North State water management plan unveiled

Fear, anger and frustration were on tap during a public meeting concerning on the Northern Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan.

Comments such as, "You're fired," "It's our water," "This is about freedom," and "If they want a water war, let them come," rang out from the crowd Wednesday in as members of the Management Plan's Technical Advisory Committee tried to rein things in and gain control of the meeting.

The Red Bluff meeting was just one of three held on Wednesday and Thursday. The others were in Colusa and Oroville.

The purpose of the meetings was to provide the public an opportunity to give input on water-related issues that could be used in developing the Northern Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan.

Those most vocal at the Red Bluff meeting said they didn't want a plan at all.

"We are scared that we are losing control of our water rights," said Brenda Borel, a Tehama County rancher.

Laura Kaplan, a member of the advisory committee, was in the process of making a presentation concerning the proposed plan, how its board was formed, the intent of the plan, and other elements, but was shut down by the vociferous crowd.

So the advisory committee broke the meeting up into two sections: Those who wanted to hear the presentation went into one room, while those who just wanted a question and answer session stayed put.

The majority of the crowd stayed put.

Many wanted to know who decided there was a need for a plan in the first place, where the money to form the plan was coming from and who was getting paid.

As Kaplan tried to answer the questions, she was often over-run by shouts from the public, many of whom were members of the Tea Party in Red Bluff and Corning, as well as several ranchers and other landowners from the six counties — Tehama, Butte, Glenn, Shasta, Sutter, and Colusa — involved in the water management plan.

Tempers rose to such a pitch that a verbal altercation between two men in the crowd almost turned physical, but things calmed down and the question and answer period resumed.

Between the two sections of the meeting, the advisory committee was able to explain that the management plan, which is to be developed by September 2013, is overseen by an 18-member board consisting of three appointments from each of the six counties, at least one of whom would be a supervisor from each county.

A Technical Advisory Committee was then formed to help the board work with stakeholders throughout the region as the planning process takes place.

Funding for the planning process comes from a $100,000 grant from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and $900,000 from the state Department of Water Resources under Proposition 84.

"That is all taxpayer money and we want to know exactly how it is being spent and who is drawing a paycheck from it," came a shout from the crowd.

Under pressure, Kaplan said as a consultant she was being paid, as were several other consultants working on the plan.

That is when the shout of, "Then you're fired," came from the crowd.

"It's our money and we don't want you," also resonated.

The selling point of integrated regional water management plan is to enhance coordination of the water resources in the region, resulting in the development of a plan that will "benefit" the region, according to the management plan project overview.

These benefits and plan goals are to focus on the economic health of the region, water supply reliability, flood and storm water management, water quality and ecosystem protection and enhancement.

"It is with the information gathered from the public we will be able to have a more concise picture of what the plan outcome will be," said Tehama County Public Works Director Gary Antone, who sits on the Technical Advisory Committee.

When Kaplan explained the plan would not be regulatory in nature, several in the crowd said they didn't believe her.

"Then what is the point?" one person asked. "We know how to use our water and we don't need another government plan telling us what to do."

Kaplan said developing the plan provides the six-county region with an opportunity to receive a $73 million grant for water-related issues.

Many responded they would rather see those funds used to keep state prisoners in prison instead of having them "dumped" on the counties.

"You and I are on the same page, and if we don't do something now, we could lose our water to the people in the south end of the state," said Walt Mansell, a volunteer on the advisory committee. "Our only chance is to protect North State water, and to beat the South we have to have a plan."

He said people in Southern California believe the north has an inexhaustible supply of water, and they want it.

"With this plan, we can show the state we need our water and that we can manage our water. With a plan we have a better chance of doing exactly that," Mansell said.