Letter alleges Fish and Game threats, extortion 

The letter, sent to DFG Director John McCamman by the law office of Minasian, Spruance, Meith, Soares and Sexton in Oroville, Calif., references letters from acting regional manager Mark Stopher regarding the enrollment period for the watershed-wide permitting program. That program, according to Stopher’s first letter, has as its primary purpose “to bring agricultural diverters into compliance with Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq.”

The reference to the 1600 series of codes also surfaced in a recent petition for declaratory relief filed  with the Siskiyou County Superior Court, in which the California Farm Bureau is asking the court to help define the meaning of “substantial” diversion and how the meaning will ultimately decide which diverters will have to enter into agreements with the DFG.

Stopher’s letters are referenced both in the bureau’s petition and in the letter from the firm, with the firm challenging the tactics described by Stopher.

In Stopher’s letter, it is stated that if an agricultural surface water diverter does not participate in the watershed-wide permitting program and fails to individually acquire the permits and agreements with the DFG, he or she may face large fines and jail time.
The firm alleges in its letter that the language used constitutes threats and attempts by threats to extort action.

“Should not citizens be entitled to a full and accurate explanation of the law from public officials? Is it not extortion and a form of terrorism to attempt to frighten citizens into taking action not required by the law?” the firm asks.

The firm asks that question in its letter after challenging the DFG’s authority to determine water quantities and bypass flows, as well as the requirements for Incidental Take Permits (ITP) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review.

The firm states in its letter that it believes that DFG should be responsible for costs of CEQA reports prepared regarding changes to pre-existing water rights, rather than requiring the diverters to pay the costs of preparing the reports, as Stopher suggests is required.

The requirement for ITPs, which permit activities that can kill endangered or threatened species, is challenged by the firm by referencing Fish and Game code 2087, which reads, “Accidental take of candidate, threatened, or endangered species resulting from acts that occur on a farm or a ranch in the course of otherwise lawful routine and ongoing agricultural activities is not prohibited by this chapter.”

While 2087 is set to be repealed on Jan. 1, 2011, the legislature can, as it has in the past, vote to extend the exemption for another two years before that date.

“Please tell us: Does the State of California, Department of Fish & Game, approve of these tactics, statements and methods? Is DFG’s plan so important that it insists on its employees and officials’ right to extort, mislead and take private property without due process of law?” the firm’s letter concludes.

Asked Thursday on whose behalf the firm’s letter was submitted, Paul Minasian, the author, stated, “The best way to think about the letter to [the] DFG Director is that it is designed to correct the atmosphere and allow him to get a hold of this problem for the benefit of the whole of the community and not sent on behalf of any one client.”