- a weekly column published in the Pioneer Press

Recently I attended a Scott River Watershed Council (SRWC) meeting. Under discussion were plans for groundwater studies and a “limiting factors” analysis for coho and other anadromous fish.

The proposed groundwater studies would follow the scientific method: 1. Observation of a phenomenon; 2. Possible explanations as to the cause (hypothesis); 3. Testing of those explanations through experimentation to sort out which hypothesis are true. For instance, some people believe that a change in upslope vegetation from historic times has altered instream flows. A study may test that “hypothesis.’

Other hypothesis include observations such as: An increase in irrigation efficiency has an effect on groundwater levels. There is a direct relationship between the water content of snowpack and groundwater elevations. Irrigation pumping has directly affected groundwater elevations over time. There is a direct relationship between groundwater levels and instream flows and temperatures. The studies would test these hypothesis to see if they are true.

The stated purpose of the “limiting factors analysis” is to identify which activities and conditions in the Scott River Watershed cause the greatest harm to anadromous fish. Initially, the fish committee has used “professional judgement” to identify factors suspected as limiting fish production. These include an increase in fine sediment; changes in river channels that have increased the velocity of flood flows; not enough quality fish habitat; altered instream flow causing low flows and hot water temperatures in the summer/ fall; and lack of refuge for fish from predation and high winter/spring flows.

Studies would include a complete assessment of suitable and available habitat, (or “carrying capacity,”) for all fish life stages in the Scott River system. Also planned is a study to determine utilization of that habitat by all life stages of fish. A “plan of operations” has been proposed with a timeline to conduct the studies and implement actions to address the limiting factors.

I did express some concerns at the meeting. My first concern was with the role of the SRWC as we move from the world of strictly voluntary restoration to a post coho listing, TMDL (Claean Water Act Total Maximum Daily Load) regulatory environment. Your locally elected Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors has been delegated the authority in the State constitution for land and groundwater use planning. It also has the authority to protect the general public health and safety from harm through the regulation of resource use. It is an elected board and, therefore, accountable to local people. It is also restrained by its obligation to protect individual rights when exercising its regulatory authority.

The SRWC is not connected with the County, although it is associated with the Siskiyou Resource Conservation District (RCD.) It is largely funded by federal and State regulatory agencies and has had a small group of dedicated participants with several agency representatives driving its efforts. It is about to proceed with groundwater studies and the implementation phase of a “plan of operations” that will target the use of private property.

I have requested that the SRWC come before the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors and present their proposal in an open public forum. At the very least, it is a sign of respect to recognize the jurisdiction and authority of elected County government concerning groundwater and resource use in Scott Valley. I believe they are now planning to do this in April. I would like my constituents to understand these proposals and hear their input. I am uncomfortable with the idea of federal and State agencies funding groundwater and other studies and implementing plans using the SRWC. This  effectively makes an end run around elected County government, its planning and regulatory authority and its accountability to local people.

I am also pleased to see an invitation in the latest SRWC newsletter for additional community participation. I would encourage all property owners get involved in the SRWC and ensure local input into its direction. I have expressed to the group that, although I support the function of the SRWC as a non-profit advisory group and would welcome its recommendations, it does not replace elected government and the need for official public process in matters of private resource use planning and study.

An additional concern I raised at the meeting was the manner in which the SRWC would go about implementing its plan. I suggested that studies such as habitat assessment and limiting factors should not go below the scale of the river “reach” to avoid planning on the scale of individual property ownership. It is extremely uncomfortable to me to think that some action or corrective plan could be drawn by a few volunteers and agency folk targeting my private land, particularly when we are poised in expectation of regulation for coho and TMDLs. I have suggested that assessment and planning stop at the reach level. Then, similar to the NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service) model, landowners can be invited to work with RCD field advisors to develop their own operational plans and projects that achieve their business goals, while improving conditions that are suspected as being limiting to fish.