The Northern California Fly Fishing Board

The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors are working on a Draft Natural Resources Plan that absolutely pegs the meter on stupidity, but of chief concern to fly fishermen is this provision:

All rivers in Siskiyou County with the exception of the Klamath River, are recognized as non-navigable streams, with bed and banks owned as private property by adjacent landowners.

If you're not aware, designating a river as "non-navigable" means you're not allowed to wade between the high water marks, a move which effectively denies anglers the right of access to huge swaths of the McCloud, Upper Sacramento, Scott and Shasta Rivers.

I just posted a more detailed article on my blog (it includes contact information for the individual Board of Supervisors):

Stream Access Issues Looming on Upper Sac & McCloud Rivers

I won't get into my frustrations surrounding politics in Siskiyou County, but I will say this is one of the bigger bonehead moves ever pulled by a Board of Supervisors that's known for them.

I know everyone hears this a dozen times a day, but take a few minutes to contact the Board of Supervisors (politely) and tell them their Natural Resources plan is an absolute hummer in that it will destroy the tourist-based economy of the region by driving away fishermen.

Thanks,
The Trout Underground

Contact Information for Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors (the first two names are on the committee considering the draft plan -- contact them first):

Michael Kobseff
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
(530) 918-9128

Marcia Armstrong
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
(530) 468-2824

LaVada Erickson (she’s on our side, but isolated politically)
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
(530) 926-1285

Jim Cook (McCloud representative — let him know how many of your dollars the town stands to lose)
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
(530) 459-0459

Bill Overman
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
(530) 842-5389

Thanks for the heads-up on this... I've just sent my flurry of emails out... time to raise the alarm.

Who or what interests would stand to gain the most by having their adjacent properties recognized as private lands in the region?

Just wondering out loud who would be the inerests behind such a move.

large, greedy, landowners with money (to contribute to campaigns)

Jeff;

The whole document is a "Wise Use" manifesto, which focuses on protecting mining, grazing, timber and other extractive industries at the expense of any environmental concerns. This is more a power grab by extractive industries in the Northern end of Siskiyou County than it is a money grab, and it grows out of the Klamath fight and the fight over water and habitat along the Scott and Shasta rivers.

Other passages include:

...Siskiyou County opposes any additional designations of Wild and Scenic Rivers in the
County;
...Siskiyou County concurs with studies that the impact of suction dredge mining on fisheries and aquatic life is temporary, localized and di minimis;
...Current grazing allotments shall be continued and principally managed to produce forage to support maximum carrying capacity by domestic livestock;
...Traditional use of grazing allotments for livestock grazing will take precedence over other competing uses;

What's most irritating about this is the timing; significant progress is being made in partnerships between enviro groups and ranchers/ag/timber, and to throw this "wise use" idiocy into the mix is irresponsible.

TCWriter wrote:
The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors are working on a Draft Natural Resources Plan that absolutely pegs the meter on stupidity, but of chief concern to fly fishermen is this provision:

All rivers in Siskiyou County with the exception of the Klamath River, are recognized as non-navigable streams, with bed and banks owned as private property by adjacent landowners.



I'm curious. Is the Army Core of Engineers aware of this?

I emailed with Ron Stork, who is a real policy guru for the state in regards to water issues. He indicated that Siskiyou County doesn't have the authority to make those sorts of declarations, as it is a State issue, not a county issue, to determine what is and is not navigable.

Tom is up there dealing with the day-to-day and I think he's 100% on the mark with his comments. There is a real far-far-far right element up there that doesn't take kindly to anyone telling them to or not to do just about anything. The Scott and Shasta get dewatered in parts, if memory serves, due to irrigation, despite there being plenty on the books that should protect the salmon and steelhead that run up those rivers. It's tricky politics.

B-

One would hope that the communities of Dunsmuir, Mt. Shasta City, etc. would realize that privatizing these rivers would devastate the economies of their cities, which they've struggled to re-build after the Cantara spill. If they don't squawk and get this shot down they're screwed.

One would hope that the communities of Dunsmuir, Mt. Shasta City, etc. would realize that privatizing these rivers would devastate the economies of their cities, which they've struggled to re-build after the Cantara spill. If they don't squawk and get this shot down they're screwed.

You're right, Bjorn. The dewatering of the Scott and Shasta continues because the powers that be refuse to do the right thing. Or anything.

FYI, here's the e-mail I just sent to the five contacts in the original post:

I just read about Siskiyou County's plan to declare the Upper Sacramento, the McCloud and other rivers non-navigable, thereby removing anglers' access to fish these blue ribbon fisheries. Faced with the history of the economic devastation caused by the Cantara Loop spill it seems inconceivable to me that such a short-sighted decision could be made. I'm confident you will receive e-mails from people who are concerned about this, but be assured there are many more who visit Siskiyou primarily to pursue the fantastic recreational opportunities afforded by the area's fisheries, and removing access will remove all of the dollars those visitors bring to your area. Extractive industries are finite. Resources like the Upper Sac and the McCloud can and should be infinite. There may be short term benefits for property holders in the area, but if the hotels, motels, restaurants, gas stations, retail outlets and others lose the dollars that tourists bring, Dunsmuir, Mt. Shasta City, and other local towns will be decimated.

Please think carefully about the consequences of your actions.

Sincerely,

Andrew Weiner

Bjorn wrote:
I emailed with Ron Stork, who is a real policy guru for the state in regards to water issues. He indicated that Siskiyou County doesn't have the authority to make those sorts of declarations, as it is a State issue, not a county issue, to determine what is and is not navigable.

Its my understanding that the Army Corp of Engineers has the final authority not the state.

below is where you'll find the language for state's rights

http://www...a.gov/.const/.article_10

however, the commerce clause in the constitution (article 1 section 8) gives the federal government final authority. Any time you want to touch a navigable waterway or a wetland, the ACoE issues the permit not the state. Google section 10 and section 404 for more info. having worked on a few projects which required section 404 permits I can tell you with 100% certainty the state goes to the ACoE.

Andrew: Thanks for taking the time to write to the Board of Supervisors. I believe one of the two pushing this would be open to changing his mind if people make enough noise.