[env-trinity] Capital Press 12 12 08 Affects Shasta Scott Rivers

[Byron Leydecker]

California's water wars heat up
Proposed incidental take permits could spread elsewhere, change diversion

Capital Press - 12/12/08

By Tim Hearden, staff

A proposal for irrigation in parts of remote Siskiyou County has statewide
implications that have raised the ire of both farm groups and
environmentalists.

The Department of Fish and Game is preparing watershed-wide permits for
streambed changes and incidental takings of threatened coho salmon along the
Scott and Shasta rivers, which are key tributaries to the Klamath River.

Participation by landowners would be voluntary and those who signed up would
be responsible for certain measures to protect salmon, such as adding fish
screens. The program could eventually be implemented throughout California,
said Bob Williams, an environmental scientist for the Department of Fish and
Game based in Redding.

Incidental take permits insulate irrigators from having to pay thousands of
dollars in fines if their diversions unintentionally kill imperiled fish. A
watershed-wide license would encourage compliance by offering an easier and
more affordable alternative than if a farmer were to seek a permit on his
own, Williams said.

But this proposal's potential to spread elsewhere - and its influence on
future water diversion policy in California - have made it the latest
battleground in the state's ongoing water wars.

California Farm Bureau Federation environmental attorney Jack Rice isn't
concerned so much about the streambed alteration permit itself, but rather
the Department of Fish and Game's interpretation of who needs the permit.

It used to be that a streambed alteration agreement was only necessary if an
irrigator physically changed the bank or channel, such as by dredging a
temporary dam, he said. Now Fish and Game is asserting an irrigator may need
the permit if he simply diverts water, Rice said.

"What it requires is payment of a fee, and it would require certain terms
and conditions," Rice said. "Basically what this (environmental impact
report) says is that Fish and Game has the authority to impose whatever
terms and conditions it finds reasonable on every water right in
California."

Environmentalists assert the stricter mandate has always existed but was
never fully enforced. For their part, they're concerned that groundwater
pumping wouldn't be regulated under the new program and that the permits
would be administered by local resource conservation districts.

"They (Fish and Game) would actually be ceding their authority as a
regulator to the resource conservation districts," said Felice Pace, a
longtime environmental activist who lives in Klamath. "Is that even legal,
to take the regulatory authority you have and constantly give that to
another entity that's appointed by the Board of Supervisors that tends to be
farmer-friendly?

"There's a place for regulation and a place for restoration and
conservation," Pace said. "When you have regulatory laws that have to be
enforced, those should be enforced by the state."

A 60-day comment period on a pair of draft environmental impact reports on
the proposed permits was set to expire Dec. 9. The program, which could
apply to as many as 180 water rights holders in the Scott and Shasta
valleys, could be approved as early as March, Williams said.

The permits are part of a fish-recovery effort developed when coho salmon
north of San Francisco were listed as threatened in 2005. As a result of the
listing, Fish and Game has been "looking at diversions throughout our
region," Williams said.

But requiring a streambed alteration permit for a diversion isn't new for
the agency, he said.

"We're not doing anything with regard to water rights," Williams said.
"Water rights are what they are. ...One of the things we are doing is
verifying that they're taking the amount they're legally entitled to."

However, many of the roughly 50 farmers and ranchers who attended an
informational meeting in Yreka on Tuesday, Dec. 2, suspected otherwise.
Siskiyou County Farm Bureau board member Jeff Fowel rattled off dozens of
perceived problems with the EIRs, including that they didn't consider the
economic impacts from anticipated decreases in water diversions.

One attendee, organic beef producer Craig Chenoweth, has about 40 cows and
calves on 456 acres in Scott Valley. He said the permit program would have
little if any impact on his own operation, but he thinks the proposal is a
form of "tyranny."

"It's about them trying to control us," Chenoweth said. "What Fish and Game
wants is control of water on private land. ... They want us to pay for it,
too."#

 

 

Byron Leydecker, JCT

Chair, Friends of Trinity River

PO Box 2327

Mill Valley, CA 94942-2327

415 383 4810

415 519 4810 cell

 <mailto:bwl3 at comcast.net> bwl3 at comcast.net

 <mailto:bleydecker at stanfordalumni.org> bleydecker at stanfordalumni.org
(secondary)

 <http://fotr.org> http://fotr.org 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20081212/c856254b/attachment.html>