wonders of a meadow in transition are certainly as valid as anything proposed by Foster/Syme, and we don't have to do anything to develop interest in these activities except leave the meadow alone. The folks from Royal Gorge who work in and around the meadow (I'm talking about the guys in the company trucks) have been pretty nice to us homeowners by allowing these low-impact off-season activities, asking only that we don't bring motorized vehicles onto the property, and that we help watch over the meadow by reporting unauthorized use. It's a nice relationship that seems to work all year. 

So here, then, are some questions:

Why rebuild the dam and use the water for more homes?  Well, we'd have a deeper lake to noodle around on from Spring until the resource is used up, but to what end?  The lake already exists (as do the Serene lakes, all the lakes around the summit, and Donner Lake), and the seismic reasons for taking down the dam haven't gone away.  In fact, with global warming and the subsequent climate changes that are now predicted, it seems that water will be the next highly coveted resource, rivaling oil as a cause for regional conflict.  If you'd like to find out about the need for a free-flowing Yuba River, just contact the members of SYRCL, the South Yuba River Conservation League... downstream use is of paramount importance to the health of the river and everything living in and around it. It may even be wise to think of taking down the rest of the dam, or at least cleaning up the area around the breached portion and returning the rivers's pathway downstream of the spillway to a more pristine condition.  It's pretty grungy from late Summer to the first snowfall. 

Why develop the area with an interpretive center, skating rink, parking, and employee housing? Yipes.  Perhaps a small kiosk for the purpose of disseminating information about how the meadow as part of the summit is such a special place would be appropriate, as are the current Royal Gorge out-buildings for cross-country skiing,  but to surround the meadow with so many more potential sources of light and noise pollution, as well as site-source pollution that would ultimately reach the river, is not wise, and seems contradictory to the values that a so-called conservation community would emphasize.

Why build out on 18 home sites?  Again, more potential sources of all types of pollution, as well as increasing the load on the area's resources.  

Why establish Soda Springs/Royal Gorge as a destination for year-round activities?  It already exists, albeit on a smaller scale than proposed.  Also, there's been a history of economic failure here at the summit for over a century, and the current scene is no different.  Check out the property from 1-80 to the intersection of Donner Pass Road and Soda Springs Road...not too much going on.  You don't own a business up here to make a lot of money.  Why not invest whatever monies are available in keeping the meadow as part of a prime example of a Sierra watershed?  Sounds good to me...

To begin a question with why is to get, eventually, to the real reason behind any activity, something I don't want to address in this little essay.  This is simply a request to save Van Norden Meadow.  But beyond all these questions is the fact that there simply aren't enough resources here at the summit to support a project of the magnitude that Foster/Syme proposes, and the fixes that have been floating around on the rumor mill not only won't work, but won't be tolerated in the current and future conservation climate here in California. 

Even though I don't go for any part of the size and scope of the proposed development at the meadow, let alone the whole project, I believe Foster/Syme should have an out that doesn't cost them any money, or that could even give them a profit, at least as far as the meadow is concerned.  The various land acquisition agencies that exist (reference the Martis Valley compromise) could be contacted with the goal of saving the meadow from any unneeded changes.  A true conservation community would, I believe, already have thought of this in light of the results of the residents' survey that have recently come to light.  We don't want this kind of growth, and isn't it nice that vehicles exist that could provide a win-win situation for all involved?

I would ask Foster/Syme  to scale back the proposed development, and a good starting point would be to leave the meadow as is; then, move toward scaling back their plans and working, REALLY WORKING, with the community to ensure development that would retain the feel of the summit... conserve, if you will, those characteristics that make the summit a very special place.