At both the July 13 and Aug. 3 board meetings, members of the public spoke for and against the creation of the advisory committee, with Marilyn Seward, chairman of the Scott River Watershed Council (SRWC) board, stating at both meetings that the SRWC feels that the institution of the advisory committee would be a “first step” in protecting groundwater rights in Siskiyou County.

The ordinance proposed for the supervisors’ discussion states, “The Board finds that the County’s groundwater resources for use within the County are of major concern to the residents of the County for the protection of their health, welfare, and safety.

“The Board recognizes the importance of considering public input and regional knowledge in its efforts to manage and coordinate the County’s water resources. The Board enacts this chapter to draw upon aforesaid community participation and knowledge in its efforts to effectively manage the County’s groundwater supply.”

The ordinance would also allow for the creation of advisory committees in the various groundwater basins in the county upon resolution from the board, prompted either by the board’s wishes or by a request from members of the communities within the basins.

Upon adoption of the ordinance, the board could then adopt the proposed resolution creating the advisory committee for the Scott Valley, which would be an 11- to 13-member committee composed of representatives from regions of the Scott Valley groundwater basin, as well as representatives from the city of Fort Jones, agricultural organizations and one member chosen by the board of supervisors.

According to that resolution, the advisory committee would perform reviews, evaluations and assessments of various facets of groundwater, advising the board with respect to data retrieval, hydrology and groundwater conditions, among other aspects.

Some in attendance at the meetings, however, urged the board to not  create the advisory council, with Protect Our Waters Chairman Craig Chenoweth claiming that the action would be an intrusion on Constitutional rights with regard to private property.

Chenoweth also claimed that the Scott Valley Resource Conservation District, Save Our Shasta and Scott Valleys and the SRWC are in collusion with the California Department of Fish and Game, engaging in an illegal activity by participating in the Incidental Take Permit (ITP) and 1600 programs.

The ITP and 1600 programs, which relate to the take of protected species and water diversions, respectively, have come under fire in a recent civil case filed by the Siskiyou branch of the California Farm Bureau. As of yet, the court has not determined whether or not the implementation of the programs is against the law.

Also speaking in opposition to the advisory committee was Scott Valley resident Liz Bowen, who expressed concern over the “erosion of rights.” Chenoweth told the supervisors that he believes the county has no authority over groundwater, threatening them with a recall if they fail to protect private water rights.

Frank Tallerico, representing the Siskiyou Water Users Association, stated that the county has the legal authority to control groundwater, but advised against the creation of the committee because he believes doing so would appear to be an admission by the county that groundwater has not been managed sufficiently.

Asked by Board Chair Marcia Armstrong if the county has authority over groundwater, County Counsel Thomas Guarino stated that the question is broad and the county does have authority in some areas but not others.

The California Water Code reads, “The Legislature finds and declares that groundwater is a valuable natural resource in California, and should be managed to ensure both its safe production and its quality. It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage local agencies to work cooperatively to manage groundwater resources within their jurisdiction.

“The Legislature also finds and declares that additional study of groundwater resources is necessary to better understand how to manage groundwater effectively to ensure the safe production, quality, and proper storage of groundwater in this state.”

Guarino also noted that an advisory committee such as the one proposed would have no regulatory authority and instead would be used “to get voices from the area.” He noted also that he interprets the state of California’s current stance on numerous issues to be if local agencies do not take action, the action will default to the state.

Armstrong stated that she believes there will be more protection for water rights if the regulation is in the county’s hands as opposed to the state’s, with Scott Valley resident

 

Carolyn Pimentel stating that she would “shudder to think what a groundwater management plan written in Sacramento would look like.”