Pioneer Press

Fort Jones, CA

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

page 1, col 1

pioneerp@sisqtel.net

Water rights are at risk in Shasta and Scott Valleys as the DFG now requires water diverters to notify them and obtain permits to use water land owners have had for many years. Thus was the premise of Thursday night's Incidental Take Permit (ITP) meeting, or ITP meeting, with the Department of Fish and Game (DFG).

All prior agreements are superseded by this new decision made by the DFG to ostensively save the coho salmon.

Because we can

The pamphlet consisting of a case law reference where the DFG was able to fine a landowner for illegal water diversion and unfair competition was handed out to local landowners to demonstrate that the DFG has every right to force land owners to obtain permits to divert water to their farms, according to the DFG Acting Regional Manager, Mark Stopher.

When questioned by local farmers on why this was necessary at this point in time, Stopher explained that the coho salmon were endangered and accommodations needed to be made for their future.

"This has nothing to do with fish.  It has more to do with water rights," says Craig Chenoweth, a local farmer.

Other local farmers agree with Chenoweth.  Many claim that this decision will not help the salmon population and it will only be treading on American home owners' water rights.
Land owners were discontent with the three choices they were presented.

You have three choices

The first choice is the Watershed-Wide Permitting Program.  Stopher claims this is more than six years in the making.

"It's a way for them to get into compliance with Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code," said Stopher.

It requires that water diverters obtain a permit when diversion is significant and it also requires that they get an Incidental Take Permit, or ITP, which will comply with the California Endangered Species Act.

There are application and annual fees for this option that are paid to the RCD.  For this, the RCD will take some responsibility for mitigation, or ensuring the species is just as good off after the permit is completed as it was before the permit was issued, help diverters fill out applications and help get them grants.

The second is not to participate in the Watershed-Wide program and pay for the streambed alteration agreement application/notification with the DFG and pay for the incidental take permit on their own, just taking out the RCD as the middle man.

One diversion fee is $224 dollars.  Also, to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, the DFG would have to hire a consultant.  All costs would be born by the applicant in this case.  A $2,500 deposit given by the applicant would likely be a small payment toward an eventual cost that would be several times that amount.  Even after CEQA compliance is complete, there would still be another $2,500 to $3,000 left to pay to the DFG.

The third option would be if local water diverters decided to stand on their water rights and not seek any permits.  Stopher claims this third option leaves the DFG with the option to do a law enforcement investigation.

Rights are tempered by laws

"While you do have water rights, which means you are entitled to a certain amount of water, they are tempered by the requirement to comply with other state laws," said Stopher.

An unattractive option to reduce to, the DFG  is prepared to investigate to see who has the greatest water rights in any given area in the Shasta and Scott Valleys, search for permits and, if none are found, to investigate to see if they are illegally diverting water.

"When we believe there is a violation of state law, law enforcement officers or game wardens can enter private property to investigate," said Stopher.

The DFG is prepared to file civil and or criminal charges with the district attorney's office for those who are not in accordance with the law.