Recently Dan Fritz, a
representative of the Bureau of Reclamation (BoR,) presented the Board of Supervisors with
an update on their development of a Conservation Implementation Program (CIP) for the entire Klamath system. Development of
the CIP is a requirement placed on the Klamath Project by NOAA Fisheries through a
Biological Opinion under the federal Endangered Species for sucker fish and coho.
Although a NOAA requirement, Mr. Fritz admitted that the scope of the
CIP expands beyond the BoR Klamath Project’s regulatory and jurisdictional authority.
We are seeing many BoR directives to work in the Scott and Shasta Valleys. Mr. Fritz
stated that it was decided that, “all problems could not be resolved on the back of
the Klamath Project.”
As envisioned, the foundation of the CIP “cooperative
partnership” would be “voluntary relationships” between counties, states,
tribes and “stakeholders.” The partners would agree in writing to assist with
development, funding, implementation and administration of the program. The CIP would be
“governed and implemented by the participants.”
The CIP organization would be headed by a “policy administration
group” to which the program director reported. Beneath that would be the “coordination
council.” Under the council would be a variety of committees for public involvement;
science; water quality; and tribal trust.
Shortly, a round of public meetings will begin to “describe
desired future condition for Klamath Basin natural resources.” Although initial focus
will be delisting and recovery of species
listed under the Endangered Species Act, focus would eventually expand to the “entire
biotic community throughout the basin” (basin=Klamath system.) The “end goal”
will be “sustainable ecosystem management.” Long range CIP activities will be based on US Fish and
Wildlife, NOAA fisheries and other recovery plans.
I am very concerned about what amounts to the creation of a
federally-driven quasi government for the Klamath
Basin outside of our constitutional plan. Policymakers, law makers, purse string holders,
Chief prosecutorial and Chief law enforcement officers are elected under County
government. In such manner, they are accountable for their actions directly to their
constituents – the people they govern.
Under our system of government, the general public or “stakeholders”
provide input on policy matters through dialogue with their representatives. They do not
sit down at the table to make public policy with an equal voice with their
representatives. County Supervisors do not abdicate their elected responsibility by
pledging to enact local law or use law enforcement powers to implement decisions made by a
group such as the CIP. County Department Heads
do not administratively implement local policy made by groups such as the CIP. They take
policy direction from the Board of Supervisors. In my opinion, the CIP as presented would
subvert our form of government.
Our constitutional system gives jurisdiction over private land and
water use largely to County government. The Board of Supervisors has enacted various
ordinances over the years. Local regulations are found in our Codes: http://ordlink.com/codes/siskiyou/index.htm
Surface water use on the Scott and Shasta River systems is largely
governed by longstanding water use adjudications. These are under the continuing
jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Siskiyou County. The establishment of County
jurisdiction over groundwater can be found in County code.
The State also has some jurisdiction over certain individual
actions including the taking of fish and wildlife; actions that impact water quality that
effect beneficial use; uses like commercial forestry. The federal government has
jurisdiction over individual actions such as the taking of fish and wildlife. Their
authority is generally found in the Interstate Commerce clause or various treaties. They
also have statutory authority over the operation of the Klamath Project.
In my opinion, these authorities are limited and separated for a
reason. The federal government should not seek to have County government use its
enforcement powers to implement federal law or policy. Siskiyou County code Title 10,
Chapter 10 COUNTY PARTICIPATION IN STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES LAND TRANSACTIONS, sets
forth formal protocol for coordination between the federal and State government and the
County. This was enacted to secure formal constitutional divisions between governments and
to protect individual rights. Among those individual rights are the rights of private
property, including exclusive use, enjoyment, disposal and access.
Although the federal government is used to broad public processes to
invite input and create consensus recommendations in regard to use of public lands, this
process is not appropriate for private lands. As far as I am concerned, the buck stops
with the Board of Supervisors on most decisions regarding private land and water use in
Siskiyou County and we are not about to abdicate that responsibility to a
multi-stakeholder Council coordinated by the BoR.
See Local Control: County
Planning Jurisdiction for the use of privately owned land, water and other resources |
