Mr. McFadin,

On behalf of Scott Valley Protect Our Water, I will take this opportunity to express continued displeasure with the North Coast Water Board and its insistence to infringe upon the Constitutional Rights of the Water Right Owners and citizens of Scott Valley.

The Klamath TMDL and its off shoot, the Scott TMDL are fraught with inaccuracies, fraudulent science, poor data collection methods, in an obvious attempt to deprive the irrigators of the Scott River and the Klamath Basin the use of their water.

As you and the board are well aware, the “water right” is considered a property right under California law and as such enjoys all of the Constitutional protections of “Private Property”.

Let us begin with the facts: The premise for the Klamath Basin TMDL was based upon soils samples which were spurious at best and probably fraudulent in that any reputable scientist would have rejected the sample in question as non representative. The same applies to the so called science behind the call for the Scott TMDL.

Your reliance on the findings of a ”consultant” who, based upon a few so called random samplings or photographs to formulate the blanket guilty verdict upon the entire watershed is fraud and abuse of process.

The boards claim that the Scott River is Temperature and Sediment impaired seems to be without any foundation in science except those conditions manufactured in order to attain an agenda which the board supposes it will be able to impose upon the taxpayers of this watershed.

You personally, as well as the members of the board, and anyone else who contributes to this plan have exposed yourselves to liability in the perpetration of this conspiracy.

There are several areas in which the board may find itself vulnerable to action by the citizens of Scott Valley.

The Board has failed in its responsibilities in several areas which are of note.

1. CEQA and NEPA do not provide for projects under which state agencies engage in “bio engineering”. Since, according to David Leyland, the board has no idea what the historical conditions were in the Scott River, restoration is impossible. Mr. Leyland also admitted that the board has no knowledge of historic river temperatures in the watershed except those which your agency made up using data modeled from a baseline which the board also made up. This is fraud. Fraud is a crime. Fish and Game data clearly shows Coho Salmon have never existed in large numbers in our river, a fact which you and your board also wish to ignore. To restore a system, one must have detailed knowledge of the historical condition of that system. By the boards own admission, you do not have this knowledge. The board ignores the fact that the Army Corp of Engineers is substantially responsible for the channelizing of the Scott to begin with and therefore is responsible to fix any damage the state finds as a result. The Data Quality Act demands that agencies engaged in projects which use certain Federal monies are responsible to comply with the best science practices with respect to historic conditions and in many other ways. Your agency clearly has failed to comply.

2. The Regulatory Flexibility Act demands that agencies which receive certain federal monies are responsible to determine the impacts projects may have on small business and to mitigate those impacts. I have never seen any willingness on the part of this board to comply with this law. Remember Mr. McFadden, that anyone who acts outside of the scope or regulatory authority of his/her agency is not protected from personal liability or prosecution for violations of law.

3. Section 106 states that the highest use of water in the state is domestic and the second highest use of water in the State of California is irrigation.

4. Water Code section 13141 states that the estimated cost and the funding source shall be identified for projects prior to implementation.

5. Water Code section 13144 states that the purpose of regulation is to provide a decent home for all Californians. Since the Scott River is not considered “Nutrient” impaired, and the board has essentially manufactured data for impairment, the board is most assuredly not providing a “decent home” to the taxpayers, citizens, or water right owners of the Scott Valley.

6. Water Code 13145 demands that the board consider the impact of its plan on ANY other governmental (including local government), plan for the use or conservation. Since the Water rights in the majority of Scott Valley either predate the Constitution of California, the Department of Fish and Game or the Water Board. The courts have collected the various water rights into adjudications and as such the courts plan governs the use of the water. The board has no authority to alter the adjudication in any way.

7. The Scott River is one of the least impaired rivers in California, in spite of governmental action and certainly not because of intervention on your agencies part. We are capable of and have always been good stewards of our environment. I might suggest that the board spend its energy in more profitable enterprises.

8. Title 42, section 1983 allows civil penalties for anyone who, under color of authority or statute conspires or causes any citizen of the United States to be deprived of any of the privileges or guarantees provided for under the Constitution of the United States.

9. Title 42 section 1988 allows for recovery of Attorney fees for such abuses as I have described above.

10. Title 42 section 1986 states that any person who has knowledge of wrongs committed under Title 42 are liable to the injured party.

11. Your arrogance in the appointment of a “stakeholder” to represent the water right owners of Scott Valley typifies the agencies ignorance of conditions here. The Constitution of the United States of America gives all people the right to representative government. Mr. Fowle does not represent us in any way. We do not acknowledge his leadership and will not follow any regulation imposed upon us as a result of his involvement. To assume otherwise is a serious mistake on your part.

12. We will not submit to any regulation or regulatory practice which diminishes our Constitutional right to property or the Liberty to use that property as we see fit. Your agency is doomed to failure in any agenda which it hopes to undertake without broad citizen, water owner, or landowner support. The board does not have this support. Based upon your approach to this ”permit to farm”, your agency may NEVER enjoy our support.

Our rights to property are clearly outlined in the United States Constitution under Amendments 5 and 14. The California Constitution is also clear on property rigthts under Section 1. The people of this state do not yield their soverignty to the agencies who are supposed to serve them. We will NOT be reduced to the state where we are expected to beg the government for the use of our own property.

We will not submit, nor will we abdicate our rights to property or liberty to the North Coast Board or to anyone else.

Mark Baird

Vice President,

Scott Valley Protect Our Water

P.S.

Mr. McFadin, I neglected to mention that we expect answers to the conditions I have put to you either in writing but preferably in person. We do not take these charges against you or your agency lightly, and fully expect answers.

M. Baird