|
Siskiyou Daily News
March 15, 2006
|
YREKA - The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board was a no-show for their spot on the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisor's agenda yesterday but discussion about its proposed amendment to the action plans for the Shasta River watershed went on without them.
Public comment will be taken at 6 p.m.
tonight at the workshop meeting of the Regional Water Quality Control Board at
the Miner's Inn Convention Center in Yreka. This is the final meeting in
Siskiyou County before the public comment period closes on March 24 relating to
an action plan for reducing water temperature and dissolved oxygen levels on the
Shasta River, a process referred to as total maximum daily loads (TMDL).
Supervisor Jim Cook said he attended the meeting in Santa Rosa, listened for 2
1/2 hours, and got eight minutes to speak.
Cook said he was disturbed by a number of comments made by Water Quality Control
Board members and the apparent “disdain of the staff for the public.”
Supervisor Armstrong said she is
concerned about the dam removal proposals, fearing that the real agenda behind
the present process is to remove the Dwinnell Reservoir dam, known now to most
people as Lake Shastina.
County Resource Specialist Jim DePree said the county is not getting the same
treatment on the Shasta River that it received on the Scott River.
“They set standards on the Shasta River which will mean increased flow
requirements that will affect water users,” DePree said. “They have not
given us models to achieve those objectives yet we have five years to accomplish
it and if not met, water use will go up for re-judication.”
DePree said he does not feel that the county has been treated fairly concerning
the Shasta River Watershed issue and the public review opportunity is not as
good.
“On the Scott side, we had a tag meeting to review the proposals before they
were finalized, but not on the Shasta side,” he said.
“On the Scott River, they worked well with us and we commented on this,”
Armstrong said. “They fell down with the implementation side of the regulatory
action plan. I don't know why they can't get that piece done in a more effective
way.”
DePree said he personally does not see dam removal happening on the Klamath
River, “but Dwinnell is a possibility because of the TDML,” he said.
Big Springs property owners and Montague Irrigation Water District water user
Tim Louie said there is a section in the draft plan affecting Big Springs. Louie
claims that the Water Control Board went back to 1922 documents to establish 120
cubic feet per second (cfps) flows and want 60 cfps flows in the action plan.
“The water is just not there to do that and I don't think that Big Springs and
the Shasta River ever had those flows,” Louie said. “They are going back to
a time where everything was flood irrigated; now it is all sprinklers.”
Louie said the irrigation system and river are interrelated. “If you put 60
cfps down the river in the summer, there is nothing left to irrigate with,” he
said. “We have scientific data for the river but need more time.”
Armstrong said more time is something the Scott Valley also wanted but were not
granted. “They did not give any more time to the Scott Valley because they are
under court decree,” she said.
Supervisor Bill Hoy said he was a member of the Regional Water Control Board and
remembers discussion taking place 10 years ago about the Shasta River and its
water temperature.
“Big Springs exceeded national standards because it comes out of the ground at
58 degrees in both summer and winter,” Hoy said. “This temperature exceeds
the national standards by 4 to 5 degrees.”
Hoy said he has problems with the current Regional Water Control Board staff.
“All the senior staff when I was there are gone,” he said. “What you have
now is a lot of young staff members in a hurry to get things done and they have
a tendency to overlook a lot of things. I believe they have wiggle room on the
court degree but don't want to hear any suggestions.”
DePree said the models used for the Shasta River TMDLs are Washington state
models and do not take into account the geothermal activity of the region and
its warmer water temperature.
Rex Houghton, representing the Montague Irrigation District, said he only
received the action plan on Friday and does not feel that is much time to digest
the lengthy document.
“I understand agriculture and farming but what is dissolved oxygen and how do
we pay for it?” Houghton said. “I am not sure we know all the issues. We
can't accept this the way it is and in five years they will take our water.”
Houghton said the fish have adapted to the hotter water in the Shasta River.
“It has been that temperature for years,” he said.
Armstrong said she will work with DePree to draft a comment letter from the
supervisors. She said it will be ready for the agenda next week and include
scientific data.