Yreka, Calif. — The North Coast Regional
Water Quality Control Board’s (NCRWQCB)
Irrigated Lands Discharge Program is
getting underway with the formation of
sub-regional advisory groups to inform
the process, and the Siskiyou County
Board of Supervisors has voted to engage
in the process by participating in the
groups.
Both federal and state law require the
regulation of “discharges” that have the
potential to influence water quality.
That process is normally rather
straightforward for “point source” or
concentrated discharges. But according
to Siskiyou County Natural Resource
Policy Specialist Ric Costales,
“non-point” sources such as manure,
pesticides or sediment that could be
delivered to water sources via
irrigation are “extremely problematic.”
Costales said most of California is
already under some sort of program to
regulate irrigation discharges. At the
supervisors’ meeting on Jan. 3, Costales
advised the board to participate in the
process.
He said the process of developing
regulations for irrigation discharges
and the accompanying waiver and
prohibitions that will be developed may
essentially result in a “permit to
farm.” Though he added, “Most people
will probably not need a waiver or a
Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR). They
would just be subject to the general
prohibition ... not to pollute the
waters of the state.”
According to the NCRWQCB’s Charter for
the Stakeholder Advisory Group, “The
program will address existing and
potential impacts to water quality to
meet the requirements of the California
Water Code, the State Nonpoint Source
Policy and the Klamath River Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs).”
Some local irrigators fear that this
regulatory process will turn into a
prohibitively expensive and cumbersome
permitting structure that will force
small family farms out of business. In
an effort to avoid this outcome, the
NCRWQCB has developed an advisory
structure to inform its decisions as it
forms the regulations, Costales said.
The North Coast region’s advisory group
will be advised by four sub-regional
advisory stakeholder groups. The groups
are:
• Tulelake area and Butte Valley;
• Scott River watershed, Shasta River
watershed and the Upper Mid-Klamath
Region;
• Del Norte County, Humboldt County and
Trinity County; and
• Sonoma County, Medocino County and
Marin County.
The sub-regional groups will include
representatives from resource
conservation districts (RCDs),
irrigation districts, environmental
groups, state and federal agencies,
farmers, ranchers and tribes.
The advisory groups’ charter states,
“The small groups are not intended to
have decision-making authority, but will
be the primary venue for advisory group
review of all program elements and
documents.”
Leo Bergeron, president of the Siskiyou
County Water Users Association (SCWUA),
attended the Board of Supervisors
meeting to speak in support of the
county’s participation in the advisory
group.
“Agriculture in this country is a target
and this is just another step to put us
out of business,” Bergeron said. He told
the supervisors “the county should be a
strong and verbal influence” in the this
regulation process.
District 5 Supervisor Marcia Armstrong
disagreed with Bergeron.
“One thing I’m confused with, Mr.
Bergeron, is that so many people want us
to coordinate, yet if we participate as
a stakeholder, there’s no leverage with
the board (NCRWQCB) to come to us to
coordinate,” Armstrong said. “In a
stakeholder process you lose all the
clout, all the leverage that you have
because you’re seated in parody with any
organization, any nonprofit, any
individual who is considered a
stakeholder. So you’ve lost your
identity as a government with a
concurrent jurisdiction.”
According to Armstrong, the county Flood
Control and Water Conservation Board,
directed by the five supervisors, has
concurrent jurisdiction with the NCRWQCB
over water quality.
District 1
Supervisor Jim Cook said he does not
agree that county supervisors
participating in an advisory group would
negate the board’s right to pursue
policy coordination. He suggested that,
in addition to participation, the
supervisors should send a letter to the
NCRWQCB demanding policy coordination.
Cook made the motion to authorize county
participation in the advisory groups, to
request that the SCWUA be included in
the Scott and Shasta advisory group, and
that Butte Valley Irrigation District be
included in the Tulelake Butte Valley
advisory group.
District 3 Supervisor Michael Kobseff
offered a second, and the motion was
passed by a 4-to-1 vote. Armstrong voted
against the motion.
A second motion was made by Cook and
seconded by Armstrong to send a letter
to the NCRWQCB demanding policy
coordination on the issue. The motion
passed by a 4-to-1 vote with District 2
Supervisor Ed Valenzuela voting against
it.