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 Siskiyou County category.

Action Alert: Agenda items on Siskiyou Co. Supervisors’ meeting on 5-16-17

Siskiyou County

Notice regarding this Tuesdays Board of Supervisor’s meeting from Kathy Tyler, President of the Siskiyou County Republican Women.

It is extremely important that you attend this particular meeting (May 16th) as I expect that out side interest (Marijuana) will be there in great numbers.  Our Supervisors need our support. Plan to arrive early so you can secure a seat.

Louise

842-5443

See agenda below and attached flier.  Please share this on your email list.

  1. 9:05 A.M. – DEPARTMENTAL REQUESTS

  2. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR

Discussion, direction and possible action regarding a report from the Ad Hoc Cannabis Committee, including recommendations regarding cannabis in Siskiyou County.

  1. 10:00 A.M. – PUBLIC REQUESTS

  2. CALIFORNIA RECEIVERSHIP GROUP

Discussion and possible direction re presentation regarding receivership services as a code enforcement tool from California Receivership Group, PBC (CRG).

  1. 10:30 A.M. – PUBLIC HEARINGS

  2. GENERAL SERVICES

Public hearing for the second reading of an ordinance establishing fees for County waste disposal sites and administration for FY 17/18.

  1. 10:35 A.M. – DEPARTMENTAL REQUESTS

  2. SHERIFF

Discussion, direction and possible action re cooperative law enforcement annual patrol operations and financial plan Exhibit A with the US Forest Service for law enforcement services in the Shasta-Trinity, Klamath and Modoc National lands, in the amount of $42,000 and approve Exhibit B for cooperative patrol for controlled substances operations, in the amount of $9,000, for the term October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017.

——– Original Message ——–

Subject:

Reminder about tomorrow’s BOS meeting 9am

Date:

2017-05-15 09:30

Hi All,

This is a reminder about 9am BOS meeting tomorrow morning Tuesday (May 16), I have attached the flyer with more info.  Hope to see you there to fill up the room.

Thank You

Kathy

530-905-2492

No Comments

Ray Haupt, Dist. 5 Siskiyou Co. Supervisor, explains problems with Conservation Easements

Property rights, Ranch life, Ray Haupt, Siskiyou County

Daniel Webster, with Facebook Scott Valley News, interviewed Ray Haupt on the Conservation Easements and the problems of incumberance to property into the future and loss of tax base to support the county tax base.

Great info!!!

Worth the watch!

LIVE with Siskiyou County District 5 Supervisor Ray Haupt to discuss one of the current hot local issues — conservation easements. Learn the good, the bad and the ugly aspects of conservation easements placed on local property from Haupt, who has studied conservation easements in depth. Local farmers and ranchers appear to make a lot of cash from these deals, but, at what cost.California Essential Habitat Connectivity Projecthttps://www.wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/planning/connectivity/CEHCMapshttp://bios.dfg.ca.gov/California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project Fact Sheethttps://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18485&inline

Posted by Scott Valley News on Thursday, April 13, 2017

 

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

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

Update on State of Jefferson —

JEFFERSON DECLARATION, Siskiyou County

Mark Baird, spokesman for the State of Jefferson movement, will be sharing information on the “lack of representation” lawsuit with the Siskiyou Co. Supervisors at their meeting on March 21, 2017. Time is 10 a.m.

Attend if you would like to know where the lawsuit stands and what the next step is likely to be.

No Comments

Off Road Vehicle project will be discussed at Yreka Tea Party 1-3-17

Ray Haupt, Siskiyou County, TEA Party

Yreka Tea Party Patriots

Meeting for Tuesday, Jan. 3rd 2017

6:30 PM at the Covenant Chapel Church

200 Greenhorn Rd.   Yreka 

Speakers:

Ray Haupt, County Supervisor Dist. 5

And

Voices of Concern Citizens

ORV (Off Road Vehicle) Ordinance

“Friend or Foe, Get Up to Speed”

Learn how this proposed County Ordinance could impact your property, lively hood and tranquility”

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

 

Contact Louise @ 530-842-5443

No Comments

Siskiyou Co. Dist. 1 Supervisor Brandon Criss responds to ORV concerns

Brandon Criss, Siskiyou County

Dear Constituent:

I read your email and your Facebook post.

First this isn’t about “me” this is in regards to a proposal affecting the county and it would be wrong for me to take this personal.

I appreciate you reaching out to me and asking about what was going on.  My answers to your questions are below.   It gives the background on this issue.

With that said, I’ll make a quick comment about your quote in the post, “Don’t see any of your short roads under the proposal for off road vehicle use. This is NOT okay!”

Yesterday I called a friend up to tell her about the meeting subject for next Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors’ meeting.  She told me as well that a person or people were saying that this doesn’t affect any roads on my family’s ranch so that is why I support it.

First, it would be unethical for me to just worry about what effects “me” personally and disregard the public.  It’s not been my past practice nor will I ever have that mindset.

Secondly, that statement is false, over 5 miles of the proposed roads run through my family’s ranch in 3 different locations.  One route’s location is a stone’s throw away from my home where I raise my family.

I just want to set the record straight regarding the personal charges on this issue, but as I said this isn’t about “me”, but the issue.

Now in regards to the issue, I’ll share some background information.

-On 2/4/14 the Siskiyou County Off Road Riders (SCORR) mentioned during public comment time at our meeting that they are thinking about routes for off highway vehicles and had proposed suggestions.

-On 7/1/14 SCORR came back before the Board of Supervisors with further details on their plan.  There were people that attended the meeting who supported the concept and staff relayed to the Board that some constituents contacted them with both support and concerns over the concept.  The Board discussed positive aspects to the concept and concerns that needed to be addressed.

-On 1/19/16 County Departments along with SCORR presented an update of where things stood.  To quote the minutes exactly “Discussion followed regarding the areas involved, the cost, safety, education and the staff to support the effort.”  The minutes also show, “It was the consensus of the Board to have this issue return in June 2016 for a decision.”

-June came along, but with more pressing county issues the county was dealing with, SCORR was kind enough not to pressure us and remained patient as this issue was delayed.  What would have happened is the county would come up with a proposal for which routes to use, the costs of doing this, the safety concerns, the benefits of doing this.  The State of California also has to be consulted and give their approval.  The Board will have a 1st reading for an ordinance that must be published.  The Board would then need to approve the 1st reading.  Then the next reading must be published and there the Board can approve it as county policy.

Something like this can’t be rushed.

-On November 5th at a Townhall in Copco a constituent presented me a petition opposing any Off Highway Vehicle Ordinance.  In order to share this petition with my fellow Supervisors, I needed to schedule it for discussion at a Supervisor’s meeting according to the Brown Act.  That date is Dec. 6th.  I notified SCORR and I notified the person who handed me the petition against the OHV last Monday giving both parties a 1 week plus 1 day notice that this would be on the agenda.  The intent here was to give enough time.

The December 6th meeting is not a meeting where we can adopt the OHV ordinance, in fact there is no OHV ordinance even on the agenda to be voted up or down.  As I explained above, there are other hoops that must be jumped through.  My intent for this meeting is clear in the agenda worksheet that you read along with the map you referred to regarding the roads.  My worksheet states quote:

“Discussion and possible action regarding Siskiyou County Off Highway Vehicle Ordinance.  As a follow up to the January 2016 Board discussion regarding staff, we will provide an update of progress to develop an Off-Highway Vehicle Ordinance and discuss community concerns raised in the attached citizen petition. “

My intent is to give an opportunity for proponents and opponents to discuss this before the Board.  Personally I think this will be an informative meeting for not just the Board members, but the proponents of the concept as well as the opponents of the concept.

All the best,

Brandon Criss

 

No Comments

Siskiyou County: Off road vehicle discussion at the Board of Supervisors 12-6-16

Agriculture - California, Siskiyou County

1:30 P.M. – BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ REQUESTS

A.            SUPERVISOR BRANDON CRISS

Discussion and possible direction re a progress update concerning a proposal to develop an Off-Highway Vehicle Ordinance to allow OHV travel on unauthorized public roads and various community concerns presented in a citizen petition.

PNP comment:  During the Scott Valley Protect Our Water meeting on Dec. 1, 2016, Ray Haupt, Dist. 5 Siskiyou Co. Supervisor, thanked Jerry Bacigalupi for bringing this possible county ordinance to his attention as there had been no discussions among the supervisors about it. Ray has received other concerns  from farmers and ranchers regarding the expansion of these designated routes onto their private property. He has received complaints about the proposal expanding mixed-road use becoming another uncontrollable nuisance to private property owners adjacent to these proposed designated county roads.

After investigation, Ray talked to county counsel and the county administrator about possible liabilities regarding mixed use of county and state roads for  ORV. He has asked if the studies, processes and CEQA analysis’ have been done? They have not.

As a result, Ray told us the agenda item will not be the reading of the new ordinance, as first thought, but will be a discussion item.

Donna Bacagalupi voiced her frustration over the proposed map of combined use and proposed roads and trails that would  be available to ATVs and motorcycles near and crossing their property.

It looks like this proposed ordinance by an off-road vehicle group was not well thought out and the environmental and property rights impacts have not been taken into consideration.

Private property rights supporters said they will attend the meeting and voice their concerns.

Agriculture: Farmers and ranchers that use ATVs, motorcycles and slow-moving vehicles are able to use the county and state roads, if they have the triangle slow-moving sign on the back of their vehicle, so the proposed expansion of mixed-use of roads does not affect them. They are already exempt.

— Editor Liz Bowen

 

 

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

Siskiyou Co: Emergency Services will hold practice drill on 11-17-16

Siskiyou County

 Nov. 14, 2016

Siskiyou Office of Emergency Services

Yreka, CA- On November 17, 2016 the Siskiyou County Public Health and Siskiyou County Office of Emergency Services in cooperation with local law enforcement, fire personnel, emergency medical services and medical hospitals in and outside our county, will be holding an emergency preparedness exercise in Montague off Scobie Street.  The event will take place from approximately 09:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.  Those in the area of Scobie Street should not be alarmed if you see helicopters and a large number of fire and law enforcement personnel and equipment in the area. These will all be part of the exercise.

Office of Emergency Services Deputy Director Jasen Vela stated “This exercise is designed to prepare and train our local law enforcement, EMS and hospitals in the event that a critical incident with mass causalities was to occur in our area. In recent times it has become increasingly more important that we train our first responders and hospitals to ensure they are prepared for an event such as this.”

We would like to invite members of the media to attend this exercise. Media members that are interested in attending should RSVP to Suzi Brady at (530)598-2622 or Suzanne.brady@fire.ca.gov. Media members are asked to meet at 08:45 for a safety briefing.

No Comments
« Older Posts