Subject: Agricultural Lands Discharge Program Subgroup meetings
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012

Good Afternoon:

This notice is to inform you that the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) is hosting a round of meetings on the North Coast Agricultural Lands Discharge Program (Program).  A meeting agenda is attached.  Please feel free to contact me with any questions about the meetings.

Ben Zabinsky

Water Resources Control Engineer

North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board

707-576-6750

bzabinsky@waterboads.ca.gov

Meeting times and location are as follows:

Sonoma, Mendocino, & Marin

Date:        October 15, 2012

Time:        8:30am-12:30pm

Location: Regional Water Board

5550 Skylane Blvd, Ste. A

Santa Rosa, CA 95403

Del Norte, Humboldt, & Trinity

Tulelake & Butte Valley

Scott, Shasta, & Upper Mid-Klamath

PNP comment: More fear from government agencies with over-regulations and fines to support itself. Pure corruption! Not part of the Constitution. — Editor Liz Bowen

Posted: Thursday, September 27, 2012 9:31 AM

Capital Press

SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif. (AP) — Six California central coast farms have been fined for failing to comply with new agricultural runoff rules.

The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board fined the farms nearly $36,000 for failure to submit monitoring fees or file monitoring reports.

Farmers have the choice of participating in a cooperative monitoring program for a fee or doing the monitoring themselves.

Monitoring is a key component in new rules designed to reduce polluted farm runoff.

The San Luis Obispo County Tribune (bit.ly/NThKZS) says the farms cited are Garcia Farms in Salinas, B&E Vineyard in Paso Robles, Amesti Road Ranch in Freedom, Mine Brothers in Watsonville, Vidal Medina in Watsonville and Gomes Orchards of Hollister.

An Oct. 12 hearing is scheduled.

___

Information from: The Tribune, http://www.sanluisobispo.com

Copyright 2012 The AP.

http://www.cattlenetwork.com/cattle-news/Two-more-governors-join-NCBA-in-RFS-waiver-request-166447906.html?ref=906

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association |

 Updated: August 16, 2012

WASHINGTON – Gov. Mike Beebe (D-Ark.) and Gov. Beverly Perdue (D-N.C.) have joined more than 180 members of Congress, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and other livestock groups in requesting that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson waive the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and bring much-needed relief to the thousands of farmers and ranchers across the country who are experiencing the effects of the nation’s worst drought in almost 50 years.

Under the RFS requirements, 13.2 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol must be produced in 2012 and 13.8 billion gallons in 2013, amounts that will use about 40 percent of the nation’s corn crop. Due to this year’s crippling drought, some agricultural forecasters now are estimating that just 11.8 billion bushels of corn will be harvested this year, meaning corn-ethanol production will use about four of every 10 bushels.

“Higher feed costs following the passage of the first RFS in 2005, and the second in 2007, have resulted in a long-term shortage of grain in our nation, especially corn, and are clearly taking a terrible toll on Arkansas’s poultry and animal agriculture, potentially forcing reduced production and job losses and increasing food prices for consumers worldwide,” said Gov. Beebe in a letter addressed to Jackson. “While the drought may have trigged the price spike in corn, an underlying cause is the federal policy mandating ever-increasing amounts of corn for fuel.”

Gov. Perdue also sent a letter to Jackson, stating that, “While the severe drought that our nation has experienced is an underlying factor in current economic conditions, the direct harm is caused by the RFS requirement to utilize ever-increasing amounts of corn and soybeans for transportation fuel, severely increasing the costs of producing food and further depleting already stressed grain supplies.”

“As president of the North Carolina Cattlemen’s Association, my major concern is whether or not cattle farmers in our state and across the country will have enough feed for the cattle in their care,” said Bill Cameron Jr., a cattleman from Raeford, N.C.

Marcus Creasy, cattleman from Arkansas and president of the Arkansas Cattlemen’s Association, said, “This drought has severely affected my cattle and my business operations. Cattlemen in this drought-affected state and in other states are struggling to feed their cattle, all while the price of grain continues to increase. How many more congressional members, state leaders and livestock producers have to express their support of waiving the ethanol mandate before EPA finally listens?”

Aug. 16, 2012 | Northwest Public Radio

DAYTON, Wash. – A small ranch in southeastern Washington is the site of some big disputes playing out between environmental regulators and farmers.

The question: How much control can the government have over pollution from agricultural runoff?

Joe Lemire’s ranch is a patchwork of pastures. Three-and-a-half acres here; another four nestled against U.S. Highway 12.

And winding through his property is Pataha Creek.

“That’s the creek right there, of course,” Lemire says as he peers out at the stream.

Right now, it’s barely visible through the brush. Cattle must zigzag across Pataha Creek to reach some of Lemire’s best pastures.

“The cattle do go along the edge of the creek. That’s reed canary grass down there that’s growing,” the 69-year-old rancher says.

For six years, the Washington Department of Ecology asked Lemire to build a buffer fence around Pataha Creek. That’s because inspectors photographed manure and trampled streambeds along the creek. They say that opens up waters to potential pollution. Lemire disputes that claim.

“They found us guilty of something we weren’t even doing,” Lemire says.

Lemire is challenging the Department of Ecology’s regulatory authority. The department asserts that it has the ability to monitor and prevent pollution. Chad Atkins works with the water quality program.

He says this case is a big deal.

“We think it’s absolutely critical to have this authority, if we’re going meet water quality standards to protect streams and rivers in Washington. It becomes pretty difficult to see how we get there without that authority,” Atkins says.

A judge recently found in favor of Joe Lemire. The case is now headed to the state supreme court.

Lemire says his roughly 29 head of cattle do not spend enough time crossing Pataha Creek to cause that much pollution. He says the cattle are afraid of the slippery bedrock beneath their hooves.

But the Washington Department of Ecology sees things differently. Ecology’s Chad Atkins says farmers voluntarily have fenced nearly 350 miles of Washington’s streams, in an effort to keep cattle out of water.

“When cattle are in the stream corridor, they can impact vegetation. They can destabilize banks. They can cause erosion. There’s potential for nutrient and fecal coliform waste to end up in the water and on the banks,” Atkins says.

Atkins says runoff pollution is the main threat to Washington’s waters today.

Right now, in Washington, the Department of Ecology has power to monitor and regulate runoff pollution. If Lemire wins the case it could hamstring Ecology’s efforts to control polluted rainwater runoff.

Oregon’s Department of Agriculture has the same authority as Washington. However, in Idaho, water monitoring is left mainly to the state Department of Environmental Quality, but most measures are voluntary.

Read it:

http://earthfix.opb.org/water/article/lemire-versus-ecology-water-quality-agricultural-r/

North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board staff

will hold a public workshop to disucss proposed revisions on

Waiver of Waste Discharge requirements

This agency claims our irrigation water is a waste.

What a ridiculous notion !!!

It is pure snow melt and will flow down into the valley no matter what.

This Date: Aug. 2, 2012

Time is 9:30 a.m. to noon

Place: Fort Jones Community Center, 11960 East St. Fort Jones, CA.

The state agency invited the public, private land owners, state and federal agency employees, Greenie groups and other interetested and concerned groups and individuals.

Scott Valley Protect Our Water says:

“NO WAY”

to their Permit.

Second meeting ————————————————————————–

Siskiyou Resource Conservation District

Date: Aug. 2, 2012

Place: Etna City Hall

Main Street, Etna.

Time: 7 p.m.

Bryan McFadin from the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board staff will be at the meeting offering “grant” money for the RCD to find “willing” farmers and ranchers who want to write a Ranch Plan.

Be careful !!!

This Ranch Plan is likely to turn into a demand for a

“Permit to Ranch”

 with, of course, a FEE.

Attend this meeting to find out the real scoop.

   by Ralph Metcalf

The Oregon Herald Opinion

MEDFORD, Oregon — Homeownes should beware that there are state managers who would take the very water that falls on your property, take you to court and prosecute you as a criminal.

Gary Harrington of rural Eagle Point said he will continue his long legal battle against Oregon water managers who want the water that falls on his property. He said the water containers the managers are concerned about are merely ponds holding rain and snow runoff from his own property, and that he stores the water mainly for fire protection.

Oregonians and many property owners around the United States are quite away, this summer, of how important it could be to have extra water to wet the roof and other property on your own land.

Harrington plans to appeal his recent conviction on nine misdemeanor charges for filling his own private reservoirs with rain and snow runoff the state steadfastly maintains is owned by the Medford Water Commission.

That’s right. The state swears they own the water on your own property.

Harrington disagrees with the state’s interpretation of a 1925 state law granting the commission broad water rights to the Big Butte Creek Basin. He believes he’s been singled out amid other pond owners.

“When it comes to the point where a rural landowner can’t catch rainwater that falls on his land to protect his property, it’s gone too far,” he said. “This should serve as a dire warning to all pond owners.”

Oregon officials have dragged Harrington through the state court system for a decade for using hjis own water without a permit, convicting him of “illegally taking water without a permit” in 2002.

Harrington’s case was prosecuted by the state Department of Justice at the request of the Jackson County District Attorney’s office. Prosecutor Patrick Flanagan, who handled the case with die-hard passion, declined to comment until after Harrington’s sentencing.

Harrington represented himself at his trial Tuesday. It was no surprise when a six-member jury convicted him on three counts each on charges of illegal use of water denied by a water master, unauthorized use of water and interfering with a lawfully established head gate or water box.

At issue is the interpretation of the 1925 state law that gave the water commission exclusive rights to all the water in Big Butte Creek, its tributaries and Big Butte Springs. That’s core of the city’s municipal water supply.

Harrington has argued in court documents that he’s not diverting water from the creek system, but capturing rainwater and snowmelt from his 172-acre property along Crowfoot Road. He maintained that the runoff does not fall under the state’s jurisdiction and does not violate the 1925 act.

Water managers have said the runoff is a tributary of nearby Crowfoot Creek and thus subject to the law.

 Medford’s water

The Medford Water Commission’s principal source of water is Big Butte Springs, located about thirty miles northeast of Medford, Oregon, between Mt. McLoughlin and the town of Butte Falls. The springs’ capacities vary from 25 million gallons per day (MGD) to 35 MGD and are the primary source of system water for the entire year. The maximum withdrawal from the springs, limited by the capacity of the transmission facilities and water rights, is 26.4 MGD.

Read more:

 http://www.oregonherald.com/oregon/local.cfm?id=2253&Business-News=Homeowner-Gary-Harrington-continues-to-be-persecuted-by-Oregon-State-water-officials.htm

PNP comment: Remember the whole intent of this attitude is to throw a cog or two in the wheel. The ultimate goal is to make life difficult for those who are not tribal leaders or Greenies; and to get the four hydro-electric dams destroyed from the Klamath River. — Editor Liz Bowen

Megan Hansen/The Times-Standard

Posted:   07/20/2012 09:22:43 AM PDT

Relicensing of the four Klamath River dams has been put on hold for another year, giving dam owner PacifiCorp more time to see a 2010 dam removal agreement enacted by federal legislation.

On Tuesday, the State Water Resources Control Board voted unanimously to continue staying the relicensing process through June 30, 2013, despite protests by the Hoopa and Resighini tribes. The tribes believe PacifiCorp is stalling the process of un-daming the river.

Hoopa Valley Tribal Council member Hayley Hutt said 80 to 100 people protested outside the Environmental Protection Agency headquarters in Sacramento on Tuesday. She said the tribe wants the dams to go through the Clean Water Act certification process, so the toxic algae in the river is dealt with and fish passage is improved.

”The initial dam license was issued 50 years ago, at which time they had no environmental laws,” Hutt said. “To be licensed, they’d have to meet the new water quality laws.”

Since 2010, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s relicensing process for the dams — which includes compliance with the state Clean Water Act — has been placed on hold by the water control board at PacifiCorp’s request. The company and supporters of the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement — which aims to remove the dams in 2020 — don’t want the relicensing process to move forward if the dams are coming out in eight years.

PacifiCorp spokesman Bob Gravely said it

doesn’t make sense to go through the expensive and time-consuming relicensing process if Congress chooses to adopt legislation supporting dam removal.

”We’re not going to carry out relicensing steps that would add a bunch of additional costs,” Gravely said. “We can either relicense the dams or implement the settlement agreement.”

An alliance of Native American tribes, environmentalists, farmers, fishermen and government officials are waiting for Congress to pass legislation that’s already been introduced that allows the U.S. Department of the Interior to determine whether the dams should come down.

Gravely said the company is frustrated with the federal government’s pace, but that money is already being collected from energy customers to fund dam removal activities. He said the company can’t charge its customers to both upgrade the dams and remove them.

”Just because Congress hasn’t passed legislation at this point is no reason to put the brakes in place,” Gravely said, adding that more than $36 million has been collected in dam removal surcharges.

Craig Tucker, the Klamath coordinator for the Karuk Tribe, said all the North Coast tribes seem to want the dams to come out, but that there’s a sharp contrast in how the Hoopa and Resighini tribes want to get there. If the state water board had directed PacifiCorp to undergo the relicensing process, he said a series of lawsuits would likely be triggered.

”It would’ve dashed our chances of ever removing those dams,” Tucker said, adding that the issue would likely have to go before the U.S. Supreme Court.

He said the process would be a long, drawn-out one in which PacifiCorp might have to increase energy rates just to fund its costs to litigate the issue.

While Congress isn’t moving as quickly as settlement agreement supporters would like, Tucker said progress is being made and that things haven’t stalled out on Capitol Hill.

”We’re having briefings with legislators,” Tucker said.

Read it:

http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_21118244/tribes-ask-regulation-klamath-dams-via-clean-water

• By Damon Arthur

• Posted July 17, 2012 at 7:28 p.m.

• Redding.com

A state water agency voted Tuesday to give PacifiCorp officials another year to work with Klamath River water users on an agreement to remove four dams on the river.

The decision did not please the more than 100 people who traveled from Hoopa to Sacramento to rally in favor of removing the dams now.

“The effect is, the Klamath River is not going to get any cleaner,” said Regina Chichizola, a spokeswoman for the Hoopa Valley Tribe.

The dams produce toxic algae which makes the river water unsafe for humans and toxic to salmon that are part of the tribe’s culture, Chichizola said.

More than 100 members of the tribe, as well as other supporters of removing the dams rallied in front of the California Environmental Protection Agency building before the state Water Resources Control Board Meeting on Tuesday.

PacificCorp is going through a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission relicensing of four dams along the Klamath River, which includes getting a Clean Water Act Permit from the water board, said George Kostyrko, a spokesman for the agency.

But PacifiCorp already has agreed to remove the dams in order to improve water quality in the river.

Read more:

http://www.redding.com/news/2012/jul/17/water-board-delays-klamath-dams-clean-water-permit/

From North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board

Comment points from the Scott River Watershed Council Coordinator –

Hello all,

Below  is the latest information on the Scott River TMDL waiver.

-The draft waiver retains much of the approach of the existing waiver.

-The draft waiver does not require enrollment as a term of coverage.

-Landowners who are making efforts to implement the TMDL and participate in on-going collaborative programs that further the goals of the TMDL are covered (i.e., Waste Discharge Requirements are waived).

-The draft waiver provides explicit guidance on measures that implement the TMDL.  These measures are guidance, not requirements.

-The draft waiver incorporates the language from the TMDL Action Plan regarding submittal of Grazing and Riparian Management Plans or Erosion Control Plans, upon the request of the Regional Water Board.

-The draft waiver specifies that the requirement for submittal of plans will be  on an as-needed, site-specific basis, based on risk to water quality.

-Regional Water Board staff will hold a workshop to present the draft waiver and receive comments  on August 2^nd, 9:30 am, at the Fort Jones Community Center.

-Public comments on the draft waiver will be accepted through August 13.

-The waiver is scheduled for consideration for adoption at the October 4, 2012 Regional Water Board meeting.  The location has not been finalized.

Danielle Yokel

Danielle Yokel

SRWC Coordinator

530-467-5511

530-643-2368 (cell)

coordsrwc@sisqtel.net

www.scottriver.org

To read it go to and ask for a copy:

lyris@swrcb18.waterboards.ca.gov

By DAVID PITT | Associated Press – Mon, Jul 2, 2012

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Midwest ranchers have never been enamored with environmental regulators, but they really began to complain after learning that federal inspectors were flying over their land to look for problems.

The Environmental Protection Agency flies over power plants and other facilities nationwide to identify potential air, water and land pollution. It began using aerial surveillance in the Midwest in 2010 to check farms for violations of federal clean water regulations.

Ranchers who object to the program said they’re not trying to hide anything. It’s the quiet approach the EPA took with the program designed to spot illegal disposal of animal waste that they find upsetting. Most were not even aware of the flyovers until regional EPA officials mentioned it at a meeting three months ago.

“For me, it just creeps into the ‘Big Brother is watching you’ area, to where the government just feels like it’s getting more and more intrusive,” said Buck Wehrbein, who manages a cattle feeding operation in Mead, Neb., about 30 miles west of Omaha.

EPA officials explained during a meeting with ranchers in West Point, Neb., that they lease small planes that fly EPA staffers over cattle operations. The staffers take photographs as they seek evidence of illegal animal waste running off into rivers and streams.

Ranchers complained to their members of Congress, who responded angrily and then grew even more annoyed by what they considered the EPA’s sluggish response to their inquiries for information about the flights. Nebraska Sen. Mike Johanns, a Republican, introduced an amendment to a multifaceted farm bill to stop the flights, but it fell four votes short of the 60 needed. Although most backers of the amendment were Republicans, 10 Democrats supported the proposal.

“EPA has been deliberately ambiguous when it comes to the size and scope of this program,” Johanns said in a statement. “EPA must be honest about this program or cease it entirely, and I will continue pressing for this information on behalf of all concerned farmers and ranchers.”

U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, met June 25 with top EPA administrators to find out why the agency was flying over farms when there was no indication that regulations had been violated. He also sought more information about why the EPA flew over farms that weren’t required to have discharge permits.

“The EPA has come back with some answers, and those are being reviewed now,” Grassley spokeswoman Jill Kozeny said. The senator may go back to the EPA again for more detail, she added.

EPA Regional Administrator Karl Brooks, who oversees Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska from his Kansas City office, didn’t respond to interview requests from The Associated Press.

In response to more than two dozen questions sent by Nebraska’s congressional delegation to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on May 29, Brooks released a five-page document about the flights.

It said the agency conducted three flyovers in Iowa in 2010, five in 2011, and one this year. In Nebraska, there were six flights last year and three this year.

Two more flights are planned this year in each state.

The EPA said the flights don’t target individual farms and focus on areas with many animal feeding operations or watersheds where the state has identified streams polluted by animal waste.

As a result of the flights, the EPA said, it has taken 39 enforcement actions against Iowa livestock farmers and 14 against Nebraska producers.

Brooks said the agency uses the flights to minimize costs and reduce the number of on-site inspections.

“With one combined animal feeding operation inspection costing upwards of $10,000, and Region 7 responsible for improving water quality in about 1,800 miles of impaired Nebraska waters, across 50,000 square miles, EPA uses tools, like airplane flights, to focus our resources and compliance efforts where they are needed most,” he wrote.

Brooks’ response hasn’t satisfied congressmen such as Republican Rep. Adrian Smith, whose rural district covers about three-fourths of Nebraska. He said state inspectors already have the authority to inspect ranches and he isn’t sure the EPA’s flyovers are needed. He is co-sponsoring a bill introduced by Rep. Shelly Moore Capito, a West Virginia Republican, to prohibit the EPA from using farm flyovers to enforce the Clean Water Act unless the agency has written voluntary consent, provided public notice or obtained a court order.

The EPA conducted flyovers of West Virginia farms in 2010.

http://news.yahoo.com/midwest-ranchers-lawmakers-protest-epa-flyovers-080146368.html