LAKEPORT, Calif. – A construction crane that has been on the bottom of Clear Lake since the end of November is to be taken out, the Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday.
The board also directed county Water Resources staff to look into requiring that contractors working on the lake have enough insurance to cover such accidents.
Water Resources Director Scott De Leon took the abatement issue to the board regarding the crane, owned by Martin Scheel of Konocti Marine Construction, and currently located in about 50 feet of water near property owned by Larry and Virginia Sibbitt at 10951 Lakeshore Drive, Clearlake.
De Leon told the board that his department was advised by an anonymous phone call on Nov. 24 that a piece of equipment had gone into Clear Lake.
He said his staff and Environmental Health, along with Willie Sapeta of Lake County Fire Protection District and Supervisor Jeff Smith responded within an hour and a half to the site.
“At that time the crane was completely submerged,” said De Leon, noting that the accident also damaged neighboring property.
The bow of the barge that held the crane was on the shoreline, with the stern listing, De Leon said. A push boat was in the lake, and county staff put out floating booms to soak up any fuel or oil coming from the boat.
“We've been trying to work with Mr. Scheel,” said De Leon, noting that Scheel has been responsive but that nonetheless Water Resources felt the need to move forward on the abatement.
He said the board had several options, including having Water Resources abate the sunken crane and having the costs paid by Scheel.
Another option, which De Leon said he didn't support, was assigning the abatement costs to the Sibbitts.
A third option is to leave the equipment in the lake but to have divers remove the oil and fuel. He said that, according to Environmental Health, there was 10 gallons of diesel fuel in the crane and a couple of gallons of oil in the crank case.
De Leon said he's spoken to a few firms about the abatement, and while he didn't have estimates on only removing the fuel and oil, he said that he spoke to another local marine contractor who estimated it would cost $40,000 to $50,000 to remove the crane entirely.
Supervisor Rob Brown asked Scheel about his plan for removing the crane.
Scheel responded that he had neither the resources nor the ability to get the piece of equipment out of Clear Lake.
Brown asked about Scheel's insurance, which Scheel said wasn't enough to cover the abatement. He stated during the discussion that he had let his liability insurance go because of the economy.
“Well, what is your plan?” asked Brown.
Scheel said he doesn't have one, and that the pricing for abatement is similar to that De Leon presented.
Brown asked how someone can work on the lake and not have insurance that guarantees the lake's safety. If that wasn't a requirement, Brown added, it needed to be on the board's next agenda, noting that there was great potential for damage to the lake.
He told Scheel that he sympathized with him about not being able to afford the abatement, but Brown said the county's taxpayers can't afford to clean up the mess, either.
Brown also suggested that two months of having the equipment in the lake was not responsive, and that it should have been removed in the first two weeks after the accident.
Scheel said he and a colleague have gone diving on the crane and mapped it, and they can remove the fuel and oil, although they're not environmentally certified to do so.
Brown, noting that the cost of the damage to Clear Lake from having uncertified divers remove the fuel could exceed abating the crane entirely, said, “I would prefer that you didn't do it.”
Supervisor Jeff Smith agreed with Brown, and added he didn't want to see the property owners liable for the removal.
He said he was under the assumption that anyone working on the lake had enough insurance to cover such situations, and pointed out that on other lakes people are responsible for removing equipment and also get a substantial fine.
“I understand your dilemma in a way, but at the same time, I want that barge out of the lake,” Smith told Scheel, adding, “It's a really bad situation.”
Smith said he felt the total responsibility fell on the contractor. “As far as I'm concerned that's all there is to it.”
He said the day he was out on the scene right after the accident the lake was very smooth, and something could have and should have been done at that time.
“I saw it as a true lack of response as far as I was concerned,” he said. “That day was glass water. It could have been pumped, righted.”
Supervisor Anthony Farrington questioned if a company could continue to operate on the lake if it had an abatement issue. County Counsel Anita Grant said one remedy could be holding the equipment until the abatement was paid off.
Supervisor Denise Rushing added, “The most chilling statement I've heard so far is we didn't have a plan for dealing with this accident.”
She called the incident “our version of the BP oil spill,” and agreed with Brown that the crane shouldn't remain in the lake.
Brown said that, to answer Farrington's question, if a business wants to continue to operate on the lake with an abatement against it they would have to work out reimbursement with the county to pay back the taxpayers. If not, they couldn't continue.
“This is obviously a very unfortunate, unforeseen accident,” said Board Chair Jim Comstock, who agreed that the crane should be removed completely from the lake, with the responsibility for paying for it resting with Scheel.
De Leon said his department would begin the abatement process and also begin evaluating county ordinances to include some insurance against potential pollution from such accidents.
Brown moved to approve the abatement, which the board approved 5-0.
Comstock said he hoped to see it taken care of very rapidly.
A check of the Contractors State License Board online records shows that Scheel's general engineering contractor license has a surety bond in the amount of $12,500, which is a requirement for being licensed, according to board spokesperson Melanie Bedwell.
A customer can file a claim against a surety bond if they have a complaint with a contractor's work, with the total amount of reimbursement limited by the bond amount, she said. The contractor must then repay the surety bond company.
Bedwell said the Contractors State License Board does not require liability insurance for contractors.
“It's not a requirement, it's a business practice that's recommended,” she said.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
