Water fights the topic of radio show

Scott Valley, Calif., rancher Craig Chenoweth and Mark Baird, president of Scott Valley Protect Our Water, were guests on the Sunday morning radio program "We The People" on Redding's KCNR 1460 AM.

They discussed the California Department of Fish and Game's requirement of special incidental take and streambed alteration permits for irrigators in the Scott and Shasta valleys, which the Capital Press has covered extensively.

According to the show's Web site, Chenoweth will be a guest again next Sunday, starting at 8 a.m.

The site is here, where you can listen to archives as well as a live stream when the show is on.

Vilsack pressed on GIPSA rule

From the California Cattlemen's Association:

Last week, during a House Agriculture Committee hearing about the state of the U.S. farm economy, Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA) and Rep. Larry Kissell (D-NC) questioned United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack about a timeline for completion of an economic analysis regarding the proposed Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) rule.

Vilsack responded by saying that he did not have a definite timeframe in place for completion of the economic analysis of the proposed rule, being conducted by USDA Chief Economist Joseph Glauber, Ph.D., and that the more than 60,000 public comments submitted were still being "categorized and reviewed" by the department which is "interested in getting this process completed as appropriately and quickly as possible."

Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK) also asked Vilsack if the department would go through a notice and comment period on a completed economic analysis before moving forward on a final rule. Vilsack replied that he would need to consider the request internally before responding.

CCA was among a number of industry groups and more than 100 members of Congress who asked USDA to conduct a more thorough economic analysis prior to considering advancement of the proposed rule and will continue to monitor the situation closely to support CCA’s position opposing the insertion of additional government intervention between willing buyers and willing sellers in the cattle market.

CCA: Speak out on Williamson Act

From the California Cattlemen's Association:

Last Friday, both Assembly and Senate Budget Committees voted to overturn the recommendations of their budget subcommittees and approve the Governor’s budget proposal to delete the $10 million state General Fund appropriation and repeal the local option adopted last year in Senate Bill 863 whereby counties could receive additional revenue from a 10 percent reduction in the Williamson Act landowner’s contract benefit.

CCA is requesting that legislators revisit this decision. While deletion of the funding would result in a general fund savings for the current year, rolling back SB 863 provides no general fund savings and hinders the ability of many counties to continue to provide 90 percent of current Williamson Act savings to contracting landowners. Thus far, eight counties that participate in the Williamson Act have implemented this program and it is estimated that another eight to 12 counties are considering implementation this year.

The repeal of the SB 863 program undermines the eight participating counties (Tulare, Kings, Merced, Madera, Mendocino, Stanislaus, Yolo and Shasta) and prevents others from considering its use. The ultimate result would very likely be mass county nonrenewals this fall.

If you have not already done so, please write your Williamson Act letter today and submit it to CCA to deliver to lawmakers on your behalf. You may fax letters to (916) 444-2194 or e-mail them to Dawn Clover at dawn@calcattlemen.org. A sample letter can be found on CCA’s Web site by clicking here.

What if there's a shutdown?

Been poking around at federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and others whose work is pertinent to ag to find out what would happen if the government shuts down next week because of a budget impasse.

Either the government doesn't know yet, or they're not telling.

Pete Lucero, spokesman for the Bureau of Reclamation in Sacramento, said the Interior Department is still evaluating what a shutdown might do.

"We're awaiting guidance from the department on how to conduct operations during a shutdown," Lucero said.

These discussions are ongoing, he said. But agency officials are trying to remain optimistic.

"We're actually expecting there will be some kind of agreement prior to March 4," he said, "but in the event there isn't, we're in discussions on how we might proceed through a shutdown."

Interior spokeswoman Kate Kelly had nothing to tell me about shutdown plans as of yesterday, and I have yet to hear back from the USDA, whose spokeswoman is checking with the Forest Service, the Farm Service Agency and other arms of the department on my behalf.

More on this as we get closer, I'm sure.

Rancher thanks lawmakers for eye on DFG

Etna, Calif., rancher Jeff Fowle penned an open letter of thanks to far Northern California's two state lawmakers, Assemblyman Jim Nielsen and Sen. Doug LaMalfa, for keeping some pressure on the Department of Fish and Game over its requirement of special irrigation permits in the Scott and Shasta valleys.

He observes:

For more than 30 years the farmers and ranchers of the two valleys have been voluntarily improving water efficiency, installing fish screens, replacing push up dams with permanent, fish friendly structures and incorporating bypass flows into their diversion structure designs. All of these actions were done proactively to address potential impacts to salmonids. In addition, landowners along the two rivers have installed fencing to better manage grazing in riparian areas and have voluntarily stabilized banks and planted native vegetation to improve the habitat.

In the 80’s, the Department wanted us to put in fish screens they designed and we did. Then they wanted us to replace our push up dams with permanent rock weirs and we did. They then requested a bypass flow at the point of diversion and we obliged. Then they wanted assurance we were diverting our adjudicated water right and we are water mastered. Now they want me to pay $200 a year for a 1600 permit and $10,000 to $15,000 for a 158 page permit that says I am diverting with approved mitigations and the Department can take my water when they want to? I say hell no!

The recent re-interpretation of the Fish and Game code 1600 is merely another attempt by the State to assume more control over small business, ignore private property rights and follow the beck and call of a few elitist activist groups whose desire is to see our two valleys depopulated and returned to a “natural” state. If the Department is successful in implementing the 158 page permit in combination with requiring a 1600 permit simply to exercise a water right, the repercussions throughout the state will have a devastating impact.

He writes later:

To think, this all started nearly 30 years ago with the listing of the Spotted Owl. The timber industry was shutdown, unemployment jumped, communities died, schools began to deteriorate due to the lack of a tax base, forests have become too dense, tree diseases are rampant, catastrophic wildfires have ensued, tax dollars are wasted in efforts to fight fires, forest wildlife no longer have quality habitat, evapotranspiration has climbed, surface flows have decreased due to increased evapotranspiration increased and tree density and so now, it is time to eliminate the farms and ranches, surely that will fix the problem.

It is time to stop this short-sighted nonsense and approach the management of our natural resources with common sense. Modern forestry, farming and ranching practices can and will return our county to one that is environmentally healthy and economically viable, provided the onerous regulations, misguided permits are eliminated. Further, the puppet strings that are controlling the Department, held by the elitist environmental groups, must be cut.

You can read his entire letter here.

UC reminds of oak toxicity potential

From the California Cattlemen's Association:

After a few warm weeks throughout the state this winter and the news of more winter storms on the way, CCA wants to pass on information from the University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) that is important for cattle producers to be aware of.

According to an article from John Maas, DVM, published in the January 2008 issue of the California Cattleman magazine, there are more than 50 common species of oak trees in California all containing some levels of the chemicals that can cause problems in cattle. Maas says oak buds, young leaves and fresh acorns have the highest level of toxins. Many oak trees in California have already began to bud in the warmth of early spring. As seen in past years, the threat of cold weather, especially snow in the foothills, can cause these buds to fall off trees and into the hay or forage on the ground, and subsequently may be eaten by livestock, causing a wide variety of cattle health problems.

To read the article in its entirety click here. You may also learn more about this problem and how you can best avoid it by contacting your local UCCE Livestock Farm Advisor.