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 Water rights category.

Klamath Tribe wants all the water

Agriculture, Agriculture - California, Air, Climate & Weather, cattle, Klamath Tribe, Water rights, Water, Resources & Quality

Herald and News.com

Ranchers in the Upper Basin react

Tribal water call: ‘Devastating’

The call on water by the Klamath Tribes will be devastating economically for the cattlemen in the Upper Basin, affected ranchers said Tuesday.

The Tribes made the call last week. A water call puts the rest of the secondary water users on notice that the Tribes intend to use its water allocation in the Williamson, Sprague and possibly the Wood rivers for the benefit of fish habitat over irrigation for farming and cattle operations.

“This call is potentially devastating to both irrigators and the Tribes,” said Becky Hyde, a member of a long-time cattle ranching family in the Upper Basin above Upper Klamath Lake. “Our ag communities want what is best for the fish as well, but this puts a tremendous strain on our relationship with the Tribes.”

 While the call focuses on the current high water flows in the rivers — and if they fall to a certain level, irrigators can actually irrigate — there is still the concern that the irrigation window will be short-lived.

This is the first time the regulations have taken effect with spring runoff, which could run to June 1 or end sooner.

Water agreement

Hyde and several other ranchers spent years hammering out an Upper Basin agreement over water use with the Tribes. That agreement is still on the books, but has no funding behind it, hence is moot. The agreement would retire some 18,000 acres of land from use to put water back into the streams. In turn, there will be water security for ranchers.

Larry Nicholson, whose family also has historic cattle ranches on the Wood River, said the economic impact will be huge. A water call has not been made on the Wood, but Nicholson expects it.

“There are some 30,000 head of cattle that are moved into the area from ranches in California,” Nicholson said. “The grass in the Fort Klamath area is highly nutritious, but it is only good in the summer as it’s too cold to keep cattle there in the winter. Most ranches are not setup for stock water. If there is no water, the cattle will be kept in California, crowding out those ranch resources.”

After that …

“We have yearlings who need to grow all summer on grass,” Hyde said. “It’s a scramble to find alternative grazing. If you multiply that across the region, the water call a big deal,” she said. “We will be OK in the spring thanks to the early moisture and growing grasses. After that, it could be devastating.”

A couple of years back, Hyde shipped some cattle out after water supplies dwindled.

“This will be worse. There will be no water,” Hyde said.

Randall Kiser, who is a fifth-generation rancher on the Sprague and Wood, said, “When you have a snowpack at 138 of average and there is still a call for water, something is wrong.” Kiser, too, worked on the water pact with the tribes. Some 150 large and small ranches on the Sprague will be affected by the call.

“It’s a serious situation,” Kizer said.

“It would be nice if we could negotiate a settlement, finalize it and keep moving” he said. “This call affects everybody in the Upper Basin. When we last met in February, the Tribes told us they were ‘settlement-minded.’”

Fisheries status

Tribal Chairman Don Gentry said of the call Monday, “I understand the concerns for the agricultural community, but there needs to be concerns for the status of our fisheries.”

Both Hyde and Nicholson point out that the agreements work both ways. The idea was to have cattlemen build fences to keep cattle out of the rivers so fish habitat could grow.

“If you don’t have fences, it stands to reason the cattle will be drinking from the river,” Nicholson said, damaging habitat and eroding banks.

“Just having water doesn’t restore habitat,” Hyde said. “That’s where everyone loses. The Klamath Tribes have a powerful card that they are playing, but that doesn’t, mean they win in the end.”

READ it here

http://www.heraldandnews.com/news/local_news/ranchers-in-the-upper-basin-react-to-water-call/article_2e958a6e-14be-5def-bd13-7f69b6db4517.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. Fish and Wildlife (DFG) will be doing fly-overs in Siskiyou Co. today

Agriculture, California Rivers, Dept. Fish & Game, Property rights, Ranch life, Water rights, Water, Resources & Quality

I learned that CA F&G will be conducting low level flights over Scott Valley with a small plane in the coming days. The County has requested they stay above the required 500-foot level with respect to spooking cattle etc.

We also requested Elizabeth Nielsen, Siskiyou Co. Natural Resource Specialist, be able to fly with them to understand what they are looking for and with respect to the former elevation requirement. That request has been denied.

Ray A. Haupt

(530) 925-0444

PNP comment: Irrigation season began, in earnest, in Scott Valley on April 1, 2017, when most land owners were then able to open their headgates to legally obtain their water right. There are some water rights that do not begin until April 15.  Why DFG is flying this early in the season, when there is plenty of water for  irrigation, stock water and fish in the river is a BIG question mark? — Editor Liz Bowen

No Comments

Support Siskiyou Supervisors in application as groundwater agency

Ranch life, Siskiyou County, State gov, Water rights, Water, Resources & Quality

Please attend the Siskiyou Co. Board of Supervisors’ meeting

April 4, 2017

Siskiyou Co. Supervisors meeting room on 2nd story of courthouse in Yreka

Time is 1:30 p.m.

Please be willing to speak even if only to voice your support of the county’s application to the State.

 

Synopsis of this issue is below:

Elizabeth Nielsen, Siskiyou County Natural Resources Specialist, did a thorough job explaining the new state law regarding groundwater at the Scott Valley Protect Our Water meeting last week. This situation is a bit ominous.

If the county does not create its own Groundwater Sustainable Agency and submit its application for that agency by June 30, 2017, the State Water Board will intervene to manage groundwater extraction activities in Siskiyou County. The State Water Board will have the power to assess fees for its involvement and will levy fees of $100 per well and in unmanaged areas the cost will be $10 per acre foot per year if the well is metered and $25 per year if not the well is not metered. Yep, this is scary and costly. Oh, and will start on July 1, 2017!

Our county supervisors are proposing that the Siskiyou Flood Control and Conservation District serve as the agency that will oversee the Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan. The plan must be operable by 2022 using information developed by local landowner committees in the four subbasins that are affected. Those subbasins are: Scott Valley, Shasta Valley, Butte Valley and the Tulelake area.

Actually, a sub-type of agency will be developed in each of these subbasins. The important key is that the agency members will be local landowners and groundwater users, including water districts and municipalities.

Ray Haupt, Siskiyou Co. Dist. 5 Supervisor, said the county hopes the citizens will support its application to the state. He wants to “seize this process” and keep control local over groundwater instead of the state’s one-size-fits-all demands. Ray said the county supervisors voiced vigorous opposition to the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. But it passed the state legislature and Gov. Brown signed it into law.

Elizabeth is asking individuals with groundwater wells to attend and express support at the April 4th hearing. She has been tasked with completing the county’s application. The hearing will be held at 1:30 p.m. at the supervisors’ chambers at the courthouse in Yreka. This is next week folks. Please attend or write-in comments of support.

For more on the GSA law and process, go to Elizabeth’s website for a power point presentation. The easiest way to find the site is to Google “Siskiyou County Natural Resources Department” and when you reach the site, scroll down and in the middle is a list with “Natural Resources – Groundwater” in it. Or give Elizabeth a call at 530-842-8012.

 

No Comments

Congress to consider water rights settlement between Utah, Navajo Nation

Water rights

Deseret News

@dennisromboy

SALT LAKE CITY — Sen. Orrin Hatch and Rep. Jason Chaffetz have introduced legislation to create a settlement between Utah and the Navajo Nation over Colorado River water rights.

After 13 years of talks, a federal negotiations team review and the Navajo Nation Council’s approval, the state and tribe agreed to resolve the water rights claims through a negotiated settlement rather than the courts.

The bill authorizes the federal government to spend up to $198.3 million for Navajo water projects, including wells, pipelines and water treatment plants. Utah would pitch in $8 million. In exchange, the legislation would limit the legal exposure and litigation costs of the federal government and the state.

“This result took a great deal of time and commitment, and I’m grateful so many willing partners stepped up to the plate to address this complex issue,” Hatch, R-Utah, said in a statement.

Navajo Nation Speaker of the House Lorenzo Bates said the legislation is a great step forward in bringing safe, clean drinking water to Utah Navajo communities.

The settlement is a win-win for the nation and the state, said Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye.

“Consequently, we are looking forward to working with Sen. Hatch, Rep. Chaffetz and the rest of the Utah congressional delegation in moving this historic legislation through Congress,” Begaye said in a statement.

The settlement would give the tribe 81,500 acre-feet annually of Utah’s unused share of water. The Navajo Nation could draw the water from aquifers, as well as the San Juan River and its tributaries. It also could divert water from Lake Powell, though it has no plans to do so, the Associated Press reported last year.

The Navajo communities in Utah currently use only a fraction of the water allocated in the settlement. But the agreement would allow for economic development and leasing of water to entities off the reservation, and the tribe wouldn’t lose any water it did not put to use, according to the settlement.

Chaffetz, R-Utah, said the settlement will improve the quality of life for Utah Navajos.

MORE

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865676750/Congress-to-consider-water-rights-settlement-between-Utah-Navajo-Nation.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

US judge: Nevada rancher’s son must pay $587K, remove cattle

cattle, Federal gov & land grabs, Property rights, Threats to agriculture, Water rights

PNP comment: This was originally over Hage’s water right and conveyance of his water right, by ditch, over USFS property. I attended a workshop where Wayne Hage spoke in 2004 in Reno and was surprised his original lawsuit was over his water right. The USFS did also steal his cattle and sell them over the situation. — Editor Liz Bowen

Miami Herald

March 2, 2017

A lawyer for a Nevada rancher whose father fought the government for decades over grazing and property rights said Thursday he’ll appeal a federal judge’s order to pay $587,000 and remove his livestock from federal lands by the end of the month.

Mark Pollot, attorney for Wayne N. Hage, said in a brief email that they disagree with the judge’s decision and that he was working on a notice of appeal.

Hage is the son of cattleman and longtime Sagebrush Rebellion figure Wayne Hage, who died in 2006.

The father’s fight began in 1991, more than a decade after the movement to wrest control of federal land got its start in the late 1970s and was labeled the Sagebrush Rebellion. But the elder Hage became iconic among ranchers and cattlemen who chafe at grazing and use restrictions on vast expanses of land under government control in states in the West.

Federal agencies control some 85 percent of land in Nevada, 66 percent in Utah, 62 percent in both Idaho and Alaska, and 53 percent in Oregon, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The movement then has echoes today in states like in Utah, where lawmakers have for years tried to seize control of land from the federal government. One law passed by the Legislature in 2012 even set a 2015 land transfer deadline that came and went.

In Congress, a federal-to-state land transfer bill by Nevada Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Amodei got a subcommittee hearing in November, along with another measure called the Federal Land Freedom Act of 2015.

Opponents argue that states don’t have the money to manage and protect vast expanses of rangeland or fight wildfires, and that they would allow oil and gas drilling in environmentally sensitive places.

U.S. park, forest, military and other agencies also control significant amounts of land in Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, Washington state and Wyoming.

Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro in Las Vegas on Monday ruled that federal grazing permits held by Wayne Hage and his wife until the mid-1990s didn’t transfer to their estate or to their son.

The judge gave Wayne N. Hage 30 days to pay grazing fees and penalties racked up from November 2004 to June 2011, and 15 additional days to provide proof that he had complied.

The judge’s order also banned the Hage family from grazing livestock on any public land administered by the U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management.

The battle over some 11,000 square miles of property in and around Nye County, northwest of Las Vegas, preceded the fight involving federal agencies and rancher Cliven Bundy and an armed standoff in April 2014 near Bunkerville, 90 miles northeast of Las Vegas.

Five Bundy family members and 12 accused co-defendants are now facing trial before Navarro in Las Vegas on conspiracy, weapon, assault on a federal officer and other charges relating to the standoff. Two other defendants have pleaded guilty to federal charges.

Hage told the Las Vegas Review-Journal (http://bit.ly/2m04XcV ) he doesn’t have livestock on the range in question. He declined to say if he could pay the judgment.

He cast the court ruling as a “bellweather” step in government efforts to extinguish private property rights on public land.

The Hage case has a long and complicated history. Navarro’s ruling follows a 2013 decision by U.S. District Judge Robert Clive Jones in Nevada that was overturned on appeal by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Read it here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article135980203.html#storylink=cpy

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

Joint discussion to be held for county farmers and ranchers 11-18-16

Agriculture, Property rights, Ranch life, Siskiyou County, Water rights

Hello All,

After several responses, it looks like the afternoon of November 18th will work best for most folks. The meeting will be held on November 18th at 3:00 pm at the County Administrative Office located at 1312 Fairlane, Yreka, CA 96097.  An agenda will be provided at the meeting, but the following topics will be discussed:

  • The importance of getting Siskiyou water users together, what our goals should be, and who else should be included

  • Current actions/issues concerning agriculture in Siskiyou County and the Shasta, Scott and Klamath Rivers

  • Upcoming meetings, events and/or actions that Siskiyou water users should be aware of

  • Getting the message out regarding all the activities and projects performed by Siskiyou water users to improve irrigation, river and stream systems, and fisheries habitat

  • The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

  • How this group should develop and move forward (how to ensure water and agriculture security in Siskiyou County)

If you have any questions, please contact me. Also, if you think there are other people who would be interested in attending this meeting, or should be involved, please feel free let me know.

Thank you,

Elizabeth Nielsen

Natural Resources Policy Specialist

County of Siskiyou

1312 Fairlane

Yreka, CA 96097

(530) 842-8012

No Comments

Water contractors sue federal government for $350 million

Agriculture - California, Lawsuits, Liberty, Water rights, Water, Resources & Quality

By The Associated Press

FRESNO, Calif. (AP) – Seventeen California water districts have filed a lawsuit for $350 million against the federal government for not delivering water to contractors in the drought year of 2014.

The Fresno Bee reports (http://bit.ly/2dUTACL ) that the districts in the San Joaquin Valley and the city of Fresno filed the suit Wednesday in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C.

Attorney Craig Parton, who is representing the contractors, says the claim seeks to recover the fair market value of Friant Division water not delivered to the contractors even though there were sufficient supplies in Millerton Lake that year.

The lawsuit says farmers lost crops due to lack of water and had to remove orchards, deplete groundwater supplies and take emergency measures.

Attempts to reach the Bureau of Reclamation, which controls Millerton Lake and Friant Dam, were unsuccessful.

___

Information from: The Fresno Bee, http://www.fresnobee.com

http://www.redding.com/news/state/water-contractors-sue-federal-government-for-350-million-jmgurnpublicidaporgac5c4a2f8e564246a55458ff-396152561.html?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_content=&utm_campaign=TopHeadlines_Newsletter

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

Opinion: Learn from history … fight to keep your water

California water, Op-ed, Water rights, Water, Resources & Quality

PNP comment: Looks like the coho salmon is the only fraud perpetrated on farmers and ranchers and fishermen. — Editor Liz Bowen

OPINION: Learn from history … fight to keep your water

Modesto Bee

At an important meeting last week in Modesto, The Bee reported, Francisco Canela, a member of the Stanislaus County Water Advisory Committee, asked one of the state’s top water regulators a great question:

“Where’s the end game for this community? That’s our concern. We’re giving more water and more water, and we aren’t getting anything back.”

The short answer to Canela’s question is that the community will never get back any water or anything else.

No Comments

Who will go extinct first, salmon or Valley farmers?

Agriculture - California, Endangered Species Act, Hypocrisy, State gov, Water rights, Water, Resources & Quality

PNP comment: Enviros and government agencies NOT sharing the water is an issue throughout California. — Editor Liz Bowen

Who will go extinct first, salmon or Valley farmers?

Modesto Bee

Here, on the front lines of the state’s recently declared water war, we have more questions than ammunition. Is the State Water Resources Control Board serious? Is the water board even in charge? Was Gov. Jerry Brown’s call for “voluntary agreements,” instead of regulatory demands, a suggestion or an order? Who will go extinct first – salmon or farmers?

OK, that’s a rhetorical question; salmon have a huge head start. But the race isn’t over. To recap: Battle was enjoined Sept. 15 when the water board re-released its justification for taking more water from the Merced, Tuolumne and Stanislaus rivers – which combine to create the San Joaquin before it reaches the Delta.

No Comments

Water rights discussion at Yreka Patriots meeting 8-30-16

TEA Party, Water rights, Water, Resources & Quality

Yreka Tea Party Patriots

Meeting for Tuesday, Aug. 30th

6:30 PM at the Covenant Chapel Church

200 Greenhorn Rd.   Yreka 

Speakers:

Angelina Cook

Stewardship Coordinator

Mt. Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center

                 Speaking in favor of Measure H

Groundwater Management Initiative Seeking to Amend Siskiyou County Code

and

Andy Fusso

Treasurer Mt. Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center 

Speaking against “Measure G” 

            The Siskiyou County General Retail Sales Tax Measure”

                                                                                                                    Be an informed voter, plan to attend                  

                                                                                     

Free….no membership.  Doors open at 6PM, come early to socialize with likeminded people.

Questions, Contact Louise @ 530-842-5443

I highly recommend that you read the measures before you come to the meeting so that you can ask informed questions. See instructions below on where to find the ballot measures:

To read text of Measures H and G go to:

https://www.co.siskiyou.ca.us/page/clerk-registrar-of-voters

Click on Elections, Registrar of Voters  (first paragraph on the page)

Scroll down the page to find G and H

Here is a very short description of the ballot measures that will be discussed at  this meeting.

MEASURE H

Groundwater Management Initiative Seeking to Amend Siskiyou County Code.

Shall the County of Siskiyou amend Articles 1 through 3 of Chapter 13 of Title 3 of the Siskiyou County Code to extend the requirement to obtain a groundwater extraction permit to all other groundwater sources in the County not currently defined as a groundwater basin when groundwater is extracted for use outside the County, and to remove the permitting exemption for commercial water bottling enterprises?

Measure G

.25% general sales tax for the County which can be used to pay on a loan for a new jail.  The tas  will end when the loan is paid off.

 

No Comments
« Older Posts