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.

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


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 


Angelina Cook

Stewardship Coordinator

Mt. Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center

                 Speaking in favor of Measure H

Groundwater Management Initiative Seeking to Amend Siskiyou County Code


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:


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.


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

Guest View: What you should know about the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

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

PNP comment: This is basic information regarding the state’s Ground Water Management Plan. Scott Valley began working on its ground water study 10 years ago and has an active Scott Valley Groundwater Committee that is working closely with the County of Siskiyou — all to keep the studies, plan and decisions in local hands! Our ground water is very different from many basins in the rest of the state and must be managed through real and practical knowledge that has been gathered here. Good job Scott Valley farmers and landowners! — Editor Liz Bowen


Posted: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 8:22 pm

An overview

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, known as SGMA, is comprehensive statewide groundwater legislation that went into effect Jan. 1, 2015. SGMA requires for the first time sustainable groundwater management throughout California. The legislation allows local agencies to develop Groundwater Sustainability Plans specific to local conditions, however, if local agencies cannot or will not manage groundwater sustainably, the state will step in.

SGMA mandates that all high and medium priority groundwater basins in California must be managed sustainably over a 20-year implementation period. In Colusa County we have two groundwater basins subject to SGMA: the Colusa subbasin and the West Butte subbasin. Both basins span multiple counties and SGMA implementation efforts must be coordinated basin-wide. Cooperation and coordination among agencies and landowners is crucial to successful SGMA implementation, and to maintaining local control over our groundwater resources.

What is sustainability?

Sustainable groundwater management is defined as the management and use of groundwater without causing undesirable results. The California Department of Water Resources has developed Groundwater Sustainability Plan Regulations which define six “Sustainability Indicators” for undesirable results. These conditions must be avoided for a basin to be considered sustainable:

1. Significant and Unreasonable reductions in Groundwater Levels

2. Significant and Unreasonable reductions in Groundwater Storage

3. Significant and Unreasonable Land Subsidence

4. Significant and Unreasonable reductions in Groundwater Quality

5. Significant and Unreasonable reductions in Groundwater-Surface Water Interaction

6. Significant and Unreasonable Seawater Intrusion (we do not have to address this criteria in Colusa County)

Since groundwater conditions vary greatly throughout the state, “significant and unreasonable” is defined at the basin level by local agencies.

Who will be in charge?

SGMA requires formation of Groundwater Sustainability Agencies, which will be responsible for developing and implementing Groundwater Sustainability Plans. Only local public agencies with water supply, water management or land use responsibilities are eligible to be a GSA. These agencies include counties, cities, irrigation and reclamation districts, and public utility districts, or similar. GSAs will have many authorities and responsibilities related to SGMA.

Private landowners are not eligible to be a GSA. Counties are presumed to be the GSA over the “white areas,” or “private pumper” areas, which are areas of the county that are not covered by another GSA-eligible agency (city, irrigation district, etc.). This can be seen as problematic because the legislation does not give landowners in the private pumper areas a voice, yet these landowners rely on groundwater as their sole source of irrigation, which makes them key players in successful groundwater management.

Colusa County has given our private pumpers a greater voice in SGMA planning and implementation by forming a Private Pumper Advisory Committee (PPAC). The PPAC is made up of 7 members and 3 alternates. Members of the PPAC are private pumper individuals from throughout the County, chosen by the Colusa County Groundwater Commission. The PPAC acts as advisory to the County regarding concerns and issues of the private pumpers, and they are also responsible for providing SGMA outreach to their neighbors. PPAC members have been actively involved in Colusa County’s SGMA planning efforts.

In order to determine local governance, GSA-eligible agencies in Colusa County have been meeting over the last several months to determine how/if they want to participate in governance. “Efforts are underway now in Colusa County to determine a local GSA structure, including which agencies will participate in SGMA implementation,” said Mary Fahey, Colusa County Water Resources Coordinator. Fahey went on to say, “Things are starting to move quickly and now is the time for landowners to become engaged in local SGMA planning efforts. All of our meetings are open to the public, and our website is a great resource where you can find meeting agendas, presentations and summaries, as well as general information on SGMA.”

The county would like to remind its citizens that SGMA affects every well owner in California, which is why it is so important for the general public to be informed. Colusa County Supervisor, Denise Carter said, “SGMA planning efforts have been taking place in Colusa County over the past year and a half, and important governance decisions will be made over the next few months. I highly encourage landowners to participate in this process by attending our public meetings and staying informed.”

SGMA deadlines

• June 30, 2017: GSAs must be formed in all high and medium priority groundwater basins

• Jan. 31, 2022: Groundwater Sustainability Plans must be completed for all high and medium priority basins that are not in overdraft (Jan. 31, 2020 for basins in overdraft).


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

Hage Set to Appeal Ninth Circuit Ruling in Forage Right

Agriculture, cattle, Federal gov & land grabs, Forestry & USFS, Lawsuits, Property rights, Threats to agriculture, Water rights, Water, Resources & Quality

MARCH 31, 2016

Case to U.S.  Supreme Court; Western Water Law Hangs in the Balance

             In January, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Susan P. Graber, Kim McLane Wardlaw, and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges, in an opinion by Judge Graber, handed down a decision reversing all of the findings of Nevada Federal District Court Chief Judge Robert C. Jones in his 103-page decision in U.S. v. Hage (2007).  Judge Jones had found among other things that government officials had “entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their (grazing) permits but also of their vested water rights.”  The Court added, “This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient basis for a finding of irreparable harm…”

            During the 21-day trial in 2012, the lead Justice Department attorney assured Wayne Hage and the Estate’s attorney that the Ninth Circuit would almost certainly rule in favor of the BLM and USFS.  He said the United States government was not concerned if Judge Jones ruled against them because the DOJ could get any decision they wanted out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

            Consistent with the Justice Department’s prediction, the Ninth Circuit panel issued a scathing ruling reversing all of the trial court’s decisions, excoriating Judge Jones for supposed bias against the government Defendants. Wayne N. Hage and the Estate of E. Wayne Hage are appealing the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

         The ruling from the Ninth Circuit runs contrary to 150 years of western water law and precedent as well as the laws governing the infrastructure across federally administered lands in the West.  It denies that there is right of access to vested livestock watering rights.   The Ninth Circuit decision, as handed down by the three-judge panel, is also in direct conflict with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in the related case, Hage v. U.S., (1991), (between the same parties regarding the same property).  There the Court recognized access as an essential component of a water right.  If a right to access to a vested water right can be subject to a government bureaucrats will, either in its use or its maintenance, then you have no water right.  A person’s ownership of water becomes a mirage.  State law no longer controls the time, place, or manner of use of water.  A federal agency, and more particularly a federal bureaucrat, would now control the access to that water.

         In addition to a conflict between rulings in two different federal courts, due to the appellate panel’s brazen violations of the appellate rules of procedure regarding findings of fact and other procedural errors, analysts believe there is an increased likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court will review the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling.   (Analysis of U.S. v. Hage and Court Decisions are available upon request.)

         In order for the Ninth Circuit to overturn the findings of the trial court in U.S. v. Hage, they had no option but to assert Judge Jones had bias against the government Defendants.  Under the rules of appellate procedure the Ninth Circuit was bound by Judge Jones’ findings of fact, unless the justices went to the extraordinary measure of finding the judge had bias and had abused his discretion, which they did.  Interestingly, Judge Jones was not the only trier of fact to make such findings.  Chief Judge Loren Smith, from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington D.C., after hearing similar testimony during two separate trials in the related case of Hage v. U.S. (1991), made virtually identical findings of fact.  Two well respected, experienced jurists, both Chief Judges of their respective courts, separated by the width of the country, separated by decades of hearings, having nothing in common but considering the conduct of the U.S. Forest Service and BLM employees against the Hage family, both reached virtually identical conclusions.

         Two generations of the Hage family, beginning during the presidency of Jimmy Carter, have spent nearly 40 years in courts defending their Constitutionally protected property interests in federally administered land and their right to be allowed to graze their livestock around their vested waters as Congress clearly sanctioned.   They have prevailed in three administrative appeals.  They have successfully litigated three substantial federal court cases at the trial level in two separate federal courts.  They have successfully defended their vested water rights against competing claims by the United States in a state water adjudication.  The courts in multiple published decisions have repeatedly recognized their vested water rights, easements, rights-of-ways, forage, and improvements on federally administered land.  Those rights stand on appeal in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

         It is only the Ninth Circuit three-judge panel, after a 45 minute hearing, which determined that they are better arbiters of the truth than the two judges from two separate federal courts who actually saw the evidence and heard witnesses testify over a combined period of 43 trial days.  The Ninth Circuit panel, in reaching their desired outcome in U.S. v. Hage has managed to significantly diminish western water law and the laws governing rights of ways for roads, ditches and canals across federally administered lands, leaving the Hages no choice but to seek relief at the U.S. Supreme Court. (Analysis of U.S. v. Hage and Court Decisions are available upon request.)

# # # # #

For those who support the Hages and their efforts to protect western water rights and ranching, donations to help fund the Supreme Court appeal would be greatly appreciated.  Tax-deductible donations are being accepted and earmarked for U.S. v. Hage by:

Protect the Harvest

480 Southpoint Circle

Brownsburg, IN 46112

Phone:  (844) 360-8300; Email: info@protecttheharvest.com.

(Please identify as being for “U.S. v. Hage”)

Direct contributions can also be sent directly to:

Wayne N. Hage

P.O. Box 513

Tonopah, NV 89049

Analysis of U.S. v. Hage and Court Decisions available upon request.  Also, for those interested in filing Amicus or Friend of the Court Briefs, contact:

Ramona Hage Morrison:  (775) 722-2517; rhmorrison@sbcglobal.net

Mark Pollot, Esq.:  (208) 867-8389; ConResCtr@cableone.net

For a Summary of Hage saga:

FOX NEWS SPECIAL, “Enemies of the State”


“Enemies of the State” (shorter version)


Range Magazine Article and Winner of the “Freedom of the Press Award”

Click on article in red titled, “Eye of the Storm”


Ramona Morrison



1 Comment

U.S. Water: Circuit Court rules it has jurisdiction on WOTUS

Agriculture, Clean Water ACT - EPA, Federal gov & land grabs, Water rights, Water, Resources & Quality

Western Livestock Journal

Feb 26, 2016

—Stay against implementation of the rule to remain in effect

When it comes to court cases and legal maneuvering, things move slowly and big milestones can look like pebbles on the outside. When it comes to the Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule—called the Clean Water Rule by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—every pebble along the court road has the potential to change the course of this massive case, however.

Last Monday, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it has jurisdiction to hear the massive combined case against the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) over their WOTUS rule, which was finalized in May 2015 and went into effect in late July of the same year. Following implementation, dozens of states and industry groups filed lawsuits against the EPA and the Corps. These suits were consolidated and were examined by the Sixth Circuit Court, but before the judges could examine the case on its merits, they had to first handle the question of if the circuit courts, as opposed to the district courts, were the legally appropriate venue.

“The [Clean Water Act] provides that certain specified actions of the EPA administrator are reviewable directly in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals. Because of uncertainty about whether the agencies’ adoption of the Clean Water Rule is among these specified actions, parties challenging the rule have filed petitions in both district courts and circuit courts across the country,” described the court opinion document by Judge David McKeague.

The three judges came to a 2-1 conclusion regarding the question of jurisdiction. McKeague and Judge Richard Griffin concluded that the case against WOTUS is most appropriately heard by the circuit courts rather than the district courts. Judge Damon Keith held the dissenting opinion. For more detail on the judges’ opinions, see the “Decisions” section on page 9.

What this means

This conclusion has a number of impacts, some of them convoluted and not all of them agreed upon by various sources. First and foremost, it means the Sixth Circuit Court may now proceed to hearing the consolidated WOTUS case on its merits; i.e., to determine if the EPA was out of line in creating and implementing WOTUS.

Attorney Karen Budd- Falen of Budd-Falen Law Offices told WLJ that the Sixth Circuit Court will hear the case.

“We are absolutely happy to keep this decision in the Sixth Circuit,” she added. “I don’t know if I’d use the words ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal,’ but they’re certainly going to be much more open to arguments about excess government jurisdiction than a lot of the other circuits.”

“Today’s decision by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to hear challenges to the WOTUS rule is a positive development for Alabama and the other states seeking to overturn the overly broad EPA rule,” said Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange in his office’s reaction. Alabama was one of numerous states that brought suit against the EPA over WOTUS.

Damien Schiff, a principal attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, opined following the jurisdictional ruling that “the case probably won’t advance to the merits any time soon if the petitioners seek en banc review of the today’s jurisdictional ruling.”

Exactly how far-reaching the jurisdictional decision is seems to be unsettled, however. While other sources seemed to imply the jurisdictional question was answered, Peggy Kirk Hall— Associate Professor of Agricultural and Resource Law at Ohio State University— outlined a more limited reach in her analysis of the decision.

“The court’s decision on jurisdiction applies only to the states within the Sixth Circuit—Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. Given the range of reasoning in the Sixth Circuit’s decision, other federal courts could reach differing decisions on the question of which court has jurisdiction over the cases. If so, we can expect a request for the United States Supreme Court to review the jurisdictional issue.”

A response by the office of the South Dakota Attorney General also pointed out that this jurisdictional ruling will not halt ongoing litigation in the district courts. Schiff pointed out the same.

When asked about the possibility of the case going to the Supreme Court, Budd-Falen said it is a potential reality. Specifically speaking about the case against WOTUS, she explained that—regardless of which direction the case might go—it could be appealed to the Supreme Court. The problem is that the Supreme Court only chooses to hear a small minority of the cases put before it. Should the Sixth Circuit Court rule against the EPA, however, she thought it more likely that the Supreme Court would take up such an appeal.

“Not necessarily because the court rules in favor of the government, it’s just that those cases are usually seen as higher profile or more important cases.”

She also predicted the outcome of this year’s election could have a big impact on what happens after the Sixth Circuit Court rules on the merits of the WOTUS case.



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

Siskiyou Co: Irrigation district participates in groundwater recharge program

Agriculture - California, Scott River & Valley, Water rights, Water, Resources & Quality

PNP comment: Farmers have known for 100 years that utilizing irrigation ditches in the off-season helps recharge the groundwater table. Greenies do not like this type of program, because their goal is to destroy the environment. — Editor Liz Bowen


By Damon Arthur of the Redding Record Searchlight

A Siskiyou County irrigation district is the first water agency in the state to take part in a new groundwater recharge program.

Under the program, the Scott Valley Irrigation District can divert 5,400 acre-feet of water from the Scott River during the rainy season when the river is running high. The district can divert water from the river until March 31.

The district uses the water to flood select areas in the valley, where it can then percolate into the ground and recharge the amount of water stored underground.

Some sections of the Scott River dry up during the summer and fall. State and local officials hope raising the water table in the valley will mean the river will continue to flow rather than dry up during the summer.

More water in the river should benefit chinook and coho salmon that spawn in the river, according to the California Water Board.

“We have been talking about doing this kind of thing for a long time,” said Jim Morris, a board member for the district.



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

Wolf attacks calf in Klamath – KBC News update 2-16-16

Klamath Basin Crisis.org, Klamath River & Dams, Threats to agriculture, Water rights, Water, Resources & Quality, Wolves

Find these article links on the Klamath Basin Crisis front page —


KBC News

Calf attacked by wolf in Swan Lake Valley, OR-33 the culprit, still on the move, H&N posted 2/25/16. “He is the fifth radio-collared wolf to make its way to Klamath County.”

Irrigation District Dissent, H&N posted to KBC 2/25/16. “…the board voted 3-1 to accept KID Manager Mark Stuntebeck’s resignation and to reinstate office manager Rachelle Gates immediately. Stuntebeck and Gates were both placed on administrative leave following a KID executive session Feb. 10. Nearly 100 people and two Oregon State Police officers were present at the standing-room only meeting.”

Oregon Senate Passes Minimum Wage Hike Costing Oregon Businesses $1.2 Billion, posted to KBC 2/25/16.

No Comments
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »