expectations from what is essentially a fish pond, not an aquarium. Another tax? No thanks. If the rimlanders want to band together and fund the above - well it's the least they could do as they are the ones that caused the damage. Sorry Mr. Daniels, I am done bailing out the well heeled for their bad decisions.

I am not sure what your education is regarding the science behind what determines a healthy lake, but those of us who know even just a little about Clearlake and its natural state know that it is not meant to be "Clear". Yes, this summer was a tough one. And yes, Clearlake is running a little rich on nutrients these days. I believe there is a plan in place to "put Clearlake on a diet", so to speak. Your comments are a bit alarming - I hope whatever actions are taken are well thought out and take into account the history and long-term health of the lake and not just aesthetics.

Sorry ... In my former post I wrote Clearlake - of course I meant Clear Lake.

Another CSA means more administration...more costs.

Clear Lake is LIVING....hence the lovely nutrients and algae.

How many living organisms do you know that are balanced all the time?

What constitutes a healthy lake isn’t always healthy looking or smelling. It been fifteen years since we’ve had an algae bloom as bad as this years.

Yes , it is reasonable to take some action and it would be good to have the County do more than talk about it a couple of Tuesday mornings a year. I haven’t read anything stating “Supervisor(s) take charge, lead way in managing Clear Lake”. Where’s the action plan, every time the issue comes up every bodies running around “let’s do this, let’s do that” then when it goes away so does the action.

This years problems could have been predicted if we had a set of standards that were reviewed each year, that doesn’t mean it could have been prevented, but at least people wouldn’t have been running around as though it had never happened before. Places like Clear Lake Keys and Horseshoe Cove in the 70’s & 80’s, oh man, it wasn’t bad, and it was downright horrible.

A real effort was made to reduce phosphates, we spent years developing a grading ordinance, sewer systems were installed in many areas, as well as farmers working to manage fertilizer use. Maybe it’s time to see what else may be having an effect.

Remember you can’t change nature, you can massage it toward an ultimate goal, but it takes action, not talk.

As usual, the dialogue here is balanced and polite (pats on backs for everyone).

Condensing Mr Daniels' original post to the core, I believe he is calling for action, not to make the lake "clear" but healthy. All of his suggestion for mitigation are, within reason, solutions to future apex blooms of algae and weeds.

The funding aspects will always be the biggest barrier, as evidenced by the continued shelving of the Middle Creek Restoration funding. Some level of local funding could and should create a baseline for progress towards lake and wetland restoration and maintenance.