"Support This Illegal Natural Resources Plan Or Your River Gets It!": An Underground Update
By Tom Chandler on Oct 18, 2007 in Environment, Natural Resources Nightmare, Opinion, Water Wars
If you follow the Underground, you know we’re smack in the middle of a battle to keep the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors (BOS) from approving a “Natural Resources Policy” that eliminates your legal right to fish the rivers in Siskiyou County — including the McCloud and Upper Sacramento.
This would be illegal if some have their way…
Even though it’s clear the supervisors can’t legally designate the local rivers as non-navigable — making wading illegal where private property adjoins the river — several of them are still trying.
It spells trouble for us if they succeed, and on a whole range of issues, including access, water quality, habitat protection and many others.
Sadly, the most recent tactic involves a thinly veiled threat; in an e-mail to an Underground reader, one supervisor suggests that if support isn’t forthcoming to have the Scott and Shasta Rivers designated as non-navigable, she’ll be forced to launch a full-on assault on the McCloud and Upper Sacramento.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t much care for threats.
It gets worse.
The supervisor who authored the document publicly stated that she will decide which public comments are accepted and which aren’t.
Transparency? An open process? Nah. Don’t need ‘em when you’re pursuing a reckless public policy course.
Bring It On
While this plan initially snuck in under the radar, it’s finally being scrutinized in the full light of day, and the vast majority of the feedback has been negative, if not downright hostile.
Given the significant pushback the supervisors have received from CalTrout, TU, local residents and fly fishers (especially our own Underground mob), it’s clear they’re feeling the pressure.
Still, the two ringleaders aren’t budging; Supervisor Armstrong is now replying to e-mails with complaints that “local fishing guides” are causing problems through the simple act of (legally) fishing the Scott and Shasta.
Hmmm.
The rest of her stance remains largely opaque to the facts: she feels the Shasta and Scott have long been recognized as non-navigable (wrong); that the Klamath is the only navigable river in the county “under current law” (wrong again - one of our own readers shot that down with a US Supreme Court cite); and that the county even has a voice in this issue (wrong yet again).
Based on a casual reading of many of her weekly newspaper columns, she also feels that rivers are made to be dewatered, that fullscale mining, timber and agriculture operations don’t harm fish populations, and that destructive land use policies are fine because we’ve always done things that way.
This is the same supervisor who’s attacking CalTrout for the mere act of studying water flows in the Shasta River, and if that attack isn’t recommendation enough to get you to join CalTrout, then I don’t know what is.
Next Round: November 6
First, let me say this in big, bold, capital letters:
YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN GREAT.
The research, the spot-on comments, and the small avalanche of e-mails have made a real difference. Our biggest ally on the BOS (LaVada Erickson) finally has a little political clout, and the proponents of this plan (including one who seems to changing direction) suddenly find themselves blinking into the glare of public scrutiny.
Take a minute to pat yourself on the back.
But know this: we’re not done yet.
I’m crafting a lengthy email for submission to all the supervisors using the information my readers unearthed, and I’m aiming letters to the editors of the local papers (the Mount Shasta Herald already published my first).
Naturally, I’ll share any responses, and at some point, I’ll ask the Underground Army to submit another flurry of e-mails (I’m looking into ways to automate the process).
Then the meeting itself looms; Tuesday morning, November 6.
No, I don’t really expect you be there, but hell — why not plan a long weekend trip? Hit the BWOs on the Upper Sac, the October Caddis on the McCloud, the steelies on the long-suffering Klamath — then show up Tuesday morning with a fistful of receipts for the money you’ve spent in the county.
Think a few of the supervisors might squirm a little when asked why they feel the need to criminalize the very activity that supports a big chunk of the local economy — a sustainable, non-extractive activity?
Think that supervisor Jim Cook — who supposedly represents the town of McCloud — wants to explain his tourist-economy-killing stance to his supposed constituents, who rely on fly fishermen to help keep that small town afloat?
I doubt it.
Much more to come. See you in the political trenches, Tom Chandler.
(Click to read the original post on this subject.)
Technorati Tags: fly fishing, upper sacramento river, mccloud river, shasta river, scott river, stream access rights, caltrout
overmywaders | Oct 18, 2007 | Reply
Tom,
Actually, the county supervisors do have the right to INCREASE fishing access to rivers.
*****
GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 25660-25662
25660. On the application of any person interested, the board of supervisors may by ordinance declare all or any portion of any
slough, river, or stream to be a public highway for the purpose of fishing therein, if it:
(a) Does not lie within or run through cultivated land lying within the county.
(b) Is stocked or supplied in whole or in part with fish by the state or counties.
(c) Has not been declared by law to be navigable and in fact is not navigable for commercial purposes.
From the time the ordinance becomes effective, the slough, river, or stream is a public highway for such purpose, subject only to the reservations contained in this article.
25661. If any owner of land adjacent to or across which the slough, river, or stream declared to be a highway for fishing flows
does not consent to its use for such purpose with the right to pass along the banks for the purpose of fishing and on application refuses
to grant the right of passage to the county by suitable instrument in writing, the board may contract for and purchase any such rights.
25662. If the right of passage cannot be purchased at a satisfactory price, the board may authorize condemnation proceedings
to be commenced to procure the right.
Best regards,
Reedd
Tom Chandler | Oct 18, 2007 | Reply
Just blue-skying it here, but I bet that’s not so much what they had in mind…
overmywaders | Oct 18, 2007 | Reply
Tom,
You think so??
isaac roman | Oct 18, 2007 | Reply
i recieved the same threatening e-mail. fortunatly fisherman are not the only one who know of this and there is way to much invested money in the mcloud and heart in the sac to take it away like the railroad did. it is just absurd there is so many nasty greedy sad and angry people that we have suffer for their paychecks of plenty. free the rivers-j.muir
C3C Raine | Oct 18, 2007 | Reply
Hey Tom, I’ve been following this, and sent a short email to the bos, but don’t know what else I can do. Any chance sending a personal letter to Wally Herger might help…sounds like a stretch, but we’ve shook hands more than a few times really. I’d be happy to do it, I owe him a letter any way, I would just like a basic sitrep on where ‘we’ stand right now…other than that, how’s the O.C. hatch comin upstream? My pop is pretty excited to get out for the tail end of it, Doc says he might get the chance in a week or two. Any prospects for good fishin (not to include the bouncing beads off of rocks) around Thanksgiving? Take care.
KW Morrow | Oct 19, 2007 | Reply
Sounds like y’all are fighting this in exactly the right way. Tip O’Neill said, “All politics is local.” I have found the nexus between economics and policy-making is nowhere so profound as it is at the municipal and county levels. So economic arguments carry a LOT of weight at that level.
I’ve seen towns and counties completely ignore state and federal laws with absolute disregard more than once. But it is a very rare thing indeed to see them vote to threaten or cut off several business owners’ livelihoods and a bunch of local sales tax revenue.
Are the local lodging proprietors asking their visitors to sign petitions saying they were there for the fishing? Fly shops? Restaurants? Got a recent fish population survey that you can multiply by the $21 and some odd change number that the state of CA says is the net economic value to the local/regional economy of ONE TROUT?
Anybody gotten the local tourism board or the lodging/restaurant owners assn to take an official position?
Just a few more suggestions. Best of luck fighting the good fight.
Brad | Oct 19, 2007 | Reply
Tom,
I had lived in Mt. Shasta for several years back in the eighties, though I am not a fisher person I enjoyed the many other recreational activities the area had to offer. One activity that I have enjoyed on the many local water ways was whitewater kayaking on the Sacramento, Klamath, McCloud, Cal Salmon, Scott River and many others.
An access/conservation group that you may want to notify would be the American Whitewater Association since they lobby for access and water rights.
Thanks for watching out for a small corner of the world.
overmywaders | Oct 19, 2007 | Reply
Brad,
You’ll be glad to know that the Scott http://www.cacreeks.com/scott.htm
and McCloud
http://www.cacreeks.com/mccloud.htm
still have visible evidence of their use in navigation. How anyone can say, in view of such documentation, that the rivers are not navigable by CA state definition is incomprehensible.
Gary Reed | Oct 19, 2007 | Reply
This post is being considered for The Sacramento Bee’s roundup of regional blogs, which appears Sunday in Forum.
The Blog Watch column is limited to about 800 words. Blog posts included in the column are often trimmed to fit. The blog’s main address will appear in The Bee, and the online copy of the article will contain links to the actual blog post.
If you have questions (or you DON’T want your blog post considered for inclusion in the newspaper column), contact me at greed@sacbee.com
Gary Reed
Forum Editor
Steve Sullivan | Oct 19, 2007 | Reply
Tom, I contacted Dudley Hall, editor of FLy Fish America, and they will be looking into doing a story on this. A story in a national fly fishing magazine would really shine the light on what these ants are doing. Being a writter you may want to do a story on this and try to get it published in Fly Fisherman or Fly Fish America.
overmywaders | Oct 19, 2007 | Reply
Curly | Oct 20, 2007 | Reply
My ears pointed up when I happened to catch a bit of a news segment on NPR radio’s Democracy Now program today, something about the rising prices of gold and other minerals and how mining interests are vying for more resources while the political climate is still good. What got my attention was when it was mentioned that “powerful mining interests” in your county are working hard to gain access to the Upper Sac drainage. Thought everybody might like to know.
Tom Chandler | Oct 20, 2007 | Reply
Curly | Oct 20, 2007 | Reply
Tom: You are spot-on about the governor bowing to a lobby. And they are the same folks who are pulling strings in your county. Actually there are two distinct mining groups at work. One represents “recreational” placer mining “clubs” whose members run dredges the the size of flyfishing pontoon boats equipped with suction intakes 2″ to 7″ in diameter. This is becoming a very popular activity and growing with the value of gold.
The other and even more potent lobby is the one representing multinational mining interests who employ barge-sized dredges along with hydrolic blasting equipment capable of washing mountains away. These people have a lot of money and would love to buy up sections of private river.
Sad truth is: roughly half of us Americans believe that these mining activities are a lot more important than the flyfishing experience. So, this is a multi-leveled fight, make no mistake, and it is not going to be an easy one. It is the real fight of our lifetime, and will last for the rest of our lives.
kmckiou | Oct 20, 2007 | Reply
Tom,
I’m new to your blog (been following it about a month) so I may not have the whole picture. When I have seen local zoning battles won by residents, they have usually formed some sort of formal coalition and engaged the services of a competent lawyer. I would think, at the very least, a good lawyer could keep the county tied up in court for a long time. At least on the surface, it appears that there may be legal justification to stop the county from proceeding with their plans. I would hope that there is some sympathetic legal council that might assist in laying the right groundwork at little initial cost. I suppose one might also consider that the county actions will damage the livelihood of many individuals. If they are doing so without sufficient reason or authority, then you would also expect that the county would be liable for compensation. I would think this could become really nasty for the county board - under the right circumstances. How about a little “stick” to go along with that carrot?
isaac roman | Oct 21, 2007 | Reply
over my waders—is there any weay you could forward the info on increasing water access directly to marcia armstrong? that would clarify here wrongful position on this subject…
Curly— I can only imagine the devistation dredge mining would do to our waterways….bugs, sculpin, auquatic vegitation, and of course rainbow and brown trout eggs and fry. this has been the case in years past and we still don’t see the negative effects. some people are blinded by benjamin franklin and its time they woke the #!$% up!!!! this is were the real regulation should be. how many times have you heard of a fisherman, kayaker or rafter destroying a couple generations of life in the river….its just terrible that they want us to lose out because we aren,t causing any severe ecological damage….seems a little backwards.
Curly | Oct 21, 2007 | Reply
Isaac: Backwards indeed. But then, in recent years some of us have come to suspect that our world may be actually passing through a wierd backwards-inverted, spun-reverse mirror universe where even the basic components of language take on the opposite meaning.
Tom Chandler | Oct 21, 2007 | Reply
Curly: I wish you weren’t so often right about the mining groups (and the seven year detour through the bizarro language universe).
As for our legal options, I’d prefer to try and handle this one politically — the idea being it becomes too politically expensive to try and make this damaging Natural Resource Policy happen.
If that fails, I’d hope a sportsmen’s group would step up with a lawsuit, the net result of which would be a declaration that all the rivers we’ve mentioned so far would be declared navigable, and supervisor Armstrong could go eat Chicken Kiev.
More to come.
What we’re seeing here
isaac roman | Oct 22, 2007 | Reply
wasn’t the scott used to transport furs to the mighty klamath—COMMERCE—navigable-seems like this is just really absurd
Kentucky Jim | Oct 22, 2007 | Reply
Tom,
Don’t know anything about the proposed law; sent her an e-mail anyway, asking her to reconsider her position, on the theory that the more, and the sooner, the better.
Regards,
Kentucky Jim
Tom Chandler | Oct 23, 2007 | Reply
Isaac: The California State definition of “navigable” doesn’t rely on the federal definition. Instead, it recognizes the value of recreational use (and commerce), so essentially, the test is one relating to whether the river is passable a majority of the year via paddled craft or small motored craft.
What I don’t know is how all the water diversions figure into it. There have been several cases where both rivers have been essentially dewatered in recent times.
Kentucky: Thanks.
Bill Carnazzo | Oct 25, 2007 | Reply
I’ve been through this problem on other rivers–both as a guide and as a lawyer. What it boils down to, from a legal standpoint, is this:
1. The only authorities who can make a determination as to “navigability” are the State Legislature and the California Courts. Boards of Supervisors have no authority whatsoever on this issue, as it is a matter of statewide concern and not a “local” issue.
2. The principal case on this subject is the one that resulted in the opening of the Fall River to anglers in the mid ’70’s. That case was filed and won by the District Attorney of Shasta County.
3. Because of the conflict of interest that the Siskiyou District Attorney would have here (due to the Board of Supervisors’ position–or at least that of certain members of that body)the State Attorney General’s Office needs to be involved here. That will put a stop to this saber-rattling, unproductive diatribe.
If I can be of any assistance in this battle, I am more than willing to help. I own a home in Dunsmuir so I’m a county resident. I also guide on the Upper Sac and McCloud rivers.
Thanks for keeping us informed.
Tom Chandler | Oct 25, 2007 | Reply
Bill: It’s becoming clear the county has no right to designate navigability, but what’s equally clear is that it doesn’t matter to them.
Being legally in the right will be small comfort when a pissed off landowner is waving a gun at you, or — in the case of a certain Castella landowner — hitting people on the heads with rocks for fishing “his” river.
Our best hope is to beat this thing like a rug before it gets passed, or make it so politically painful for the supervisors that when it does pass, they’re basically signing their own political careers away.
Hell, even the county’s own counsel publicly stated the county had no legal basis for enforcing much of this plan.
I agree that getting the California Attorney General involved is perhaps the next step.
Can you suggest how we’d do that — or embark on that one yourself?
(PS — just posted a new article on this)
overmywaders | Oct 25, 2007 | Reply
Bill Carnazzo | Oct 30, 2007 | Reply
Tom–I do intend to follow up with the AG. Although Jan Stephens, who I know from my interaction with the State Lands Commission on navigability issues (Jan, as Assistant AG, represented that commission), is now retired there is undoubtedly someone who stepped into his shoes. I tried to pull up the November 6th BOS agenda on the Clerk’s web page but apparently it is not yet public. Will the navigability issue be on that agenda? Although I will make contact with the AG, it would be advisable for others (organizations, individuals, etc.) to also step into that part of the fray. I also sent a letter to the BOS for the official record, with a copy to the Clerk and County Counsel. I don’t know how to attach a document to this post, or I’d append the letter.
Tom Chandler | Oct 30, 2007 | Reply
Thanks guys. It’s good to have some direction regarding the next step. With Supervisor Cook responding to e-mails with a single sentence (a cryptic, misleading “You have been misinformed”), it’s clear the supervisors aren’t going to listen on this one.
The November 6 meeting will feature a vote on the ordinance establishing the “advisory” committee, which will in turn use the Natural Resources Policies to define their response.
I wish I’d understood the importance of the committee better at the start; the whole setup is an underhanded way of not creating an ordinance around the Natural Resource Policies, but simply allowing the supervisors to approve them with a resolution.
Nice — especially if you don’t want a lot of public input cluttering up the process.
Bill Carnazzo | Oct 30, 2007 | Reply
Is the item in fact on the Nov. 6th agenda? If so, do you have the agenda packet material on the item, and/or any past agenda materials that are pertinent? I would like to have that material in hand when I go see the AG.
Tom Chandler | Oct 30, 2007 | Reply
Bill: The agenda for Tuesday’s meeting won’t be published until Friday. There’s some confusion about what’s really going to happen, but as near as I can tell, the BOS are going to vote to establish the committee that advises the Board using the Natural Resource Policy for guidance.
One of the PITA aspects of them adopting the Natural Resource Policy in a resolution (instead of ordinance) is that we won’t necessarily receive much notice.
It’s been an interesting day; organized opposition is finally underway, and I’m hearing some feedback that — despite the defiant stance — some of the supervisors are starting to wonder what the heck is going on.
Update coming soon…