Comment

Comment by Kevin Hammons on July 18, 2010 at 8:09pm

Here are some great articles from earlier this month in the Mail Tribune. Thanks to Steve for pointing them out to me.

Proposed Monument Stirs Debate
Paul Fattig
(a report on a media tour of the monument area put on by Steve Fisher and others)

Proponents: It'll protect habitat and won't affect private landowners
Paul Fattig
(the obligatory liberal side of the story)

Monument plan will hurt landscape, local economy
By Danielle Lindler
(the true story)

Comment by Louise on July 2, 2010 at 10:32am

Legal Water and Property Rights under Assault in Siskiyou County

There is an unprecedented movement by the State to obtain control of all surface Water Rights under the guise of creating a benefit for fish and wildlife. Two separate permits are being re-written by the California State Department of Fish and Game officials (DFG) that will drastically affect landowners and water users throughout the state. Both of these permits have been around for over 30 years, but new interpretations of old laws are claiming jurisdiction over Water Rights and Private Property Rights.

The first permit was previously referred to as a 1600 Permit and regulates how a stream bed can be altered by man and machine like a backhoe. This permit was established after a 1961 law was passed by the State legislature to provide protection when building bridges, placing culverts, extracting sand and gravel, repairing levies or large projects were undertaken. Now the DFG is expanding this permit to include the act of diverting water (legal Water Rights) and the volume of water that is used by a landowner. In addition, this 1600 Permit-SAA is being required for all stream crossings, whether there is water flowing in the stream or it is dry. A pickup can no longer legally cross a dry stream bed without this 1600 Permit. Clearly, this was not the intent of the initial law providing protection for stream beds during construction projects. Diverting water is not a new activity. Diversions not only allow for irrigation, but provide most of the State’s water for urbanites living in municipalities. It is because of a privately-owned diversion and legal Water Right that residents in Los Angeles can turn on a tap in the kitchen and water flows out.

By a very convenient “re-interpretation” of a fifty year old water law, CDFG has decided it has the authority to place water right owners under its jurisdiction and therefore force property owners into LSAA agreements (Lake and Stream bed Alteration Agreement), ITP (Incidental Take Permit), and CEQA (California Environmental Quality Assessment) The application process for a permit can last many months and the fees per diversion can be as high as twenty five or thirty thousand dollars per diversion. The CDFG is sending teams of armed Game Wardens to individual properties to threaten people with violation and prosecution for failing to “volunteer” to sign up for the “Permitting Process” which will permanently give up their water rights to CDFG. The CDFG has chosen Siskiyou County as its “poster child” for this process because they have rightly determined that the county is sparsely populated and as such, lack the political and financial power to resist this take over of our water and property rights. This is tyranny by our State government!

Agriculture is the largest economic engine in the county and without our legal water rights to water they will cease to produce food so desperately needed by our country and the world. Without the water they may very well cease to exist.

Tea Party Patriots can help with this battle by:

1. Write, call and email the Governor and demand an immediate legislative order for the CDFG to cease threatening and frightening law abiding citizens engaged in the lawful activity of diverting irrigation water.
2. Send this alert out to all that are on your email list….we need to shine the light of day on this power and money grab by the DFG.
3. Consider sending a contribution to POW (Save our Water) which is the name of the group of Farmers and Ranchers who have pledged their lives and liberty to one another to preserve their way of life and their livelihood in Siskiyou County. They have contacted Pacific Legal for help but there is no guarantee that they will take their case.
4. Write letters to the editor.
5. Write, Call and email our state representatives to inform them of the situation in Siskiyou County and ask for their assistance to put a stop to this tyranny.

Comment by Louise on June 28, 2010 at 8:19pm

I'm going....see you there..

Comment by Rally Sally on June 28, 2010 at 8:13am

Definitely! Let the good folks in Etna know that there are others who share their concerns! The meeting is this Wednesday--Anyone up for a beautiful drive?

Comment by Louise on June 26, 2010 at 12:07pm

FYI..we might want to consider attending this meeting to show our support and presence in the community....

June 26, 2010



From:

Protect Our Water – Scott Valley

P.O. Box 311

Etna, CA 96027



Media Chairman: Liz Bowen 530-467-355 lizbowen@sisqtel.net



New grass-roots group to meet June 30



ETNA – The first official meeting of Protect Our Water in Scott Valley will be held Wed. June 30, 2010 at 7 p.m. This new grass roots group will meet at the Masonic Hall on Etna’s Main Street.



Protect Our Water, with the initials POW, is standing on the Constitution of the United States to protect property owners from impending intrusions by government agencies.



At the heart of the problem are Water Rights and their destruction by these government agencies and lawsuits from extreme Environmental organizations.



To learn how you can protect the water you use attend this Protect Our Water meeting in Etna on June 30th at 7 p.m.

Liz Bowen

Comment by Danielle on June 24, 2010 at 6:19pm

Several folks, including myself, met with a reporter from the Medford Mail Tribune to discuss the proposed creation of the Siskiyou Crest National Monument yesterday. We took them on a field tour and explained our positions against the monument. Hopefully we'll get positive press. The article is supposed to be published in this Sunday's edition....

Comment by Louise on June 21, 2010 at 10:46am

Ron, this would also be a good hand out for your booth in Mt. Shasta on the 4th of July.

Comment by Rally Sally on June 21, 2010 at 10:41am

Ron--I hope you submit your letter to the paper!

Comment by Ron Berryman on June 20, 2010 at 9:37am

All these preceeding comments relate back to our initial explanation about the purpose of the Environmental Regulations Action Group; and that is to alert citizens that the power to regulate also carries with it the power to destroy.
Environmental regulations usually begin with a simple plea to regulate a seemingly minor problem that shouldn't cost "much" to fix. One regulation leads to another and soon the landowner is so overwhelmed like those at the Jenner Ranch that the costs exceed the value of the operation.
This is exactly why California is bleeding jobs and opportunity as landowners see the writing on the wall and vote with their feet, moving their operation (and their jobs) to another state.
As a consulting forester, I have seen the regulations become increasingly onerous and complex. Timber harvesting now requires study after study and fees on top of fees to the point that timber operations barely make economic sense anymore.
When two different proposed timber harvests, separated by only the political boundary of a state line, can cost many thousands of dollars more in California than in Oregon, something is drastically wrong here.
The same thing is occuring in cattle and farming operations.
Come join our group and help educate the public about environmentalism run wild.
We meet every thursday at 6PM at Lalo's Restaurant in Mt Shasta.
Come join the fight and help return common sense to our country.

Comment by Louise on June 20, 2010 at 8:40am

This letter to the Governor was posted on Pie n Politics. I thought everyone in the Tea Party should be aware of what is happening in Scott Valley to our ranchers and farmers:

Dear Office of the Governor,
My name is Nick Jenner. I am a 5th generation cattle rancher in Siskiyou County. I recently called your office voicing my concern over the problems that our local water right holders and diverters are having in regards to the Fish & Game and how it is enforcing the 1600 codes. Let me further add that this enforcement is being applied to our county alone; no where else in the state is the Fish & Game going after the water diverter.
Let me give you some brief history. My family, along with other water diverters, has been very pro-active in working cooperatively with Fish & Game over the last twenty years. We have put in fish screens on all diversions, have put in bank rock to help with erosion control and stabilization, and have always applied for 1600 agreements when streambed alteration was necessary. We have always tried to abide by the law.
However, now that CEQA and CESA are part of the equation, due to the listing of the Coho salmon, the cost of obtaining 1600 agreements has gone from $220 per diversion, up to an estimated $12,234 to $27,275 per diversion.
This dollar figure is taken directly out of the Fish and Game letter that I have attached and highlighted for you. On our ranch we have 11 diversions total. This overall expense could reach around $200,000 dollars. The explanation behind the increase is because now there is a required EIR on every diversion.
But wait, this cost does not even include the Fish & Game’s deposit that they are requiring of $1,500 to $2,500. Along with that cost is also a $2,792 EIR filing fee.
And on top of that is still the $224 to $4,482 1600 notification fee. This is outrageous! We are farmers, we do not get paid to take care of the fish! That is the Fish and Game’s job, and that is why they get paid my tax money to do so.
It must be understood, however, that these ditches have been in place for over 100 years; no new diversions or extractions and activity have been introduced. Therefore, the concern over NEW impacts is irrational and unreasonable. All activity has been consistent and has met all compliance regulations.
We are not asking for any new or altered activity on these diversions, so why should we be subjected to such unreasonable EIR expense and burden? From our perspective, we are being asked to pay for someone to file and refile and refile paperwork. The added expense does not make any sense and is extreme.
My family’s ranch simply cannot afford these expenses and many will be faced with the possibility of losing their ranches because of unreasonable costs and regulations. We are left with some grim choices:
1) Don’t apply for a permit and wait to get cited or get a ticket.
2) Choose not to use our adjudicated water right, which would lead to major decreases in production, land value, and family jobs.
3) Sell off our family ranch that has been here for more than 150 years. This would even open up precious farm and ranchland to other developments. As a side note, we protect a wide variety of wildlife and waterfowl on this ranch, just as we have done for 140 years.
At a local meeting earlier this year, a Mr. Mark Stouffer, who works for F&G, made the comment that “Nobody is above me but the Governor”.
So I felt that I must go directly to Sacramento to try and receive some help and explanation regarding the circumstances that we are going through. I am pleading my case along with that of many other farmers and ranchers: the expense to abide by the law is too much, unreasonable and unsustainable, and there must be an alternative given so that we continue to farm and ranch and raise the food that this country needs.
I hope that this letter is seen by the Governor, and that it is taken seriously and with compassion. I have two boys of my own that I hope may have the same opportunities that I have had, but I fear that they might not get that chance.
Thank you for hearing me, and I hope that you can reply with some helpful and encouraging news. The Fish and Game has threatened to use legal enforcement after the 1st of June, so time is of the essence.
Thank you,
Nick Jenner
Jenner Cattle Co., Inc.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page