Remote ranchers told to obtain diversion permits

By Tim Hearden
Capital Press

May 13, 2010

ETNA, Calif. -- The California Department of Fish and Game has warned ranchers in the Shasta and Scott river watersheds they could face fines, lawsuits and jail if they don't obtain special permits for water diversions for irrigation.

The landowners have until May 31 to determine whether they'll take advantage of watershed-wide permits for streambed changes and incidental takings of threatened coho salmon along the two rivers, which are key tributaries to the Klamath River.

The permits could cost $100 to $200 a year for each cubic foot per second of water a landowner has a right to use, said Bill Krum, board president of the Siskiyou Resource Conservation District, which oversees the Scott Valley watershed.

Those who don't sign up -- or don't obtain permits on their own later -- could expect inspections by game wardens and face civil and criminal penalties of up to $25,000 per violation and up to six months in jail, said Mark Stopher, the DFG's acting regional manager in Redding, Calif.

"We do have to have a point where we say one way or the another, they need to be compliant with the law," Stopher said. "We can't just let it be open for them to choose ... when they want to comply with the law."

Stopher said he sent a "rather stern letter" to ranchers in April as the irrigation season was beginning to "lay out their options."

The harsh rhetoric has rankled ranchers who say they're simply using water rights they've held for generations and they resent the government's intervention in their operations.

Etna, Calif., rancher Gareth Plank said he doesn't fault Fish and Game for trying to protect imperiled fish, but he laments that government officials and others have portrayed farmers as being out to destroy the environment.

Plank runs an organic operation and has undertaken numerous conservation and habitat restoration measures on his property, including a gravity-based irrigation system with a filtration pond for replenishing the river.

Plank and his father-in-law, Keith Whipple, run cattle and grow hay on 6,000 acres -- one of the largest operations in the Scott Valley. The 88-year-old Whipple is planting hundreds of trees along the river to provide shade for spawning.

"I just feel that government agencies are just picking on us for money to do the projects that they're more interested in," Whipple said.

In the planning stages for several years, the watershed-wide permitting program has always been described as voluntary, with those who signed up being responsible for certain measures to protect salmon, such as adding fish screens.

To obtain permits on their own, landowners would have to pay fees and environmental review costs that could fall between $11,000 and $28,000 "just to get yourself in the door," Krum said. Under this plan, environmental reviews have already been done and no initial fee will be charged; only annual administrative fees, he said.

The plan has been criticized by both farm groups and environmentalists. A California Farm Bureau Federation attorney has questioned the DFG's interpretation of who must obtain permits, arguing it never used to apply to someone who simply diverted water rather than physically altering the channel. Farm groups are concerned that the DFG's approach in the two valleys could expand to other parts of the state.

Environmentalists asserted the stricter mandate has long existed but hasn't been enforced. They complained that ground water pumping wouldn't be regulated under the new program and that the permits would be administered by local resource conservation districts rather than the state.

State officials cite a 1961 regulation -- Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code -- which requires anyone who "substantially" diverts water must notify the department. Even exercising a water right could constitute a substantial diversion, Stopher said.

Those who don't comply not only risk state enforcement actions but also lawsuits from environmentalists, Krum said.

"Fish and Game has already been sued by the environmentalists on this matter," he said. "They're just poised to file more suits."

Plank said ranchers along the Scott River have spent tens of thousands of dollars on their own adding fish screens, developing ponds and planting trees, and as the result the river has become a prime spawning ground.

"Out of left field we're being vilified by the main part of the press, by the environmental community and by Fish and Game for not doing enough," Plank said. "I'm looking around and saying, 'Find a community that's doing more.'"

Stopher said for everyone who's complaining about the state's requiring the permits, there's an equal number of people impatient with the pace of the state's enforcement efforts.

"If telling people that they actually do have to comply with state law is intimidation, I can't help that," he said. "What we have done is frankly given people a five-year grace period since coho salmon were listed to comply with state law.

"We didn't have to develop this (watershed-wide permit), but we did," he said. "It certainly makes it easier on small landowners. One of the reasons for doing that is we have landowners here who are pretty much operating as they always have. ... The laws have changed to protect resources that weren't there when they started their diversions."

Online

California Department of Fish and Game: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/

Siskiyou Resource Conservation District: http://www.siskiyourcd.org/

Shasta Valley Resource Conservation District: http://www.svrcd.org/