Fly fishing’s supposed to be a gentle sport, where you revel in the solitude of nature, telling life’s everyday hassles they can kiss your ass while you’re on the river.
Sadly, you might not have much access to that river if the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors’s proposed Natural Resources Plan declares the Upper Sacramento, McCloud, Shasta and Scott Rivers as “Non-Navigable.”
That means you’ll have no right to wade or fish those rivers between the high water marks — rights you’ve enjoyed (until now). (The adjacent landowner owns the streambed on non-navigable rivers).
Will you lose the right to wade the Upper Sacramento and McCloud Rivers?
Of course, one of the tests of “navigability” is whether the waterway has been used for commerce in the past, and the Upper Sacramento has definitely been used for commerce.
In other words, the Sisikiyou County Board of Supervisors wants to limit your legal right to access the Upper Sacramento between the high water marks.
Wow. Stream access issues finally come home to the Trout Underground.
Feeling gentle and relaxed? I’m not. I’m pissed.
The Cuckoo’s Nest
Politics up here are byzantine, and while the south end of the county is where all the growth is occurring — especially in sustainable industries — the power rests up north. Controlled largely by ranchers, agriculture, timber, mining interests, etc, the concept is they’re willing to manage natural resources for the good of those few constituencies while the rest of us — including fly fishermen — can basically kiss their ass.
If you think that’s an overreaction, then read these selected paragraphs from the draft version of the County’s Proposed Natural Resources Plan:
- Siskiyou County opposes any additional designations of Wild and Scenic Rivers in the County;
- All rivers in Siskiyou County with the exception of the Klamath River, are recognized as non-navigable streams, with bed and banks owned as private property by adjacent landowners. The Klamath River has been declared as ?navigable,? however, private property rights in mineral claims in the bed and banks are recognized;
They also want to classify in-stream suction dredge mining as an entirely “benign” activity, and get a load of these gifts to cattle ranchers:
- Current grazing allotments shall be continued and principally managed to produce forage to support maximum carrying capacity by domestic livestock;
- Traditional use of grazing allotments for livestock grazing will take precedence over other competing uses;
And if you think “competing uses” includes fisheries, you’re right.
There is nothing good for fishermen or the environment in this crazy document, which is bascially an anti-environmental manifesto from the early 90’s “Wise Use” movement — one filled with gifts to extractive industries (mining & timber), cattle interests, agriculture, etc.
(Can anyone explain why the rights of suction dredge miners are so carefully protected when fishermen receive no significant mention?)
It’s a divisive screed, and even the timber guys think it’s too restrictive. It also ignores all the progress that’s been made in recent years by ranchers and environmental groups working together.
Finally, it’s attempting to control things which this county has absolutely no jurisdiction over — a state of affairs which guarantees gridlock and lawsuits.
Sound good yet? No, not to me either.
Protect Public Access on the Upper Sac and McCloud
Contact the County Supervisors (e-mail or call — contact information below) and let them know you don’t support the Environmental Resources Plan, and that if enacted, it will harm the sustainable tourist economy in Siskiyou County.
The first two Supervisors actually sit on the committee (Armstrong is driving this policy), and if you only contact two people, they’re the two. (My advice? Send e-mails to everyone, but call Kobseff and Armstrong.)
Michael Kobseff
mkobseff@co.siskiyou.ca.us
(530) 918-9128
Marcia Armstrong
marmstrong@co.siskiyou.ca.us
(530) 468-2824
LaVada Erickson (she’s on our side, but isolated politically)
erickson5031@sbcglobal.net
(530) 926-1285
Jim Cook (McCloud representative — let him know how much the town stands to lose)
jimcook@snowcrest.net
(530) 459-0459
Bill Overman
bandm@nctv.com
(530) 842-5389
I know you guys get a dozen e-mails a day asking you to take action, but for anyone who fishes the Upper Sacramento, McCloud, Scott, Shasta Rivers, this one’s worth a few minutes.
Even if the “non-navigable” designation is thrown out, the other provisions are ridiculous, wholly unbalanced, and will ultimately damage our fisheries.
This is only the tip of this very messy, messy thing, with lots more to come. See you in the political arena, Tom Chandler.
[tags]siskiyou county, stream access, upper sac, upper sacramento river, mccloud river[/tags]
{ 6 trackbacks }
{ 72 comments… read them below or add one }
I’ll send an email to the above persons. I won’t bother contacting TU though. Alex(Quote)
Is navigability determined by local agencies, or by the state? That is, even if a board of supervisors says the stream is non-navigable, is that binding on fishermen? Don’t know the answer; just wondering. js(Quote)
I believe it’s a state/Corp of Engineers issue, though case law isn’t even wholly clear on this.
Of course, if the county designates them as non-navigable, then fishermen are put in the position of proving they are navigable.
I also know of two landowners who feel justified in harassing fishermen wading on “their property” and the problem would only get worse if the Board has its way — legal or not. Tom Chandler(Quote)
I can’t imagine that this would be legal. I am positive that only the state has the authority to determine navigability.
Definitely emailing the contacts and snooping around more. Kevin(Quote)
Amend that: feds and state, but certainly not county. Kevin(Quote)
Here’s the Army Corp of Engineers’ definition of navigable waterways. You’ll notice the Upper Sac and McCloud both qualify quite easily:
It also says navigability is determined by the courts, which is yet another reason to make sure this absolute hummer of a proposal never passes. Tom Chandler(Quote)
Smells fishy. Like money. Follow the scent and it will lead you to the few who stand to gain.
But then, they are benevolent and have our best interests at heart. They’ll trickle down. Right? Private is better. Private armies. Private prisons. Private trout streams. Relax. Just ask the good country people they’ll tell you. Good people. Workin hard. Evbody has a rat t’git theys. Curly Friede(Quote)
One more thing: They’re doing it everywhere. Washington too. Gold dredges and wide-open logging. And there are those who would privatize the banks of the Upper Columbia.
Time to resist. Hold your territory.
Viva Cascadia! Curly(Quote)
Stay away from the Corps. They have a different purpose and legal basis for “navigability”, one which has two very key components that will not help you. First, they evaluate navigability by trade or hauling, which means barges, a criterion which your river will never meet; and second, they care about current or contemporary capacity for trade, which of course isn’t going to happen now unless they put in a whole lot of locks and dams. The Corps is death.
As I understand it, the test, which uses the same word “navigable”, is a pastiche of Supreme Court decisions that most decisively leave the decision to the state. They grow from the colonial era definition of navigability, which is extremely broad and basically means that if you can float a boat in it or float a log down it for some or most of the year, it’s navigable. That means virtually all waterways qualify. Also, this test is established at the point when the state was admitted to the Union, so if somebody floated a log down the Sacramento anytime after 1850, your river meets the test. That should be enough basis to tell your board of supervisors to piss up a rope.
But.
The state has to do the enforcing. So far the local disputes have ended at State supreme courts, and a number of those courts which lean right have found for landowners despite what looks to us like settled law. Original colony states like my home state of Virginia have a charming avenue of law called King’s Grant law in which landowners claim rights of title from before the Revolution, when landowners had more claim to the game and fish resources on their property. So owners who hold both banks of a stream have been upheld in trespassing charges against anglers below the MHW line or floating through in boats. Ironic, isn’t it, that you can get a ticket for navigating a non-navigable river…
Theoretically that isn’t a line of reasoning that works in any states west of Kain Tuck Ee.
One landowner hijink has been to conflate the modern Corps standards of navigability with the traditional definition of navigability. The early Colonial concept was definitely revolutionary, a way of keeping lines of transit open in wild and untitled wilderness as opposed to the tamed and completely possessed English landscape, which also had complex rules governing movement of freight that kept licenses for the privileged and wealthy.
Therefore you should concentrate your fire on the state level government, and get some riverkeeper or sierra club style guerilla counsel going on your side, because it seems to me from a distance that the lawyers are going to get some playing time here. The state would have a lot of pull with county supervisors, and could make the thing go quietly away.
Or then you’ll have to brush up on your Thoreau and employ a bit of civil disobedience. How about a navigate-in, a flotilla of fleeced-up Orvisians drifting en masse down the forbidden river in tubes and kickboats, casting cane rods against the gauntlet of shotgun-toting cowboy mercenaries lining the banks? I’d fly out for that.
Dave Dmotes(Quote)
Can anyone direct me to the state representatives and agencies where I can send my arguements against this nasty little land grab? And I do like Dmote’s idea of a public demonstration. Sometimes these backroom vermin are intimidated by light of public attention. I know it’s been said before but if we don’t fight for the streams and trout we won’t have any. greg hall(Quote)
Dave: Tell us — how do you really feel about the Corp…
I see your point, but — having read the Corp’s definition of navigable — feel reassured by the fact that the Upper Sac and McCloud easily fit the letter of their definitions (something denied in an e-mail by the “Wise Use” Supervisor driving this thing).
Reality, of course, has never been a deterrent for the extractive use advocates, and that’s why I don’t want this thing to get off the ground even at the county level — even when it’s being hoisted there by a group of nutcases. Tom Chandler(Quote)
Greg; You’re right about the “light of day” bit. One of the least appealing aspects of this whole mess has been the method used to spring it on the public; a 15 member “committee” was in the formation stages, and — as per the “Wise Use” playbook — that committee was going to be packed with friendly members before the public even found out about it.
Transparent? Public-centric? Not on your life. Tom Chandler(Quote)
One source: http://www.adventuresports.com/river/nors/us-law-public.htm
another, a bit more basic and elaborate:
A Treatise on the Right of Property in Tide Waters and in the Soil…by Joseph Kinnicut Angell Dmotes(Quote)
E-mails sent to all the listed parties, and if someone believes those rivers aren’t navigable, I’ll be happy to kayak a small consignment of flies down one of them for the very modest fee of one Heineken. This, on top of the Nestle eff-up, makes me wonder how those politicians think their constituencies are going to pay for all the legal bills that will surely follow. Don Luis(Quote)
The Siskiyou County Supervisor leading the charge for the damaging Natural Resources plan (Marcia Armstrong) has replied with what amounts to smoke and mirrors:
She then cites from the California Harbors and Navigability Code, which doesn’t define navigability, but simply lists the rivers and streams currently defined as navigable.
That’s a huge disconnect; the fact that the Upper Sac and McCloud haven’t yet been declared navigable hardly means they’re non-navigable, and by any reading of the definitions set forth by the Army Corp of Engineers, all the rivers in Sisikiyou County are navigable.
From the Army Corp of Engineers Web page on navigability of waterways:
The Upper Sacramento and McCloud Rivers were both connected to the ocean (prior to the installation of the Shasta Dam), and both were used for commercial purposes. They’re navigable. Period.
This is what we’re dealing with up here; misleading, dissembling statements around navigability — and this on only one of the issues surrounding the plan.
If you haven’t taken a minute to send e-mails to the Supervisors identified in my first post (especially the first couple), then please do so. While the ability of the Board of Supervisors to actually enforce a “non-navigable” standard is dubious, it’s clear that even an illegal declaration will cause no end of problems to fly fishermen. Tom Chandler(Quote)
Tom,
Thanks for posting this…this got my blood boiling this morning. The threats to our precious limited resources just keep on coming. Fact is, this pisses me off on multiple levels, but on a purely personal/selfish level, the Upper Sac is where I really got into fly fishing, where I taught my son to fly fish, where I drive 6+ hours to go at least 4 times a year because of the special place that it is. Mike G(Quote)
Good luck fighting this thing at the state level. The governator is friendly to privatizing interests and active in the movement to sweep away vestiges of socialist concepts, like the idea of public lands, and has recently set a precedence with the coastal MPA’s “managed” jointly by Cal. Wildlife and a curiously wealthy “environmental” group calling itself The Ocean Conservancy, mainly funded by Packard and Pew. If you study their literature you learn that the two greatest problems facing our coastal waters are: overfishing and plastic trash. Never a mention of the plankton-destroying tonnage of pesticice-herbicide washing down from corporate, chemical monoculture operations throughout the state, or the industrial chemical lifestyle by-product going down every drain, washing off every road. Interestingly, Packard is heavily invested in the 28 new intercontinental communication cables slated to connect to the Cal. coast. They paid out millions to litigeous commercial fishermen when they placed the first two, and they don’t want to do that anymore. Now they won’t have to. Most of the new cables will run through the MPA’s where no fishing is allowed. I know, seems like I’m wandering far from the topic (it’s my style), but everything is connected, and what we are experiencing is the effort of privatizing ideologues whose silent agenda is to eliminate the notion of shared public stewardship/ownership. The Upper Sac is not an isolated example. In recent years, drainages above mainstem dams all over the Northwest are quietly losing their navigable status as ranching, logging and mining interests take advantage of the favorable political climate. Don’t count on legalese. In a kinder-gentler nation the Army Corps definition would be interpreted in it’s most benevolent sense. But the judge who pronounced the Kettle River (bigger than the Upper Sac) non-navigable stated: “There has not been a fur-trader down that river in his canoe for over 100 years.” Your best bet is the sleeping grassroots court of public opinion. The Orvisian Flotilla sounds like a good idea. Get some TV time if you can. Writers, get busy. Curly(Quote)
Curly is right on the money regarding the growth of the privatizing of public resources and responsibilities which of course is not just a local or state agenda but a national one as well. It’s been going on for some time but it seems to have reached a substantialy increased rate during the Bush administration e.g. mercenaries in Iraq for G-d’s Sake!!! Someone (Menken?) said “Commerce makes whores of us all”. Well it’s time to let these political pimps know that we are not whores and our public resources are not for sale.
My thinking is that rather go on the defense we should be looking for ways to go on the offense. How about a public initiative to make all riparian areas of every stream public land for x amount of feet from the high water mark. Why? Because water is an essential element needed to sustain life and therefore it’s too critical to leave to the care of private ownership and local agencies to administer. In Oregon, some communities are having to tap surface water sources (streams) for drinking water because their springs and wells are no longer adequate. If these streams fall into public ownership look at the cost to the taxpayers to then deal with monitoring and maintaining the water quality and the probable litigation to deal with the polluters and of course to clean up their messes.
Should we organize and write out a public position paper to be published regarding this issue? I’ll be glad to fund the publishing of such. Whatever we can do to put these folks on the defensive. greg hall(Quote)
Curly: I’m hoping this thing never gets to the state level; people in the South County — the ones who stand to get gored when the fishermen stop coming — are kinda pissed.
I spoke yesterday to one of the Board of Supervisors (not the ringleader on this). At first he tried to stand his ground, but clearly didn’t know the implications of of a “non-navigable” designation.
I think it’s the public’s job to educate him.
which is happening, and he’s already started to back away. But only from that one issue. And there are a load of similarly stupid issues in the plan.
Lots more to do. Lots more. But thanks to everyone for their help (and calls and e-mails) so far. Believe me, they’re starting to hear us. Tom Chandler(Quote)
Good news, Tom.
These people don’t like to operate in the light. We lost the Kettle by not getting on it soon enough. Once the new designation has been made for the waterway, you can spend your life’s fortune trying to fight it and not get anywhere. The best chance is to stop them at the planning stage. Curly(Quote)
The more I find out, the less I like this. It was clearly timed to coincide with the absence of LaVada Ercikson (the South Country representative and lone “environmental” voice on the board).
Public scrutiny has been minimal.
The key now? Target Supervisor Michael Kobseff.
If you haven’t written already, send him an e-mail telling him the proposed Natural Resource Plan will savage Siskiyou County’s tourist industry and deny fisherment their legal rights to fish the Upper Sac and McCloud.
Look for more posts to come. Tom Chandler(Quote)
The trip to Kobseff’s website was worth it for the photo alone. Now there’s a picture that wants to shake hands with you. Curly Friede(Quote)
Tom-
Thanks for reporting on this. I just personal emails to all the above politicos.
Man, if it’s not one thing…it’s another. We all need to rally round the family and stop this insanity.
You know, if it’s not the environmental issues it’s the access issues. Your blog is a great tool to educate, inform and instigate outrage…oh, and you write well and are funny from time to time too. Dave Neal(Quote)
As far as shining a light on these vermin, everyone who writes to the reps should also
1) go to http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/news/ look at the far right for letter to the editor, and send it off!!
2) if you know any reporters, inform them of this
3) when you send off a email, also send out a us mail to the reps. They weight mail more heavily. jims(Quote)
How is a recall enacted in siskiyou county? jims(Quote)
This whole thing has been trying — and believe me, I’ve got better things to do than sit down, get pissed off, and write.
Sadly, one thing is true when it comes to natural resources and our fisheries: it takes a lot of energy to fight off the yahoos, and as soon as one is dispatched, it becomes clear there’s actually an endless supply of them. Tom Chandler(Quote)
Supervisor Armstrong responded to my point about navigable river determination being the responsibility of the state and not individual counties with the following:
“That is correct. They may be determined to be navigable in fact. However, the “navigable in law” determination is one of property ownership of bed and banks. This list appears to have fixed in time – Act of March 11, 1891, chap. 92 (Political Code, 2349), an enumeration was made of all the navigable rivers of the state. This is held by the supreme court of that state to be exclusive, so that no other rivers are navigable under the laws of California. Cardwell v. Sacramento County, 79 Cal. 347, 349, 21 Pac. 763
The reason this is even on the policy statements is because of people trying to trespass on agricultural areas – particularly the Scott and the Shasta Rivers. (There are issues of liability and biosecurity.) These have long been held to be non-navigable and all the agencies respect that and formally request access. The public is not as knowledgeable. I was unaware of the issues on the McCloud and Sacramento. We could have just changed it to make a statement that the Scott and Shasta were considered non-navigable and left it at that. It was a draft out for comment. Until now, these have been friendly offerings in a collaborative spirit. Don’t know if we can do that now with all the attention and accusations that have been made.”
Looks like it’s going to be a dog fight. Larry Kenney(Quote)
Ahh, Ms. Armstrong — the victim of a public willing to comment on an extreme public policy.
She’s right about one thing — this is about property ownership of bed and banks. The public has it, and she wants it.
As for her legal contention, the federal government has long held if a river is navigable in fact it is navigable in law, and the Scott and Shasta are clearly navigable rivers.
We shouldn’t give an inch on this one.
I’d love to know how she determined that the Scott and Shasta have “long been held to be non-navigable” when they’re in fact so similar to the McCloud and Sac.
She’s trying to calm the response by throwing the southern half of the county a bone, and those who fish in this state shouldn’t rest easy because someone’s thrown us half a bone.
I agree. Dog fight.
Larry — thanks for posting this (I haven’t received a response from her yet). Could you contact me via the contact form on my site? Tom Chandler(Quote)
Tom,
The Public Trust Doctrine is a particular favorite of mine. Here is an excellent description of California Navigability Law — http://www.americanwhitewater.org/archive/article/966/
and here is a simple summary of it — http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Wiki/do-op/id/access:ca
Don’t let anyone try to fool you with old lists. Here in NH, we had a fellow try to claim a river and keep anglers and boaters out a few years ago. The DF&G took it to the Attorney General for an opinion and not only did he rule it as navigable, but he demanded that the appropriate state agency create a list of all navigable rivers in NH. After seven years the agency still hadn’t started, but it only took an email reminder of their duty and a year later we had a decent start to the list.
Here is a short piece I wrote on the Public Trust Doctrine as a primer — http://www.overmywaders.com/index.php?publictrust
Warmest regards,
Reed overmywaders(Quote)
Tom,
BTW, don’t think Federal, especially not Corps of Engineers, use the more liberal California standard for navigability as outlined in my first url above. I would ask someone to kayak each of the streams and document it, or contact the local kayaking/canoing/riverrunners and ask them for documentation of the streams’ use. Alert AmericanWhitewater.org to what is happening.
I would also ask the Department of Fish and Game to intervene. This is very much a matter of interest to them as they do not want to lose all that water – historic fishing water – and fishing license sales. And I might write the AG, citing cases in support, and mentioning the number of voters who would be negatively impacted (think boaters as well as anglers).
Just some thoughts,
Reed overmywaders(Quote)
A fishing guide transporting his client downriver by kayak, canoe or driftboat is in fact navigating, and engaged in commerce as well… Curly(Quote)
Tom,
Me, again. I notice that Supervisor Armstrong is playing the Cardwell v. Sacramento County card. You can trump her with the following statements from U.S. Supreme Court
DONNELLY v. U S, 228 U.S. 708 (1913) –
“The petition raises several points, only one of which is deemed worthy of mention; and that is the insistence that the court, in basing its decision herein (228 U.S. 243, 262, etc., 57 L. ed. –, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 449) upon the California acts of February 24, 1891, chap. 14, and of March 11, 1891, chap. 92 (Political Code, 2349), and the decision of the supreme court of that state in Cardwell v. Sacramento County, 79 Cal. 347, 349, 21 Pac. 763, to the effect that the enumeration of the navigable rivers of the state, as made by the legislature, is exclusive, and that no other rivers are navigable under the laws of California, overlooked the effect of the decisions of the supreme court of California in other cases ( People ex rel. Ricks Water Co. v. Elk River Mill & Lumber Co. 107 Cal. 221, 224, 48 Am. St. Rep. 125, 40 Pac. 531; Forestier v. Johnson, 164 Cal. 24, 127 Pac. 156; and People ex rel. Harbor Comrs. v. Kerber, 152 Cal. 731, 125 Am. St. Rep. 93, 93 Pac. 878), and that our decision respecting the navigability of the Klamath river and state ownership of the bed thereof is so serious in its ulterior consequences that it ought not to be adhered to without further argument.” overmywaders(Quote)
Everyone — thanks for help! I knew there had to be a post-Cardwell shot somewhere.
I was just going to contact American Rivers. They’re an advertiser after all (I hope everyone’s joined their “e-Rivers” program. It’s good stuff.
TC Tom Chandler(Quote)
Best handbook I know of for dealing with this problem is Salmon Nation’s Little Red Book; and anybody wishing to educate themselves on the issue must read former Oregon governor John Kitzhaber’s essay on tactics for the 21st century at their website.
Don’t buy the Orwellian reality. I suggest consolidating all supporters to create a counter-reality that appears as a large, powerful entity (it’s inexpensive) in the county. A citizen’s wathchdog group with a NAME. (THE CITIZENS WATERSHED COMMISSION is good.)And a mission statement. Let them know they are up against a powerful opponent that is consolidated, and that citizen’s oversight will be permanent. Curly(Quote)
Thanks guys. This is absolutely great stuff. Keep the comments coming, and I’m reminded how online communities of intelligent, thoughtful types really can make a difference.
There’s been a ton of opinion, research and fact provided, and almost all of it’s been gold. There’s little doubt that it will help our fight to keep Siskiyou County’s waters accessible to the public.
Even the rivers now revealed to have been the specific targets of the plan (Scott & Shasta) are clearly navigable based on the resources provided, so there’s really no “fallback” position in the Natural Resources Plan (a suggestion made by one of the proponents).
Public access below the high water marks on those rivers is legal, period.
We don’t have to compromise any waters to keep the Upper Sac and McCloud open, and should the supervisors decide to do this anyway, I imagine the results will be a couple of swift lawsuits. Tom Chandler(Quote)
Tom,
You should also, IMO, fight the emphasis on severely economic use of public grazing lands. The BLM has quite an extensive plan for the Alturas section which includes improving the land, the riparian zones, and protecting archeological resources. Grazing is just one element of the plan, not the sole focus that the county desires. See the plan here.
“Approximately 889,956 acres of the planning area and 42,712 acres of BLM land are located in Siskiyou County.”
That BLM land is all public land, open for recreation, including fishing. Supervisor Armstrong should be advised that public grazing land with streams supporting fish will be monitored by the public for streamside damage and other threats to the fisheries from grazing activity.
Don’t give any water away, IMO. overmywaders(Quote)
For multi-use types, I’d say there’s a lot in the Natural Resources Plan that’s objectionable.
Oddly, there’s almost nothing enforceable about most of the plan, and frankly, it probably should be viewed not as a resource plan, but as political “protest” document.
It also exposes this county to lawsuits; can you imagine the lawsuit potential should the our rivers been declared “non-navigable” by a Board of Supervisors who are largely unaware of what the designation means?
All you’d need is one pissed off angler to be arrested — or worse — injured by a landowner (one in Dunsmuir was throwing rocks), and then you’d see what a “deep pockets” lawsuit truly looks like.
Public lands *have* to be maximized for cattle production??
You have to wonder if the Feds in the area are crying or laughing… Tom Chandler(Quote)
Tom, I’d assume that TU, Cal Trout, NRDC, and other organizations which might be able to bring added pressure on the stupes are already aware of this. But it would be reassuring to hear from those groups that they plan to join the fight. Don Luis(Quote)
I know that CalTrout and TU are aware. Other organizations — including two of the more environmentally aware retailers — read the Trout Underground and have contacted me.
I think the key now is to apply pressure, and see what shakes out at the next meeting (today’s BOS meeting is focused on the ordinance creating an advisory committee) where the Natural Resource Plan itself is discussed.
In one sense, it doesn’t truly matter if the Board designates one or all the rivers in the county a non-navigable; it carries little weight, and you’d have to assume someone would sue — either immediately or after a confrontation over legal access rights.
Still, this is the last thing you want on the books to begin with.
I know the supervisors have been surprised by the outpouring of protest; we’ll see what they plan to do about it. Tom Chandler(Quote)
Tom,
You said:
“In one sense, it doesn’t truly matter if the Board designates one or all the rivers in the county a non-navigable; it carries little weight, and you’d have to assume someone would sue — either immediately or after a confrontation over legal access rights.”
I am not sure if waiting is the proper attitude. I would think that establishing the Public Trust right to all navigable streams, as is happening in some states, would be the best measure for CA, not just your county. Once the stream is proven to be navigable, the stream bed falls under the management oversight of the CA SLC — http://www.slc.ca.gov/Policy_Statements/Public_Trust_Home_Page.html — which would probably be happy to add several tens of thousands of acres of streambed to its inventory. With SLC protection, gravel mining of the streams and other environmentally destructive practices would be reduced/eliminated.
Remember, establishing navigability and thus establishing the public ownership of the streambed does not constitute a “taking”. The streambed is simply being recognized as historically public property that had, perhaps, for a time, been misunderstood to be private. No harm/no foul. overmywaders(Quote)
Tom & Co.,
In MT we went through this last year and won, it was a fight though. Obviously, well funded private interests are driving this shenanigan so you will need “lawyers, guns and money”.
Public support, (outside recreational users) only gained momentum when it was pushed into the light as an infringement on the general publics access to traditionally public land. A spate of tycoons buying up ranches here has already sensitized the publics opinion of further such endeavors so that helped get people motivated. It was huge in itself and probably went beyond any argument about the economics of recreational use, the fact that an individual could come in and dictate public access on land that had been public domain for years was intolerable.
It was finally settled by the state in court. Sportsman, landowners and the FWP (the ones genuinely interested in working together) forged an agreement that created an access deal that worked out for everyone except a small group that had a lot of money that was bent on shutting down the rivers for their own private use.
If I remember right, at the local level no one had enough money to fight the big money lawyers so the help from conservation organizations was needed to get publicity and the issue to the state level before the local community was steamrolled.
The local commissioners concocting this deviant little play are just the face of someone else with a lot of money making a play on your stream access- thats your real opponent. As others have mentioned before, turn on the lights and the rats will be heading for the tunnels. This is Blitzkrieg, they will try to peddle influence and buy everyone off so the sooner the spotlights turned on the better.
Stand up and raise holy hell and you will win! fishhead(Quote)
fishhead: I appreciate your perspective. In this case, we don’t have new money driving things. Instead, the faces behind the policies are the families that have run this county for generations. Close.
In truth, I feel sorry for some of the ranchers and growers — they’re getting hit from all sides by new regulations.
Unfortunately, some of them are responding by embracing an extreme “Wise Use” philosophy denying public access — one where even public lands should be managed for their benefit alone.
I’m hoping big dollars won’t be needed; with enough pressure applied now, I think the supervisors will have to back away — at least from some of the more irritating policies they’re proposing.
To agree with your analogy, I think the lights have already come on. Now, we see what happens. Tom Chandler(Quote)
I just fired off e-mail to all of the folks listed in the post, and the major players (Kobseff, Armstrong….)seem to have abandoned their email accounts…( I got the usual “…Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently…” message…)This is highly irritating as it suggests that they can allege that they had no complaints (… since changing their accounts…)… they can in “good” conscience claim that they have no idea that there is a controversy…
…This is why the Rats rule the planet… Brett”playdoh”Tiedemann(Quote)
I got my e-mails off on the 6th, apparently before the supes had activated their public opinion shields. Only Marcia Armstrong bothered to respond, “Thank you for your comments. We will take them under advisement.”.
It’s nice to know their thinking, anyway. Regrettably, I don’t have to go right now, and I really prefer my ropes to be dry. So, Tom, where do we send contributions? Are these folks up for reelection? Don Luis(Quote)
Brett: Thanks for the head’s up. I got those addresses right off the BOS Web site. I’ve been trying to put together a point-by-point response to the policies, so I’ll see if that gets returned also.
Don: No donations yet; Marcia’s not vulnerable in her district, but several of the other supervisors could lose their seats.
I don’t agree with Marcia’s rather strongly held beliefs about environmental and public trust issues, but find a lot of her other stances very palatable.
There are a couple of supervisors I’d love to see kicked out the door, but I’d rather Ms. Armstrong simply toned down the attacks and rhetoric she prints in her weekly column.
This resource plan, however, is a non-starter — it either attacks or ignores pretty much everything that doesn’t directly serve her constituents.
It’s gotta be stopped. Tom Chandler(Quote)
Tom,
You will notice Ms. Armstrong has not given a motive for her attempt to privatize public waters.
without a stated motive, she invites speculation. Were I living in the area, I would write a letter to the editor of each of the local papers. It ould include the following notes:
Some have recently asserted that Ms. Armstrong’s interest in capturing public waters (navigable rivers) and turning them over to private hands is merely to serve the financial interests of a few of her constituents (landowners) at the expense of the general public. I think that may be unfair to Ms. Armstrong. However, since she has not provided a motive for her legal maneuvering, we are forced to speculate.
Let us suppose that Ms. Armstrong is desirous of shielding one or more of her constituents from the Federal Clean Water Act. The CWA is applicable to public (navigable) rivers – and their non-navigable tributaries and adjacent wetlands. If some landowners in the county are dumping/using toxic chemicals and those are leaching/flowing into one of the rivers, they would be liable under the CWA. Oh, it might be something less sinister, some farmer has an animal waste lagoon that habitually overflows, pouring thousands of gallons of e-coli laden sewage into a stream which flows into one of the public (navigable) rivers where the children swim, wade, and fish. Certainly, if that is the case Ms. Armstrong is serving the general public by denying them access to such a dangerous situation.
In the above speculative scenario, Ms. Armstrong is using a brilliant administrative approach – she is not identifying one specific polluter by calling just one stream/watercourse non-navigable, she has hidden the polluter(s) by casting her cloak over all the major landowners of the county.
Of course, the above is mere speculation.”
Best regards,
Reed
PS – see the Russian River Case at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C7782E9891760EFF882571C6004BD4EB/$file/0415442.pdf?openelement
for a CA example of CWA. Note, the judge states “It is undisputed that the Russian River is a navigable water
of the United States.” Marcia would dispute that. overmywaders(Quote)
10/14/07
Tom,
I live in Colorado but this kind of stupid thinking by dumb ass greedy politicians is not confined to California.
So I sent off an email to the top two people. A polite one but mentioned recall elections which may be a possiblity for you to consider.
Also I sent this link
http://www.outdoorindustryfoundation.org/pdf/ResearchRecreationEconomy.pdf
Take good look at it and see about figuring out how much your county stands to loose in guide jobs, tourist dollars, lodging dollars, gear sales and so on.
Just as the dollar speaks for them, it also speaks for us fly fishermen.
Good Luck on your fight. I will post about it on my blog.
Marshall Estes, Editor
http://www.fly-fishing-colorado.com Marshall Estes(Quote)
10/14/07
I have several more thoughts on your war with the Board of Supervisors. If you are going to win, you must understand you are in a war. The best way to win a war is just like what is going on in now. Use hit and run tactics that the Board won’t expect.
For example, get a list of their meetings on this resolution. Then pack the meeting with as many fly fisherman as you can find to go.
Try and get a press release done at http://www.prweb.com for release to relevant newspapers. Try to get the larger fly fishing magazines to pick up some of the fight too.
Find out the names of the corporations pushing the development and/or supporting this resolution.
Examine your Secretary of State’s records to see if any of your County Board sits on the Board of Directors of those corporations.
Find out which corporations or organizations are doing the major construction or subcontracting for the developers. Do the Secretary of State exam to see if they are owned by relatives or spouses of your Board of Supervisors members.
Follow the money and you will likely find out some interesting things about your Board members.
Try and get local tv or newspapers interested in an illegal land grab by monied interests. Remember controversy sells.
Write some newspaper articles about how many jobs will be lost, how many tourist dollars, etc.
Remember they are not playing by Marquis of Queensbury rules and you do not have to either. Just legal.
Marshall, Editor
http://www.fly-fishing-colorado.com Marshall Estes(Quote)
I live in Sacramento and sent an email to all the supervisors asking them to not let the Upper Sac and McCloud have their wading access restricted.
Supervisor Armstrong replied with the following:
“Please note that the Klamath River is the only designated navigable river in Siskiyou County under current California law. Inclusion in the policies document was to validate the non-navigability of the Scott and Shasta Rivers, upon which our agricultural industry depends. (Agriculture is our primary economy.) I think it would have been workable just to enumerate the status of the Klamath, Scott and Shasta and remain moot on the rest. Unfortunately, several local fishing guides insist that the Scott and Shasta are navigable in law and open to free access. This causes trespass, biosecurity and other concerns on these rivers.
I welcome any help in getting consensus on the non-navigability of the Scott and Shasta so we won’t have to go further down the road of absolutism on the Upper Sacto and McCloud.”
FYI — I am unaware of the Scott and Shasta Rivers and what part they play in the local agricultural economy. chapmag(Quote)
chap: Ms. Armstrong’s back to making threats, hoping we’ll give up the Scott and Shasta to “save” the Sac and McCloud.
No dice.
The Scott and Shasta are navigable under the California state standard (they play a part in the local economy in that the water in them is often diverted, leaving them largely dewatered).
What’s really at work here is that Ms. Armstrong doesn’t want a constituency to make noise when the Scott or Shasta are dewatered by diversions.
As for her assertion that only the Klamath is navigable under current law, well, see the note from Overmywaders above; she’s depending on a legal cite that’s since been shot down by the US Supreme court (and hoping you won’t notice). Tom Chandler(Quote)