Landowners not happy with options offered at water diversion meeting 

Mark Stopher, acting regional manager for the DFG, started the meeting by introducing the several other DFG representatives attending the meeting.

He then went on to explain that several landowners had received a letter, which was likely the reason they were attending the meeting. The letters, according to Stopher, told landowners that a new streambed alteration agreement (SAA), or notification, was due by April 15.

But the letters were sent out before the DFG knew that local resource conservation districts may soon be voting on whether or not to pursue the WPP. So Stopher suggested the landowners wait until after those RCD meetings to decide what to do.

The Siskiyou Resource Conservation District will hold a meeting where they will vote on April 19, and the Shasta Valley Resource Conservation District will vote at their April 16 meeting, Stopher said.

The WPP was developed in response to coho salmon being listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).

In 2004, the DFG adopted the Recovery Strategy for California Coho Salmon. But, worried that a statewide recovery plan wouldn’t address the unique situations in the Shasta and Scott valleys, a group of individuals representing Siskiyou County  formed the Shasta-Scott Coho Recovery Team (SSRT).

The SSRT identified the need for a “programmatic implementation framework that works toward the recovery of coho salmon, while providing authorization for the take of coho salmon incidental to otherwise lawful routine agricultural activities in the Shasta and Scott River watersheds,” according to the DFG’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the program.

Thus, the idea for the WPP was conceived. The Shasta Valley RCD submitted an application for a watershed-wide incidental take permit (ITP) and SAA.

Typically, individual landowners must, under Fish and Game Code section 1600, inform the DFG of diversion plans and, under section 1602, obtain an SAA if they plan to substantially alter the bed, bank or channel of a stream or substantially divert the stream.

The program, if participated in, would “facilitate compliance by Agricultural Operators, California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and SVRCD with CESA and Fish and Game Code (section) 1602 by streamlining the process to obtain take authorization and SAAs for any activity the program covers,” the EIR reads. Essentially, under the program, the RCDs would implement key coho salmon recovery projects.

At several points during the meeting, Stopher referred to the WPP as the “best case scenario.”

Participation in the program, Stopher explained, would mean the landowners would only pay the RCDs one fee for their guidance, assistance and management of the projects. The landowners could avoid paying anywhere from $224-$2,000 for an SAA; a $2,500 deposit and $10,000 or more fee for a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) study; and other environmental filing fees.

“The program would make it easier for landowners to comply with CESA and CEQA,” Stopher said. “We’ve really invested ourself in this program. Not just ourselves, but our money – about $800,000 has already been spent to develop the plan.”

If the RCDs decide not to sign on with the program, or if they do and a landowner doesn’t like the results, individuals can go directly through the DFG for permits. They would be responsible for all fees associated with the process.

“Door Number 3,” as Stopher called it, would be a situation in which a landowner decides he or she does not need the required agreements and permits. In such a case, the DFG would likely pursue a legal case.

With fish at such low levels, Stopher indicated, something has to be done.

But in time set aside for questions, which lasted more than two hours, the landowners expressed their frustration with the situation.

Several commentors said it seems like the DFG has full control over their property and that the landowners’ rights don’t matter much.

“I hope that’s not what you’ve gotten from me,” Stopher said, assuring the landowners the feedback they offer will be listened to. “While respecting private property rights, we must also implement the laws.”

While many of the landowners claimed they have been doing the same thing for 40 years and don’t understand why they have to do anything different for the diversions, Stopher said that while operations may not change, laws do.

Stopher also reminded landowners that if they don’t agree with the requirements the DFG comes up with, they can opt out of the program, pursue the process on their own and have a right to arbitration when doing so.

It was also brought up several times that the diversions in Siskiyou County may not be the problem, that other factors may contribute and make the situation worse before the fish even reach the landowners’ diversions.

Stopher admitted that outside influences like timber industries, highway projects, fishing and oceanic conditions are also to blame for the “decline of coho.”

“We spend a lot of time on fish restoration. There are a lot of things we are doing,” Stopher said. “So, while you may be thinking, ‘Why are you picking on us?’ Though it may not be much solace, we are, in a way, trying to pick on everyone. Our job is to uphold state law.”

But when asked if people with diversions in other areas of California got the same letters, Stopher said only those in the Scott and Shasta valleys got the letters.

“No one else has the option of a Watershed-wide Permitting Plan,” Stopher said, also adding that while the DFG will work with all agricultural growers, they won’t work with them all at the same time. “The Scott and Shasta valleys are sort of the poster child for the program.”

Other topics discussed included how the program would affect tribal land, the benefit – or lack thereof – of riparian fencing, where the money from the fees goes, monitoring techniques and funding.

Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors Chair Marcia Armstrong was in attendance and asked Stopher about the possibility of grant funding to help landowners with diversion projects.

Stopher said there is about $15 million in state and federal funds available for salmon recovery.

“The department is looking to see where we can use the money to have the greatest impact on salmon recovery,” he said, adding a little later that it is probably more likely help would come through the WPP project than if a landowner sought permits on their own. “We will continue to pursue grant opportunities.”

But what if fish numbers continue to go down even after the diversion projects are implemented? One resident wanted to know if that would result in greater restrictions on the landowners or a pursuit of other options.

Stopher said that situation is so hypothetical that he couldn’t give an answer, but “we won’t use the fish performance numbers to determine the success or failure of your system,” he said.

Even still, another resident noted later, many of the Shasta and Scott valley landowners with diversion feel threatened by the DFG.

“What we need to live is food, clothing and shelter. Here, we provide those things for the U.S. and you,” he said. “In 2008, we imported more food than we exported. That’s not because the population grew; it’s because of all the rules and regulations agriculture producers had placed on them. There’s got to be a point where you say enough is enough, and that’s where we’re at.

“You guys need to look in the mirror and ask if you are doing the Shasta and Scott valleys right. We don’t think you are.”

Stopher said the sentiment wasn’t new – that he has been to many meetings in both valleys where people don’t think the department is listening to them. But, he assured the audience, while the department has an obligation to implement the law, they make a point to listen to the people who are affected by those laws.

“We have worked with important players in the timber industry, mining operations, highway departments. I have been to several meetings in these valleys, and I have visited some of your operations personally,” Stopher said. “You may not always feel like you have a partner in getting the permits. You may feel like you are being punished, but in a way it is a partnership. You may not always like it, but we’re only doing what is required by law. We just hope you can come out of the situation saying you were fairly treated. At the end of the day, it has to work for you, too.”