A controversy primarily between cultures in the south and north county (and sometimes new residents and old) has congealed around a proposal to establish a Natural Resource Use Advisory Committee for the County. http://www.co.siskiyou.ca.us/ The Committee would consist of up to 15 members with representation from: mining and dredging; range management; forestry; agriculture; natural resources; fish and wildlife; recreation; tourism; or water. The purpose of the committee is to make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on proposed state and federal legislation and regulations, federal land management and proposed land exchanges. Requests for advice would be directed to the committee by the Board or by the County’s Natural Resource Policy Specialist. The proposed ordinance will be considered for a second reading on Tuesday November 13 at 2:30 p.m. in the Board Chambers at the Courthouse.
 
The need for the committee is to provide technical expertise to expand the ability of the County to participate in federal and state National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) processes, to coordinate with the various agencies and to provide more technical input into proposed regulation and legislation that impacts the County. As always, the elected Board of Supervisors retains the responsibility to make County policy.  
 
One of the provisions of the proposed ordinance is that the Committee would be guided in their recommendations by a Board of Supervisors’ Statement of Policies on Natural Resources. An initial draft of possible policy statements is located on the County’s website. Written comments, particularly with suggested changes, are invited and should be sent to the Board of Supervisors at P.O. Box 750, Yreka, CA 96097. The draft was based upon: (1) the existing 1996 Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land and Resource Management Plan prepared over a four year process http://library.ceres.ca.gov/docs/data/1600/1646/HYPEROCR/hyperocr.html   (2) position letters and resolutions approved by the Board on such issues as Barbara Boxer’s  California Wild Heritage Act;  Assemblyman Wolk’s bill - AB 1032 - prohibiting suction dredge mining in areas of the Klamath system;, and the dangerous fuel conditions on the National Forests (3) the format of a summary statement of policies prepared by a committee in Modoc County.
 
So far, comments have been received from local residents as well as from throughout the United States. Many are in opposition to public land grazing, suction dredge mining, timber harvest and agricultural diversion of water. One issue of particular concern to fly fishermen appears to be the navigable status of streams as affects their ability to wade up rivers in the county to fish.
 
There are strong opinions being voiced from various perspectives. However, this is not unlike the difficult dialogues that have been occurring on the Klamath River for more than a decade. The watershed councils, Chadwick sessions, the Fisheries Task Force and other efforts have offered various forums to begin the process of understanding these differences. Different communities rely heavily upon access to natural resources for their local economy and to sustain their cultures. The use of natural resources and the needs of communities varies within the county and along resources such as rivers. Hopefully, the controversy will be the beginning of a structured dialogue that will result in greater support for the diversity of our cultures, appreciation of their needs for access and use,  better understanding of local economic systems, and how changes in access may have unintended consequences such as land use conversions.