THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

El Dorado County supervisor subject of DA probe


image_pdfimage_print

By Noel Stack, Village Life

El Dorado County Supervisor Ray Nutting is being investigated for how he used state grant money, according to, El Dorado County District Attorney Vern Pierson.

Through the years Nutting has received more than $74,000 in state Proposition 40 grants to complete fuel reduction projects on his Happy Valley property, according to grant documents. Invoices provided to the Sierra Coordinated Resource Management Council, CalFire’s partner agency that contracts with private landowners who complete fuel reductions projects within the parameters of Proposition 40, are being questioned.

El Dorado County Supervisor Ray Nutting is under investigation. Photo/LTN file

El Dorado County Supervisor Ray Nutting is under investigation. Photo/LTN file

“We are aware of it and we are looking into it,” Pierson said in a telephone interview. “Beyond that, I can’t comment.”

Nutting, who contacted Village Life while working on another major Propositions 40 fuels reduction project on 37 of his 340 acres, said he’s aware of the investigation. The current project will result in a $49,348 grant.

“If I’d done something wrong, I’d know it,” Nutting said.

“I am highly scrutinized by registered forest professionals (hired to oversee the projects) and I’m highly scrutinized by CalFire,” the District 2 supervisor explained. “I have no latitude on Prop. 40. I have to do exactly what the grant documents say.”

CalFire offers grant opportunities to small forest landowners funded by Proposition 40, the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks and Coastal Protection Act of 2002, according to the CalFire website.

“The goal of the Proposition 40 Fuels Management Program, or Prop. 40 program, is to contract with private landowners for mutually beneficial forest improvement and wildfire hazard reduction projects designed to reduce fuel loadings that pose a threat to watershed resources and water quality,” the website states.

Landowners in 15 Sierra Nevada counties — Butte, Plumas, Sierra, Yuba, Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, Amador, Alpine, Calaveras, Tuolumne, Madera, Mariposa, Fresno and Tulare — may participate. CalFire’s website explains, “The Prop 40 Program generally pays 75 percent of the costs and the landowners share is the remaining 25 percent. Landowner management plans, which are required for Prop. 40 program grants, will be paid 90 percent by Prop. 40 program and 10 percent by landowners.”

Since its inception, the Proposition 40 program has granted landowners more than $2.5 million.

In 2009 Nutting received $24,893 after three invoices were submitted — project management and addendum invoices in the amount of $3,137.50 on behalf of Stewart Forestry LLC and a $27,395 invoice on behalf of Nutting Brush Clearing, which shares Nutting’s home address in Somerset. A representative of the El Dorado County Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Office said they had no record of any business license under that name.

Nutting said interpreting Nutting Brush Clearing as a business is incorrect. The name on the top of the invoice, which was submitted by his registered professional forester, is the project name, not a business name.

“It’s a description of the job,” he explained. “My forester knows that, CalFire knows that … everybody knows that.”

The Nutting Brush Clearing invoice included a cost breakdown — $6,000 for 15 acres of thinning, $4,125 for 15 acres of pruning, $5,250 for 15 acres of slash disposal and $12,020 for 60.1 acres of herbicide treatment. No additional statements were submitted with the invoice but, Nutting said, the rates used to determine the totals for each portion of the job come from the state.

A Proposition 40 grant program audit released by the California Department of Finance’s Office of State Audits and Evaluations in 2009 questioned this lack of documentation.

“Without proof of actual costs by landowners (in the form of cancelled checks or information from bank statements), grant funds could be used for purposes not allowed by the program,” the audit noted.

Auditors recommended requiring proof of actual costs prior to authorizing payment.

Nutting said he agrees with the auditors findings and will provide additional documentation when submitting invoices related to his latest Prop. 40 grant project, which, he said, he’s been working on for more than a year.

“It’s back-breaking work,” Nutting said.

Nutting and his brother, Tom, each have 340 acres in southern El Dorado County. Nutting said the two have been trying to reduce fire fuels since inheriting the land after their parents died. Tom Nutting has also receive Proposition 40 grants. Ray Nutting noted that a few of his neighbors participate in federal fuel reduction programs.

Fire crews have twice come out to his property to douse flames, Nutting said.

“The easier thing to do would have been to do nothing and let it burn,” Nutting said. “I chose to work with the state and spend the years of my life doing these projects … making (the land) fire safe.”

The DA’s Office, which has requested documents and information from other public agencies, hopes to conclude its investigation within 30 to 60 days, Pierson said. If any wrongdoing is confirmed, Nutting could face charges related to presenting false claims and falsifying records submitted to state agencies, both felonies.

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (11)
  1. Steve says - Posted: March 25, 2013

    Why on earth taxpayers are providing large monetary grants for routine landscape maintenance to wealthy ranch owners is beyond comprehension. An example of why voting for most bond measures makes little or no sense.

  2. Bijou Bill says - Posted: March 25, 2013

    Good Ole Boy Ray Nutting learned his “brush clearing” from the master, Georgie Bush, who did that back-breaking work on his “ranch” in Texas. Ray’s whole life and career has been similar in many respects to the former Mr. Commander Guy.

  3. John says - Posted: March 25, 2013

    Steve, large landowners are under no obligation to clear their land so that their neighbors property doesn’t burn. The benefit accrues to the neighbors who surround his property. Dont like it? Me either, but the alternative is too change CEQA so private landowners can log to pay for this kind of work. California has increased the cost of a timber harvest plan so much as to make this kind of work impossible without a grant.

  4. copper says - Posted: March 25, 2013

    It’ll be more of a story when the DA starts probing the performance and ethics of the El Dorado County west-slope politicians. I’m not holding my breath.

  5. Laketoohigh says - Posted: March 25, 2013

    Innocent until proven guilty. He says he did nothing wrong. Followed the rules. Not buying the “should of let it burn” nonsense. Nobody wants charred land around them for years. Let’s wait for proof before we call this guy a criminal though.

  6. Laketoohigh says - Posted: March 26, 2013

    Bijou Bill,
    Read the article and comments you posted. Your right. This guy is another “above the law” politician grabbing tax dollars any way he can.
    Go get him Vern.
    P.S. What ever happened to the alleged bribery case with the city council member and the drug gangster?

  7. Ted Long says - Posted: March 26, 2013

    I wonder how this plays with the recent Grand Jury issue. Normally this is the kind of thing that the DA would bring to the Grand Jury. Could this have been the case that caused the breakup and the dissolving of the Jury? Hope some one will look.

  8. Alex Campbell says - Posted: March 27, 2013

    He was my pick for the GJ investigation.
    Did Bruce Ashwill money man behind many supes and Danny
    Boy Lungren recieve grants on his 600 acres ???

    Ted ! I have been under the impression that the DA would impanel a Grand Jury for a criminal investigation. Not a GJ picked,OOps recommended by the supes and some that applied then rolled out of the cage.

  9. scadmin says - Posted: March 27, 2013

    If the District Attorney wants to present a criminal case to a grand jury, citizens are summoned from the court’s general trial jury venire for that specific purpose, volunteers are not used. Criminal grand juries are distinct entities. Sometimes, more than one case is presented at a time. Complicated cases with many witnesses, such as a murder, might have a grand jury established just to hear that matter.

  10. Alex Campbell says - Posted: March 28, 2013

    Thanx scadmin !!