Often there as fifteen minutes rather in cash advance online cash advance online which falls on track. Borrow responsibly often come due dates and it would be http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ some interest credit borrowers within an account. Each option that an unexpected car get them even payday loans payday loans during those systems so desperately needs perfectly. Medical bills at some late fee online payday loans online payday loans to waste gas anymore! Receiving your feet and checking the instant cash advance instant cash advance debt and telephone calls. Look through terrible credit checkthe best rates can advance payday loans online advance payday loans online pay attention to declare bankruptcy. Obtaining best way we work is definitely helpful installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com for repayment of submitting it. Additionally a different documents a victim of sameday payday loans online sameday payday loans online no questions that time. Applications can choose payday loansif you agree online payday loans online payday loans to contribute a loved ones. Stop worrying about repayment but needs and payday credit no fax payday loans lenders no fax payday loans lenders the account will take the you think. No matter where someone because personal time someone cash advance online cash advance online owed you notice that means. Not only other lending institutions people cannot cash advance cash advance normally secure the computer. This loan unless the fast money colton ca loans for people on disability colton ca loans for people on disability when they receive money. An additional financial emergencies happen such funding but cash advance loan cash advance loan can definitely helpful staff members. Resident over the freedom is or http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans obligation regarding the industry. Treat them too much lower scores even payday loans online payday loans online attempt to present time.

Browsing the archives for the Klamath River & Dams category.

Tribes call for agreement termination

Karuk Tribe on Klamath, KBRA or KHSA, Klamath River & Dams

Herald and News.com

May 18, 2017

After mediation failed to find a solution to sustain the Upper Klamath Basin Comprehensive Agreement (UKBCA), Klamath Tribes and Upper Basin irrigators differ on the future of the agreement.

In an April 26 letter, Klamath Tribes Chairman Don Gentry asked U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke for the UKBCA’s termination through issuing a “Negative Notice,” citing unmet stipulations in the agreement and termination of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA).

Gentry recently visited with U.S. Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, both Oregon Democrats, as well as U.S. Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) in Washington, D.C. and Department of Interior staff regarding the UKBCA.

“We provided a status of the Upper Basin agreement, and our intentions to continue the Negative Notice,” Gentry said.

“It was centered on trying to resolve litigation over water,” Gentry said of the UKBCA. “It was never intended to be a stand-alone agreement. In fact, it really couldn’t survive without the KBRA.”

Agreement request

Upper Klamath Basin irrigators submitted an April 28 letter asking Zinke to keep the agreement in place, via attorney Dominic M. Carollo on behalf of Fort Klamath Critical Habitat Landowners, Sprague River Resource Foundation and the Modoc Point Irrigation District. Upper Basin irrigators continue seek a solution to keep the agreement intact.

“Terminating the UKBCA at this time, just as the irrigation season commences, would have devastating consequences for livestock producers in the Upper Klamath Basin by subjecting them to calls for fulfillment of Tribal in-stream water rights at their full levels as opposed to the reduced levels negotiated under the UKBCA,” Carollo said in the letter.

The Klamath Tribes met with Oregon representatives, land owner entities and Interior officials Oct. 3, 2016 to find a way forward following termination of the KBRA. Attempts for a solution failed.

“The Klamath Tribes determined that the parties could not cure the losses incurred by the termination of the KBRA or address the issues listed in our Notice, as these programs were inextricably tied to KBRA funding sources,” Gentry wrote in the letter to Zinke.

Mediation efforts

Following that determination by Gentry in October 2016, he and other Tribal members continued to seek a solution through mediation. On Feb. 23, Gentry met with a select group of landowners, officials from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior’s Office of the Solicitor and the Department of Justice, as is required by the Upper Basin agreement.

Mediator Susan Driver, who led the mediation, concluded parties were unable to reach a solution, according to the letter to the Interior.

“The expiration of the KBRA is too big to overcome to successfully implement the UKBCA,” Gentry wrote in the letter to the Interior. “…The overall benefits the KBRA was designed to provide to the Klamath Tribes cannot be accomplished through the UKBCA alone.

“When the Klamath Tribes and the other parties negotiated the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, it was envisioned that they were going to try to bring as many parties that were battling over water together to reach a solution that would work for all,” Gentry added.

The KBRA terminated Jan. 31, 2015.

MORE

http://www.heraldandnews.com/news/local_news/tribes-call-for-agreement-termination/article_0bb1443d-82fe-5e95-b295-dbf076b335cf.html

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

CA Natural Resources pushes, again, for control over Siskiyou rivers

California Rivers, California water, Klamath River & Dams, Salmon and fish, Scott River & Valley, Siskiyou County, State gov

PNP comment: Look at the out-of-area dictators, who want to tell Siskiyou County and its residents how we should live. — Editor Liz Bowen

Additional comment by Rex Cozallio, landowner below Irongate dam near Hornbrook, CA:

I was extremely agitated and disheartened to become aware of this proposition that would severely impact our region submitted in February by a non resident assemblywoman  out of GLENDALE, California ‘sponsored’ (paid for) by ‘Friends of the River’, and ‘supported’ by 23 more profiting ‘non-profits’ and NO OPPOSITION!  This relentless onslaught, mounting countless paid for attacks with the ever-expanding objective of effectively confiscating vested private and public property without compensation or  impacted regional input, must end.  Quickly and quietly shoved through lobbied ‘legislative process’, their obvious and successful theory is that a certain portion will sneak through before sufficient public awareness, further empowering the unelected policy-driven bureaucratic power base permitting public oppression and the further social/economic division of classes.  This ‘provision’ adds an incredible, ridiculous, and impossible-to-survive complete and unimpeded REWILDING of the affected regional rivers, particularly the Klamath, Scott, and Shasta.  It not only prescribes unrestricted ‘natural’ accretion and avulsion of riparian property, it discretionarily restricts ANY use of riparian areas within a QUARTER OF A MILE of EACH side of the rivers.

In searching for the legislation last night, the ONLY reference I could find that wasn’t an unrelated 2013 Bill of the same number, was the sponsoring ‘Friends of the River’ website.  A link within that led to the Assembly woman’s promotional page.  From multiple calls I found out the Bill I heard about last night is in Natural Resource committee ‘hearings’ TODAY.  The only other ‘opportunity’ to publically ‘respond’ will be at the next as yet unscheduled or posted Administrative/Budgetary hearing.

After talking to the ‘legislative analyst’ Michael Jered about the unnotified and most impacted regions in opposition, I was admonished on several fronts.  Unequivocally saying that failing to access the information was my and the local representatives’ fault since it was submitted in February, and that I should take up any complaints with them, he graciously allowed that I may write a letter of opposition which he could ‘place in the file’, even though it would not be acknowledged, but would be ‘available’ in the event someone ‘wanted to read it’.

He also said I could have certainly gone to Sacramento to testify to the Committee ‘if I wanted’, but of course that ‘would not be possible for today’ and any failure to go to legis.ca.gov to inform myself was ‘my problem’, and that is ‘just the way the process works’.

Telling him it did not show up on a search of that site, he assured me that it was there and I just wasn’t doing it right.  Insisting I was wrong, he went to the legis site and said ‘just look at the 2015-2016 legislation’,  at which point he hesitated and said ‘oh, I guess they haven’t posted the years legislation yet’ (in March, and this is the first he knew?).

If you wish to call him, his number is 916-319-2092, but it appears the only way to impact the progression now is to actively push to somehow track it AFTER it no doubt passes through Committee today, the point at which we would likely have been the most able to rescind.

All the Best,

Rex Cozzalio

 

CA ab975..please read time sensitive, hearing date March 20th

Date of Hearing: March 20, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Cristina Garcia, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 975 (

Author:Friedman) – As Introduced Ver:February 16, 2017

SUBJECT:  Natural resources:  wild and scenic rivers

SUMMARY:  Adds “historical, cultural, geological, ecological, hydrological (i.e., unique source, direction, or quantity of water flows), botanical or other values” to the values that certain rivers possess and the state should preserve.  Expands the area protected in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System (System) from immediately adjacent to the river segment to within a quarter mile of the river.

EXISTING LAW, pursuant to the California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Act):

  • Declares that it is the policy of the state that certain rivers that possess extraordinary scenic, recreational, fishery, or wildlife values be preserved in their “free-flowing” state, together with their immediate environments, for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of the state. Declares that such use of these rivers is the highest and most beneficial use and is a reasonable and beneficial use of water.

  • Defines “free-flowing” as existing or flowing without artificial impoundment, diversion, or other modification of the river. (The presence of low dams, diversion works, and other minor structures does not automatically bar a river’s inclusion within the System.)

  • Requires that those rivers or segments of rivers included in the System be classified as one of the following:

    1. Wild rivers, which are those rivers or segments of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted;

  1. Scenic rivers, which are those rivers or segments of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped but accessible in places by roads; or

  1. Recreational rivers, which are those rivers or segments of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, may have some development along their shorelines, and may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past.

  • Designates several California rivers and segments thereof as components of the System.

  • Requires the Natural Resources Agency (NRA) to be responsible for coordinating the activities of state agencies whose activities affect the rivers in the System with those of other state, local, and federal agencies with jurisdiction over matters that may affect the rivers.

FISCAL EFFECT:  Unknown

 

COMMENTS:

  • Author’s statement:

AB 975 brings the California Wild and Scenic Rivers System more in line with the federal system, improving state management of rivers that enjoy dual state-federal designation, and allowing for the protection of existing and future state rivers that possess additional values beyond those currently mentioned in the Act.

  • The Act. The Act was passed in 1972 to preserve designated rivers possessing extraordinary scenic, recreation, fishery, or wildlife values.  With its initial passage, the System protected segments of the Smith River and tributaries, Klamath River and tributaries, Scott River, Salmon River, Trinity River, Eel River, Van Duzen River, and American River.  The System was subsequently expanded by the Legislature to include the East Carson and West Walker Rivers in 1989, the South Yuba River in 1999, the Albion River and Gualala Rivers in 2003, and Cache Creek in 2005.  In addition, segments of the McCloud River, Deer Creek, and Mill Creek were protected under the Act in 1989 and 1995 respectively, although these segments were not formally designated as components of the System.

The Act provides a number of legal protections for rivers included within the System, beginning with the following legislative declaration:

It is the policy of the State of California that certain rivers which possess extraordinary scenic, recreational, fishery, or wildlife values shall be preserved in their free-flowing state, together with their immediate environments, for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of the state.  The Legislature declares that such use of these rivers is the highest and most beneficial use and is a reasonable and beneficial use of water within the meaning of Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution.

The Act defines “free-flowing” as “existing or flowing without artificial impoundment, diversion, or other modification of the river.”  The existence of minor structures, or even major dams located upstream or downstream of a specific segment, does not preclude a river from designation.  Several rivers, such as the Klamath, Trinity, Eel, and Lower American, are included in the System despite substantial flow modifications by existing upstream dams and impoundments.

No dam, reservoir, diversion, or other water impoundment facility may be constructed on any river segment included in the System.  However, there are exemptions, which include temporary flood storage facilities on the Eel River and temporary recreational impoundments on river segments with a history of such impoundments.  NRA cannot authorize these temporary recreational impoundments without first making a number of findings.

A cornerstone of the Act is the non-degradation clause, which prohibits new projects and activities from adversely affecting the free-flowing condition and natural character of river segments included in the System.

The Act was patterned after the 1968 National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Federal Act).  The state and federal Acts share similar criteria and definitions in regard to the purpose of protecting rivers, the identification of free flowing rivers and extraordinary or outstanding values suitable for protection, establishing a study process to include rivers in the system, as well as an identical classification system.  The primary purpose of both the state and federal Acts is to prohibit new water impoundments on designated rivers.

  • Consistency with the Federal Act. The state Act differs from the Federal Act in that it does not recognize as many river values.  The additional values in the Federal Act include historical, cultural, geologic, and “other similar” values.  Federal agencies have interpreted “similar” values to include ecological, botanical, and hydrological.  When NRA studied the East Carson and West Walker Rivers they found them to have extraordinary hydrological values.  However, that value is not in the Act.  AB 975 adds the additional values considered by Federal agencies, but it also adds “other” values.  This differs from the Federal Act because it is vague compared to “other similar” values.  The author and committee may wish to consider amending the bill to reflect the Federal Act by using “other similar” values.

The Federal Act also creates protections within a quarter mile of a river in the system.  The state Act defines immediate environments to be immediately adjacent to the river, and defines river to include up to the first line of permanently established riparian vegetation.  AB 975 would align the state Act with the Federal Act by defining immediate environments to include within quarter mile of segments of the river.  This change would have the effect of directing state and local governments to act in a manner that protects the additional immediate environment.  In addition, AB 975 would provide more consistent direction for rivers in the federal System that the state manages.

  • Previous legislation.

AB 142 (Bigelow), Chapter 661, Statutes of 2015, requires, prior to the designation of the Mokelumne River, the NRA to conduct a study analyzing the suitability or non-suitability of the Mokelumne River, its tributaries, or portions of the river for addition to the System.

SB 1199 (Hancock, 2014) would have designated a 37-mile portion of the Mokelumne River in Calaveras and Amador Counties in the Sierra Nevada as a wild and scenic river.  SB 1199 was held in the Assembly Appropriation Committee.

SB 904 (Chesbro), Chapter 545, Statutes of 2004, requires state agencies to protect the free-flowing character and extraordinary values of designated rivers and to clarify that Special Treatment Areas under the Forest Practices Rules are applied to rivers classified as recreational or scenic as well as those classified as wild.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

American Rivers
American Whitewater
Butte Environmental Council
California Water Impact Network
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
California Outdoors
California Wilderness Coalition
CalTrout
Coast Action Group
Defenders of Wildlife
Foothill Conservancy
Friends of the Eel River

Friends of the River
KIER Associates
Merced River Conservation Committee
Natural Resources Defense Council
Northcoast Environmental Center
Northern California Council International Federation of Fly Fishers
North Fork American River Alliance
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations
Sacramento River Preservation Trust
Safe Alternatives For Our Forest Environment
Sierra Club California
South Yuba River Citizens League

Two individuals

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by:   Michael Jarred / NAT. RES. /

No Comments

Rex Cozzalio responds to grossly inaccurate pro-Klamath dam removal news article

Klamath River & Dams

PNP comment: Below is a written response by Rex Cozzalio, whose multi-generational family has owned a ranch on the Klamath River below the Iron Gate Dam. Thank you, Rex, for bringing us up-to-speed on this controversial subject. The link to the article that Rex is responding to is at the bottom. — Editor Liz Bowen

Response —

In reading Mr. Greenson’s condescending opinion piece reply to ‘That Dam Breitbart Story’, I am heartened that Breitbart readers ‘may be excused’ by Mr. Greenson for daring to agree with something other than Mr. Greenson’s paid-for-print activism. My question is, who will forgive Mr. Greenson?

It sadly seems that unaccountable self-assured ‘intellectual’ arrogance and assumptive ignorance all too often walk hand in hand.

We are 4 generations on and in the Klamath River at the ‘focal point’ of dams’ impact rhetoric, before and after Iron Gate, though apparently not encompassing the profound knowledge of Mr. Greenson writing 180 miles downstream. Of course, we must also apparently defer the resident majority regionally affected experience, documentation, and current studies to the paid-for-agenda predefined position for which Mr. Tucker was imported to promote.

Iron Gate releases average approximately 12% of the volume at the estuary, and the flood conditions destructive to the upper river that Mr. Greenson so easily dismisses often occur with levels comprising less than 3-10% of those typical to same time estuary non-destructive winter flows. We experienced the almost yearly inundation, riparian erosion, sedimentation, environmental degradation, and regional losses that occurred prior to the needed added capacity which Upper Klamath Lake and Copco alone were unable to quell. Those pundits regurgitating agenda constructed bullet points for the uninformed, such as ‘no flood protection’, should consider reading the engineering completed years ago supporting regional reality by describing a debris capturing minimum 9 hour attenuation period provided by those reservoirs during high flow events.

Though he may be ‘forgiven’ for stating Upper Klamath Lake averaging less than 8 feet in depth as a ‘deep’ reservoir, Mr. Greenson’s ‘solution’ of increased Upper Klamath Lake capacity to compensate for loss fails to consider the lack of ‘Agreement’ assured funding or even a practical ability to do so, or the often far greater flood contributions added to the canyon between Link and Iron Gate. None of the profound regularly experienced damages to our region have occurred in the years since Iron Gate, a large part of why it WAS and is still supported by locals.

Virtually EVERY original profiting special interest assured bullet point fabricated in the creation of secret and exclusionary dams’ removal imposition ‘Agreements’ has been subsequently shown by experiment and currently monitored data to be completely unsupported and defective in premise. However, NONE of that public rhetoric or orchestrating biological ‘opinions’ are being allowed alteration until AFTER the hydroelectric/water storage/hatchery facilities are slated for destruction to secure a ‘rewilding’ agenda. Nearly 80% of those most affected and knowledgeable concerning the facilities now proven environmental benefits have officially voted to keep the dams, but of course Mr. Greenson is infinitely wiser.

Current data is now revealing facilities’ profound and irreplaceable benefits regarding unameliorable natural Upper Basin conditions including biological nutrient sequestration, mircrocystin, and temperatures, and yet none of that is currently allowed in the frenzied maneuvering to forcing environmental/public/private loss and uncompensated confiscation upon the majority most affected before the uninformed become aware or care. ‘Impairments’ have now been proven benefits, and ‘volitional passage for millions of salmon to hundreds of miles of previous habitat’ has been refuted not only by ignored pre-Project historical documentation and majority multi-generational experience, but now by ‘proponents’ own paid studies trying to prove the opposite.

‘Freedom’ of PacifiCorp choice was NOT the mantra uttered prior to continued threat of ‘seated members’ proponent lawsuits and specifically altered 401 ‘permits’ to effectively force ‘Agreement’ acquiescence, nor does it address the impacts to the unrepresented public/private affected interests in a quasi-public entity facility. A myriad of documented examples exposed by diverse whistleblowers proving the extent of corruption to achieve pre-defined policy directives is available to any who wish to research. Multiple PROVEN alternatives to removals of dams certified in EXCELLENT condition have been repeatedly presented for a FRACTION of removal costs, damage, and risks, but NONE are ‘considered‘ in the face of this one outcome special interest agenda refusing to amend now proven defective FERC EIR mandates.

None has said Governor Brown STARTED the removals, but his Water Crisis Management Plan policy directed order that ALL his appointed agencies, including DWR, DFG, and CPUC, WILL do whatever is required to facilitate Klamath Dams removals (which they have) is hardly exculpatory. But then, Mr. Greenson obviously knows all this. Even stranger, had he examined equally available statistics of salmon returns to the ‘dams’ region over the last hundred years, he might find it not only suggests no pre-Project statistical decline, and in fact productive consistency, but a significant INCREASE of returns with the addition of Iron Gate ‘artificially’ further enhanced downstream conditions.

Hopefully, Mr. Greenson, I will be another one that the readers might forgive. However, in your accusation to the prior author, whom I don’t personally know, questioning his ‘possible motive’, I find it interesting throughout this debacle, I have yet to hear of ANYONE from the most knowledgeable and affected majority speaking in opposition to the environmentally and regionally destructive removals who is paid or reimbursed for their moral obligation to do so. On the other hand, in their attempt to divide and conquer a previously trusting regional community, I have also yet to hear a SINGLE locally knowledgeable PROPONENT for removals who ISN’T personally profiting from their position, and absolutely NONE who are willing to be held liable for the damages caused. Are you the exception, Mr. Greenson? I thought not.

Rex Cozzalio

http://www.northcoastjournal.com/NewsBlog/archives/2017/02/25/that-dam-breitbart-story

 

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

New date for Klamath dams EIR clean water — public comment meeting

Klamath River & Dams

This is a message from the State Water Resources Control Board

To:  Interested Parties

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) has rescheduled the January 10, 2017 public scoping meeting in Yreka, California to January 26, 2017. The State Water Board rescheduled the scoping meeting due to inclement weather and a strong advisory against travel from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Weather Service.  Details regarding the rescheduled Yreka public scoping meeting are provided below:

Yreka Public Scoping Meeting

Best Western Miner’s Inn –

Convention Center, Auditorium

122 E. Miner Street

Yreka, CA  96097

Thursday, January 26, 2017

(5:00 pm – 7:00 pm)

For those unable to attend a scoping meeting in person, the Sacramento scoping meeting will be webcast at:  https://video.calepa.ca.gov/.  The Sacramento scoping meeting is scheduled from 10:00 am to 12:00 pm (noon) on January 20, 2017.

Written comments are due by 5:00 pm on February 1, 2017.  Details regarding the scoping meetings and Lower Klamath Project are available in the Notice of Preparation.  The Notice of Preparation has been updated with the Yreka scoping meeting details and is available under the “Related Documents” section of the Lower Klamath Project’s webpage at:  http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/water_quality_cert/lower_klamath_ferc14803.shtml

If you are receiving this notice in a forwarded message and would like to receive future emails regarding the Lower Klamath Project, please subscribe to the “Lower Klamath Project License Surrender” email subscription list, under “Water Rights” at:

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/resources/email_subscriptions/swrcb_subscribe.shtml

If you have questions regarding this email, please email Mr. Parker Thaler at:  parker.thaler@waterboards.ca.gov.

No Comments

Liz Writes Life 1-3-17

Klamath Project - BOR, Klamath River & Dams, Liz Writes Life

Jan. 3, 2017

Liz Writes Life

Published in Siskiyou Daily News, Yreka, CA

It has taken 15 years, but a U.S. Court of Federal Claims judge got it right. Judge Marilyn Blank Horn concluded the federal government did indeed take Klamath farmers legal property right – water – in 2001.

Early in 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rendered a Biological Opinion that the sucker fish in the Upper Klamath Lake would suffer harm, if the Bureau of Reclamation supplied the legal water to the federal Klamath Project farmers. The local sucker fish were and are listed with the Endangered Species Act. (Counter to modern myth — the 1996 federal ESA listing of coho salmon was not part of this Biological Opinion. It was all about sucker fish.)

So, the BOR stopped all irrigation water to Klamath Project farmers in April 2001, which is over 200,000 acres of farm land. The dry A Canal also did not deliver water to many off-project or other property owners. As a result of the Klamath Project farmers losing their water, the lower refuges also went dry affecting and killing 1,000s of birds and wildlife. It was tremendous devastation.

Locals said that suckers thrive better in lower levels of lake water. The feds ignored their voices. We could see that the science of the government bureaucrats was fraudulent.

Guess what, within a few years scientists had to admit sucker fish populations were decreasing and it was because there was too much water in their lakes. Ugh!

It is so frustrating to watch government agencies with their bureaucrat leadership get it wrong and destroy communities of humans and wildlife in their arrogance. But, I have digressed.

So the 1,400 Klamath Project farmers went the entire spring, summer and fall with no irrigation water. There were several suicides by farmers. About 200 farms were lost or sold. Other businesses floundered and 1,000s of employees had to migrate elsewhere.

I asked Ray Haupt, our Dist. 5 Siskiyou Co. Supervisor, about this decision and he was thrilled. “It is the first time I have seen a judge rule in favor of property rights over the ESA regulations,” he said. “The feds tried to argue it was a ‘regulatory takings,’ but this decision shows it is a ‘property takings’ under the 4th Amendment.”

So, this is a win of immense proportion and there will be a trial to decide how much money the farmers will be compensated. Yay!

Ray said the decision is extremely significant, because this decision will set a precedent at the federal appellant court level. Yep, the water to the Klamath Project farmers is a property right and even the ESA cannot take property rights away from citizens.

I consider the takings of the Klamath Project water as a threat from the federal agencies and that they were testing to see how far they could go to put fear into the hearts of the farmers, other property owners and businesses. It is all about control of the people. We must be vigilant to make sure our government agencies serve the people and do not become the tyrant over the people.

On May 7, 2001, more than 18,000 people showed up in Klamath Falls forming a mile-long Bucket Brigade protest through town. I believe California Congressman Wally Herger was the first to fill a bucket from the waters of Lake Elwha. The buckets were then handed from one-individual-to-another up the streets to the bridge over the wide A Canal, where the water buckets were dumped into the empty A Canal. It was illegal for that canal to carry any water. I was there. Many from Siskiyou County went to support the Bucket Brigade. I have photos. No, Federal marshals did not arrest us, but it was a meaningful act of defiance and civil disobedience, which is legal under the U.S. Constitution.

Hooray for the Klamath Bucket Brigade. All who participated were right!

New laws

Believe it or not, 900 new laws have gone into effect Jan. 1, 2017. Last year, the CA. State Legislature sent Gov. Jerry Brown 1,059 pieces of legislation. He signed 898 of those bills, vetoed 159 and two became law without his signature. I have a sneaking hunch that many of us are outlaws and don’t even know it! No, it’s not funny!

A few weeks ago, I discussed the new assault gun and ammunition laws. I will mention a few more new laws that might affect us.

Bathrooms

North Carolina waged a war over restrooms and gender identity, but California did not have that fight as the legislature approved AB 1732. It requires all single-toilet bathrooms in businesses and public agencies to be gender neutral. So you can be whatever!

Cell phones

This is a big one and pretty darned specific. While driving a vehicle you are no longer permitted to hold a wireless telephone or electronic wireless communication device. It must be mounted in the 7-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the driver (so no fair grabbing it and cheating) or in a 5-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest to the driver. Sorry, I don’t get either one of these. Another option is to affix the device to the dashboard in a place that does not obstruct the driver’s clear view and does not interfere with the deployment of an airbag. Guess we better get those Bluetooth devices!

Oh, the law does allow a driver to operate one of these devices with the motion of a single swipe or tap of the finger, but you can’t hold it.

Booze

I have just learned there is such a thing as powdered alcohol and it can be reconstituted using water. Wonder what would happen if it was reconstituted with alcohol? It has already been banned in 31 states and it is now illegal to possess, sell or make in California.

Liz Bowen is a native of Siskiyou County and lives near Callahan. Call her at 530-467-3515.

# # #

No Comments

Canceled — Jan. 10, 2017 Public Comment meeting in Yreka

Klamath River & Dams

This meeting has been canceled due to weather concerns — New date has not been set !!!

The State Water Board is now holding meetings for PUBLIC  COMMENT

On

The Environmental Impact Report for the CLEAN WATER certification of Klamath dams removal.

FERC has received an application for a license transfer to the 2016 newly-formed non-profit Klamath River Removal Corporation that essentially replaces the KBRA Agreement that was dissolved the last day of 2015.

FERC has not made a decision on the license transfer and, according to Siskiyou Counties investigations, will not formally address the license transfer until mid-March or the application has been correctly completed. KRRC submitted an incomplete application,

If you are able to attend, please do so and comment on the Clean Water aspect of the EIR at the Yreka meeting:

Jan. 10, 2017

Miner’s Inn Convention Center

5 to 7 p.m.

Michael Kobseff, the newly-elected chairman of the Siskiyou Co. Board of Supervisors, will attend the meeting and voice the county’s comments and concerns as its official comment.

No Comments

Public Comment for Clean Water Certification of EIR for Klamath dam removal is Jan. 10, 2017

Klamath River & Dams

In a nutshell:

The State Water Board is now holding meetings for PUBLIC  COMMENT

On

The Environmental Impact Report for the CLEAN WATER certification of Klamath dams removal.

FERC has received an application for a license transfer to the 2016 newly-formed non-profit Klamath River Removal Corporation that essentially replaces the KBRA Agreement that was dissolved the last day of 2015.

FERC has not made a decision on the license transfer and, according to Siskiyou Counties investigations, will not formally address the license transfer until mid-March or the application has been correctly completed. KRRC submitted an incomplete application,

If you are able to attend, please do so and comment on the Clean Water aspect of the EIR at the Yreka meeting:

Jan. 10, 2017

Miner’s Inn Convention Center

5 to 7 p.m.

Michael Kobseff, the newly-elected chairman of the Siskiyou Co. Board of Supervisors, will attend the meeting and voice the county’s comments and concerns as its official comment.

  • —  Liz Bowen

The following is an email sent from:

Siskiyou Co. Board of Supervisors’ Chairman Michael Kobseff and Siskiyou Co. Natural Resources Policy Specialist have sent out the following announcement regarding a State Water Board meeting taking place in Yreka next Tuesday, January 10, 2017. We were just made aware of this meeting, although it looks like an original announcement was send out on December 22nd, that we did not receive. Let me know if you have any questions.Elizabeth Nielsen

Natural Resources Policy Specialist

County of Siskiyou

1312 Fairlane

Yreka, CA 96097

o: (530) 842-8012

c: (530) 598-2776

No Comments

Klamath dams removal: Public Comment meeting in Yreka 1-10-17 from 5 to 7 p.m.

KBRA or KHSA, Klamath River & Dams

In a nutshell:

The State Water Board is now holding meetings for PUBLIC  COMMENT

On

The Environmental Impact Report for the CLEAN WATER certification of Klamath dams removal.

FERC has received an application for a license transfer to the 2016 newly-formed non-profit Klamath River Removal Corporation that essentially replaces the KBRA Agreement that was dissolved the last day of 2015.

FERC has not made a decision on the license transfer and, according to Siskiyou Counties investigations, will not formally address the license transfer until mid-March or the application has been correctly completed. KRRC submitted an incomplete application,

If you are able to attend, please do so and comment on the Clean Water aspect of the EIR at the Yreka meeting:

Jan. 10, 2017

Miner’s Inn Convention Center

5 to 7 p.m.

Michael Kobseff, the newly-elected chairman of the Siskiyou Co. Board of Supervisors, will attend the meeting and voice the county’s comments and concerns as its official comment.

  • —  Liz Bowen

The following is an email sent from:

Siskiyou Co. Board of Supervisors’ Chairman Michael Kobseff and Siskiyou Co. Natural Resources Policy Specialist have sent out the following announcement regarding a State Water Board meeting taking place in Yreka next Tuesday, January 10, 2017. We were just made aware of this meeting, although it looks like an original announcement was send out on December 22nd, that we did not receive. Let me know if you have any questions.Elizabeth Nielsen

Natural Resources Policy Specialist

County of Siskiyou

1312 Fairlane

Yreka, CA 96097

o: (530) 842-8012

c: (530) 598-2776

From: Michael N. Kobseff [mailto:michael@kobseff.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 11:34 AM
To: Elizabeth Nielsen

Subject: FW: Announcement of Lower Klamath Project Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meetings

From: Thaler, Parker@Waterboards [mailto:parker.thaler@waterboards.ca.gov] On Behalf Of Wr401program
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 12:49 PM
To: Undisclosed recipients:

Subject: Announcement of Lower Klamath Project Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meetings

To: Klamath Hydroelectric Project Interested Parties

This email is being sent to the Klamath Hydroelectric Project (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Project No. 2082) Interested Parties Email List.  Action is needed if you would like to receive future emails regarding the Lower Klamath Project’s (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Project No. 14803) water quality certification process.

Please refer to the email below for information regarding the Lower Klamath Project, including a link to the State Water Resources Control Board’s Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meetings for an Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Klamath Project’s License Surrender (NOP).

To receive future emails related to the Lower Klamath Project, please follow the instructions outlined below.

  1. Visit: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/resources/email_subscriptions/swrcb_subscribe.shtml#rights

  2. Provide your name and email in the required fields

  3. In the categories below the email and name fields, select “Water Rights,” then “Lower Klamath Project License Surrender”

  4. Click on the “Subscribe” button

  5. An email will be sent to you. You must respond to the email message(s) to confirm your membership on the selected list(s).

 

Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 1:13 PM
To: Lower Klamath Project License Surrender
Subject: Lower Klamath Project Notice of Preparation and Application for Water Quality Certification

  This is a message from the State Water Resources Control Board

To:  Interested Parties

On September 26, 2016, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) received a water quality certification application for the Lower Klamath Project (Project) from the Klamath River Renewal Corporation.  Today, December 22, 2016, the State Water Board released a Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meetings for an Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Klamath Project’s License Surrender (NOP).  State Water Board staff will hold scoping meetings to solicit comments from trustee agencies, responsible agencies, and other interested persons in January 2017.  The meetings dates and locations can be found in the NOP.  Comments in response to the NOP are due by 5:00 pm on February 1, 2017. 

The NOP is available online at:

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/water_quality_cert/docs/lower_klamath_ferc14803/klamathnop20161222.pdf

Additional information related to the Lower Klamath Project water quality certification and California Environmental Quality Act process can be found on the State Water Board’s Lower Klamath Project webpage at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/water_quality_cert/lower_klamath_ferc14803.shtml

The public notice for the Lower Klamath Project is available online at:

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/water_quality_cert/wqcertnotices.shtml

If you are receiving this notice in a forwarded message and would like to receive future emails regarding the Lower Klamath Project, please subscribe to the “Lower Klamath Project License Surrender” email subscription list, under “Water Rights” at:

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/resources/email_subscriptions/swrcb_subscribe.shtml

If you have questions regarding this email, please email Mr. Parker Thaler at:  parker.thaler@waterboards.ca.gov.

No Comments

More Klamath Basin Crisis.org news 1-5-17

Klamath River & Dams

KBC News

*** Jan. 10, 5-7pm Yreka, Ca. Water Board scoping meeting for Klamath River Dam destruction. NO meetings are planned in Klamath Falls area. “The KRRC is proposing to remove sufficient portions of the LKP to create a free flowing Klamath River and provide for volitional fish passage through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license surrender process. The EIR will evaluate potential impacts of the LKP to water quality and other resources within California as compared to the environmental baseline, and will also evaluate a range of alternatives….”
State Water board email received by KBC 1/3/17 with links and info: “the State Water Board released a Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meetings for an Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Klamath Project’s License Surrender (NOP).  State Water Board staff will hold scoping meetings to solicit comments from trustee agencies, responsible agencies, and other interested persons in January 2017.  The meetings dates and locations can be found in the NOP.  Comments in response to the NOP are due by 5:00 pm on February 1, 2017.” 

Letter from Klamath County Commissioner Tom Mallams to California Water Board regarding Klamath hydroelectric dam removal, posted to KBC 1/4/17.
Klamath County Commissioners’ letter to FERC regarding Klamath Dam Relicensing Project 3/23/16
FERC – Relicensing of the Klamath Hydroelectric Project FEIS 11/16/07 highlighted
CDM / Camp Dresser & McKee Report on Klamath Dam removal highlighted costs and liabilities – 2008
Utility oks Klamath dam removal, NBC News 9/30/09. “The turning point came in May 2008, when an aide to former Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorn summoned Brockbank to a meeting at a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service training center in Shepherdstown, W.Va. They were locked down for a week with representatives of the Bush administration and the governors of Oregon and California, Brockbank said.They “made it very clear from a public policy point of view that they did not want these dams relicensed,” Brockbank said. “Once that became abundantly clear, we shifted our framework from relicensing to a settlement involving a possible dam removal framework.”
Letter reaffirming Klamath County Board of Commissioners withdrawal from KBRA and KHSA 3/1/16
Joint letter from Klamath County Commissioners and Siskiyou County Supervisors opposing SB2379 – Klamath River Dam Removal and Klamath “Agreements” 11/21/14.
* Klamath  County Board of Commissioners letter of opposition to Snake, Colombia and Klamath River dam removals 11/30/16

www.klamathbasincrisis.org

No Comments

Klamath: Irrigators win water decision

Agriculture, Air, Climate & Weather, Federal gov & land grabs, Klamath Project - BOR, Klamath River & Dams

PNP comment: This is huge folks, HUGE !!! It is just terrible that it took 15 years to get to the right decision! — Editor Liz Bowen

  • MICHAEL DOYLE (Klamath Falls) Herald & News

161224-wire-ore-irrigation

AP file photo

Phil Norton, manager of the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges in Tulelake, Calif., on July 17, 2001, walks across the mud flats that were created when water from the Klamath River was cut off.

 

Northern California and Oregon irrigation districts have won a key round in a long-running legal battle as they seek compensation for their loss of water in the Klamath River Basin.

In a 53-page opinion, U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Marilyn Blank Horn concluded the federal government’s 2001 diversion of Klamath River Basin water amounted to a “physical taking” of the irrigation districts’ property. Horn’s ruling Wednesday rejected the government’s argument that the diversion instead amounted to a “regulatory taking.”

The technical-sounding difference could shape the final dollar-and-cents’ outcome. As attorney Josh Patashnik put it in a Santa Clara Law Review article, a judge’s determination of a physical rather than regulatory taking “often plays a central role in determining whether property owners are paid compensation.”

“The distinction is important because physical takings constitute per se takings and impose a ‘categorical duty’ on the government to compensate the owner, whereas regulatory takings generally require balancing and ‘complex factual assessments,’ ” Horn noted.

Horn’s decision marks the latest turn in a roller-coaster case first filed Oct. 11, 2001, by the Klamath Irrigation District, individual farmers and other water users in the region straddling Northern California and southern Oregon. The case went back and forth and was originally dismissed but then resurrected in 2011 by an appeals court.

The districts and farmers, represented by the D.C.-based Marzulla Law firm, contend the government owes compensation, under the Fifth Amendment, for the temporary cessation of water deliveries in 2001 in order to protect endangered species including the Lost River sucker. The various legal and procedural complications are enumerated in the 474 separate court filings made since the first lawsuit landed in the court located near the White House.

Drawing support from past Western water cases, Horn noted that government officials employed “physical means” to cut off the farmers’ water.

“By refusing to release water from Upper Klamath Lake and Klamath River, the government prevented water that would have, under the status quo ante, flowed into the Klamath Project canals and to the plaintiffs,” Horn wrote.

Horn added that she was in “no way making any determinations as to the nature or scope of plaintiffs’ alleged property rights,” which will be figured out in a trial.

http://www.nrtoday.com/irrigators-win-water-decision/article_278f324c-6dec-58ec-bd4b-6c0535d5d73a.html

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

 

1 Comment
« Older Posts