From Marcia Armstrong, Siskiyou County Supervisor 7/17/07
Important Water Quality Control Board Meeting in
Yreka!
AND Detrimental
Mining Bill AB 1032
Blue-green algae concerns on water board agenda, Siskiyou
Daily News, posted 7/20/07. "(Felice)
Pace is requesting the Water
Board to order the Montague Irrigation District, operator of
Dwinnell Reservoir, “to submit a report of waste discharge
and/or to issue waste discharge requirements.” |
WATER QUALITY: Heads up! The North Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board will hold their regular meeting here in on
July 25 at 8:30 a.m. at the Yreka
Community Center Main Room on north Oregon. The public
who wish to make any comment on items not on the day’s agenda may
do so at that time – (limit three minutes, fill out speaker card.)
Agenda items include waste discharges of the Montague Irrigation
District; waste discharges of the Iron Gate Hatchery; and a Scott
and Shasta TMDL implementation informational update by staff.
The agenda will also include a proposed region-wide amendment to
control excess sediment. This amendment would create sweeping new
regulatory authorities over land use for the Water Quality Control
Board. The proposal would prohibit the discharge of sediment into
waters from human-caused activities that are harmful to
“beneficial uses” of the water or cause a nuisance. The amendment
would require an $875 permit for anyone who’s activities
(including farming and grading) would threaten to discharge
sediment into the water. The permit would require the permit
applicant to: (1) Inventory sediment sources; (2) prioritize
efforts to control discharge; (3) implement practices to prevent,
minimize and control discharges; and (4) Monitor and Adapt
strategies accordingly.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/agenda/06_2007/items/02/DraftSedimentAmendment6_4_07.pdf
MINING A.B. 1032:
Recently, I had a refresher course in the “art” of creating
state legislation. As Bismark once said: ” To retain respect for
sausages and laws, one must not watch them in the making.”
(Wolk) is a bill that presumes that suction dredge mining is harmful to
fish, wildlife and amphibians in all the wild and heritage trout
streams located in most of western California. It would close all
of these rivers to suction dredge mining. (Dredging is done by a
small vacuum unit, usually with a nozzle 6 inches or less.) If a
miner wants to work his claim, he must prove to the CA Fish and
Game Commission at his own expense, that his activity will not
have a “deleterious” (harmful) effect on various species. The
Commission will decide whether a site specific permit may be
issued. The bill exempts gold panning.
There have been several unsuccessful lawsuits by the Karuk tribe
and others to halt suction dredge mining in the Klamath River and
its tributaries. In the latest of these suits, the judge ordered
the CA Department of Fish and Game to do a complete CEQA
(California Environmental Quality Act) study on the impacts of any
new regulations that would prohibit dredge mining. This is what
the miner’s have asked for. However, the state legislature has
failed to budget any funding for the study. Instead, AB 1032 was
introduced to change the law legislatively and shift the burden of
environmental impact analysis onto the backs of individual miners.
The Board of Supervisors formally authorized me to present
testimony to the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee on
the economic impact of the potential loss of suction dredge mining
to Siskiyou County and the Klamath River corridor. Official
testimony was written and submitted. I attended the hearing in
Sacramento. Two speakers were permitted from those in favor and
two speakers from those opposed. The Karuk tribe and the County
were also allowed to speak. We were limited to 2 minutes. (I was
permitted to deliver 4 paragraphs of our official County
testimony.) Attorney James Buchal and Jerry Hobbs from Public
Lands for the People were speakers against the bill. Anyone else
was only permitted to state their name, affiliation and whether
they were for or against the bill.
The Senate voted to approve the bill along strict party lines – 5
ayes and 3 noes. The bill now goes to the Senate Appropriations
Committee. Because there were amendments on panning, it will then
return to the Assembly. The process reminded me how important it
is for small rural interests to have a lobbyist or other presence
at the state capitol. It is also important for interest groups to
go down and visit with legislators and explain your position on a
bill. It was apparent that individual positions by the legislators
had pretty much been formed by the time the bill came up for a
public hearing.
|