County requests DFG assistance in pending lawsuit 

The case in question, according to Guarino, is Klamath Riverkeeper vs. California Department of Fish and Game, which was brought in late 2009 against the DFG, alleging that its watershed-wide permitting and Incidental Take Permit programs violate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines.

The two programs named in the suit are aimed at bringing agricultural activities in the Shasta and Scott valleys into compliance with the California Endangered Species Act, specifically with regard to Coho salmon.

In the petition filed with the San Francisco Superior Court, Klamath Riverkeeper, along with such groups as the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Sierra Club and the Quartz Valley Indian Reservation and others, ask the court to order the DFG “to vacate and set aside its approval of the Shasta and Scott Rivers Watershed-wide Permitting Programs and associated [Environmental Impact Reports].”

The petition also asks the court to create a permanent injunction keeping the DFG from implementing the permitting programs and granting permits and to release a declaratory judgement stating that the DFG violated CEQA in approving the programs.

Guarino, whose services are made available by the county for special districts such as the SVRCD, notes in his letter to DFG Director John McCamman that the SVRCD has been named a real party in interest in the suit due to its agreement to participate in the permitting programs.

Guarino states in the letter that the SVRCD does not have the resources to commit to a “substantial defense” in the case, referencing a letter sent on June 15 to McCamman urging a response to a request for assistance.

“If the Department does not financially assist the District, the District will be forced to incorporate its legal costs into the costs of administering the Permitting Program, which costs are ultimately born by sub-permittees.

“These costs, however, may be too great for many landowners to bear, which may jeopardize the success of the Permitting Program and may foreclose the District’s ability to defend itself,” Guarino said.

The request for financial support comes after a Jan. 4 letter to the Siskiyou Resource Conservation District and the SVRCD from McCamman, in which he states that two options may be available to the county. In the event that the SVRCD were to be named a real party in interest, he said, the DFG would not seek assistance in defending the action, “because the primary role of the RCDs is to assist the Department in implementing the Programs, there would be no compelling reason for them to do so.”

According to McCamman, if the SVRCD were to be named in a separate action for participation in the permitting programs, the DFG could step in as a co-respondent or co-defendant and seek to consolidate the case with the original petition.

On June 28, the date of Guarino’s most recent letter, he states that no response had been heard and the SVRCD needed confirmation by July 2 as to whether or not the DFG would finance legal representation so the SVRCD can “independently protect its interests.”