Liz Writes Life 1-29-19

Jan. 29, 2019

Liz Writes Life

Ok, I will get right to it. Tim Moran, the public information officer for the State Water Resources Control Board, sent a letter to Siskiyou Daily News Editor, Skye Kincade, asking for corrections regarding my “Liz Writes Life” column published in the Jan. 22, 2019 edition of the SDN. Skye sent the letter to me and I agree that I got a few things wrong.

Here are my corrections.

I did indeed claim that the recently released draft Environmental Impact Report regarding the potential removal of the four Klamath hydro-electric dams was written by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. That is wrong. It is that regional board’s umbrella agency, who wrote the draft EIR. That agency’s name is State Water Resources Control Board.

There are nine regional water quality control boards (with staff), in California, which according to the State Water Resources Control Board’s website brochure says -- are “working together to protect California’s water resources.” So, in simple terms, these are different size apples in the same bin. But, I did give credit to the wrong agency. I apologize. I usually do question the differences in the water agencies and try to get it right.

When reading the next long paragraph in Tim Moran’s letter, it seems he disagreed with several words that I used. Those are “announced” and “support.” I agree that I did not wordsmith well. The draft EIR was not announced – it was released. Also the SWRCB is supposed to show the benefits and adverse effects of a project through an EIR and should not be biased. He does not believe his agency shows “continued support” for dam removal.

Here is where I stop with my corrections. In reading much of the 68-page Executive Summary of the Lower Klamath Project – draft Environmental Impact Report, I claim most of the “Effects Found to be Beneficial” on page ES-9 to be incorrect – to the point of being biased.

These are the issues that have been argued for more than two decades. These are the issues that I feel are perpetually incorrect and create a fraudulent examination, when writing an environmental impact document.

These issues are regarding “Water Quality” and “Aquatic Resources.” I believe science shows the water temperatures will not be improved if the dams are removed; nor will the oxygen concentrations or the pH fluctuations; nor will there be a reduction of chlorophyll-a and algai toxins in the Hydroelectric Reach as stated in the Executive Summary of the draft EIR. And, the result will not be an increase in salmon populations.

This is my opinion from two decades of attending meetings, speaking and listening to experts, including Siskiyou County natural resource specialists, the grassroots group Siskiyou Co. Water Users Assoc., agricultural groups, and Dr. Paul Houser, who blew the whistle on the U.S. Dept. of Interior for using contaminated and manipulated stats regarding potential Klamath dams removal back in 2012. Dr. Houser was working for the DOI, when he noticed incorrect data was being used to make important decisions. Dr. Houser spoke in Yreka, at the fairgrounds, exposing the bias and bad science at the highest levels of government agencies. For once, those who work to save the dams and defend local water issues felt absolved from bureaucratic ridicule – if only for a little while.

I also disagree with Tim Moran on the issue of water quality certification. Yes, it is a required step in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission process, but FERC has not yet released its decision, which according to my knowledge, is when the water quality certification aspect kicks-in – not before the decision.

To me, it looks like SWRCB was helping the process along by preparing a draft environmental review document “and issue appropriate conditions to address water quality issues that may result from the proposed project.” That was Mr. Moran’s statement.

Yes, Klamath River Renewal Corp. has released its “definite” plan for Klamath dams removal. But, FERC has not made a final decision on the Lower Klamath Project and FERC is the agency with authority -- not the non-profit KRRC.

I could go on with specific reasons -- like the amount of and destruction by the huge amounts of sediment behind the dams will create – but I have written about that many times.

I will admit when I am wrong and did.

Yet, I do have the right to an opinion; and it is full of 25 years of watching Siskiyou County and its people being belittled by government agencies that have been caught not following their own regulations or using incorrect data or are not willing to accept reality. Many computerized models that have been utilized regarding a variety of water issues, here in Siskiyou County, are simply not correct. And this goes back to the meetings for the TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads of sediment the state will allow in our local water ways) in the late 1990s.  The agency that held the TMDL meetings is the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. I do remember that agency’s name correctly.

Readers: My opinion may not be your opinion. Please, I beg you to at least read the 68-page Executive Summary of the SWRCB’s draft Lower Klamath Project – Environmental Impact Report. Evaluate it yourself. Just Google “Lower Klamath Project – Environmental Impact Report” and make sure the website that comes up shows the “California Water Board” logo in the top left corner. The entire 1,800-page report will be brought up. Look on the index for Executive Summary and click on it.

This is a good time to be discussing this issue, as the SWRCB is holding a public comment meeting next Tuesday, Feb. 5, 2019 from 5 to 8 p.m. at the Miner’s Inn Convention Center in Yreka regarding its draft Environmental Impact Report. The comment period runs until Feb. 26, 2019, according to Tim Moran’s letter. Read the Executive Summary of the draft EIR first. Make your comments specific, even if you are not a scientist. Many people who are in favor of removing the dams are not scientists -- either. We have a right to our voice – to voice opinions, and to cite specific facts and tout reality.

Those that will have to deal with the loss of the reservoirs behind the three dams in Siskiyou County have a right to relate facts from other dams, where homes and property have lost value or been damaged when dams have been removed. This is not antidotal information or supposition or hypothesis. The (new) information from Oregon and Washington states’ destruction of dams is now factual and has not created the benefits that were once touted. Yes, the reality is an after-the-fact big environmental mess!

To read my Jan. 22, 2019 “Liz Writes Life”, Tim Moran’s letter and other information regarding the draft EIR, go to my blog at: LizWritesLife.blogspot.com.

Oh, I did get the steer manure on the rhubarb. Yay!

Liz Bowen began writing ranch and farm news, published in newspapers, in 1976. She is a native of Siskiyou County and lives near Callahan. Call her at 530-467-3515.

# # #

State Water Resources Control Board wants corrections from Liz Bowen

On, Friday, Jan. 25, 2019, the below letter was published by the Siskiyou Daily News. Editor Skye Kincade sent it to be in an email and is below -- with no changes.

I addressed his concerns and made corrections in my Jan. 29, 2019 Liz Writes Life.

-- Liz Bowen

Hello Skye –

We would like to request a correction to several assertions in Liz Bowen’s column posted on Jan. 22, which contained inaccuracies about the State Water Resources Control Board’s water quality certification for the Klamath Dams removal project.

Ms. Bowen’s column incorrectly states that the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board “announced continued support of removal of the four hydro-electric dams…in its draft Environmental Impact Report”. The CEQA document for the water quality certification is not from the North Coast Regional Water Board. It was prepared by staff at the State Water Resources Control Board. The State Water Board has not expressed “continued support” for the project, and is not a party to the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement, which forms the basis for the project. The role of the State Water Board is to evaluate the application for water quality certification, prepare an environmental review document (the draft EIR) and issue appropriate conditions to address water quality issues that may result from the proposed project. The draft EIR looks at potential impacts associated with the proposed project and measures that may be implemented to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for impacts. The draft EIR also looks at a range of alternatives, and identified the Proposed Project as the environmentally superior alternative. Also contrary to the column, the water quality certification is a required step in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission process, and therefore, not premature.

A public comment period on the draft EIR is open and runs until Feb. 26. Several public meetings are scheduled in February to provide information and take oral comments on the draft EIR. For more information:

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/water_quality_cert/docs/lower_klamath_ferc14803_deir/noa.pdf

We appreciate your consideration on this issue.

Tim Moran

Public Information Officer

State Water Resources Control Board

Timothy.moran@waterboards.ca.gov

(916) 327-8239

-- 

Skye Kinkade

Editor

Siskiyou Daily News

skinkade@siskiyoudaily.com

www.siskiyoudaily.com

P (530) 842-5777

F (530) 842-6787

Response from Siskiyou Co. Water Users Association

To readers:

I have posted this letter that the grass roots Siskiyou Co. Water Users Assoc. wrote in response to the DRAFT Environmental Impact Report recently released by the State Water Resources Control Board regarding its part in the process of potential removal of 4 hydro-electric Klamath dams. 

The Siskiyou Co. Wather Users Assoc. began a Save the Dams campaign back in 2010 and continues to watchdog the government agencies involved in the process.
Below is the Water Users response to the draft Lower Klamath Project DRAFT Environmental Impact Report that was released the end of December 2018 and, as of this post, updated Jan. 2, 2019.

Please educate yourself. The DRAFT Environmental Impact Report is 1,800 pages long. The Siskiyou Co. Water Users leaders have read it and this is their comment. 

At least, go to the State Water Resources Control Board website and read the SUMMARY of the draft EIR. It is 68 pages long, but well-worth at least a skimming read.

Thank you,
Liz Bowen

January 15, 2019

Skye Kinkade

Editor Siskiyou Daily News

309 South Broadway

Yreka, CA. 96097

Re:      EIR Draft Water Board Klamath River

Dear Skye,

Recently Siskiyou Daily News carried a story regarding the submittal by the State of California Water Board supporting removal of the Klamath Hydroelectric facilities. We have reviewed Vol I, approximately 1800 pages, from the Water Board EIR.  Vol II which is nearly 6,000 pages has not yet been reviewed but consists primarily of public comments.

Our review of Vol I indicates that the Water Board which is making a report essentially to approve a project for which the definite plan from KRRC is yet to be approved by FERC and for which there remain serious questions, which have yet to be answered, and thus falls far short of being a legitimate product.  How can the Water Board evaluate the situation honestly, without a final plan having been issued by the FERC?

Besides the above the Water Board has not in the document submitted, dealt with the issues we raised in the draft response by Siskiyou County Water Users submitted to the Water Board during the commentary process. These issues included among others:

·        The Historic conditions affecting the Klamath River prior to the construction of the Dams:

o   Reliable historic data indicates that the Klamath River instream flows were always marginal, in the summer months.

o   Reliable historic data indicates that the Coho were planted in the 1890’s and were never a significant species.  They had to be replanted numerous times over the years.

o   The Klamath River, again prior to the dams, had marginal water quality and had a reputation for the development of blue green algae.

·        There is no analysis of how the court mandated instream flows would be maintained, without the dams in place.

·        No analysis of from where makeup water would come.  A BOR report indicated that the cost to find replacement water, in the areas in Oregon, would require nearly $8 Billion dollars of new investment, to create reservoirs on the feeder streams north of Klamath Lake.

·        No analysis of the damage to environmentally challenged species.

·        No analysis of the recently passed legislation by the California legislature to allow the extermination of long nose and short nose sucker fish.

·        No provision to proactively protect the potential environmental damage south of Iron Gate Dam resulting from release of sediments at high water down the river.

o   All protections offered are retroactive and therefore not effective in preventing any damage to the River.

·        No analysis of the impact on the shell life in the estuary at the mouth of the River.

·        No analysis of the impact of the project regarding the Klamath Compact provisions and the corollary provisions related to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

·        No analysis of damage to the economy of Siskiyou County, Modoc County, or other adjacent and directly impacted counties.

·        No analysis of the damages caused by increase in carbon emissions as a result of the elimination of the hydroelectric generation facilities and the resultant use of carbon generating electric production facilities.

In addition to the above we would point out that the information used by the Water Board in its analysis was extremely dated going back to the 2012 EIR data used by the Department of Interior.  This data as we know from the testimony of Dr. Paul Houser, formerly the scientific quality control officer for the Department of Interior, was contaminated and manipulated to influence the decision in regards to the potential removal of the Dams, which is a politically motivated decision.

In short, we find that the report, although voluminous is disingenuous at best, as it seeks to justify a political decision to remove the dams regardless of the consequences.

Siskiyou County Water Users Association

Richard Marshall

President

Please read the State Water Resources Control Board EIR

Jan. 27, 2019

To readers:

Controversy continues to surround the removal of 

4 hydro-electric Klamath dams. 

I made several errors in my "Liz Writes Life" column 

of January 22, 2019. I am correcting them in my 

January 29, 2019 column that will be published in

the Siskiyou Daily News paper located in Yreka, CA. 

It will also be posted here on this blog site.

I am posting the following information to 

ENCOURAGE  everyone to go to the 

State Water Resources Control Board site 

and read for yourself the 

DRAFT Environmental Impact Report released the 

end of December and last updated on January 2, 2019

when I copy and pasted the front page with index

to this blog post.

Below is the front page on the

State Water Resources Control Board site

for the Lower Klamath Project --

Draft Environmental Impact Report. 

-- Editor Liz Bowen

Lower Klamath Project – 

Draft Environmental Impact Report 

(EIR)

Deadline to submit comments: 12:00 pm (noon) on February 26, 2019

Information on public meetings, how to submit comments, and where to find hardcopies 

of the Draft EIR is available in the Notice of Availability for Public Comment of a 

Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Klamath Project License Surrender. 

(Released December 27, 2018)

Volume I: Main Text of Draft EIR

Title Pages and Table of Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Executive Summary

Section 1: Introduction

Section 2: Proposed Project

Section 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures (3.1-3.24)

• 3.1 Introduction
• 3.2  Water Quality
• 3.3 Aquatic Resources
• 3.4 Phytoplankton and Periphyton
• 3.5 Terrestrial Resources
• 3.6 Flood Hydrology
• 3.7 Groundwater
• 3.8 Water Supply/Water Rights
• 3.9 Air Quality
• 3.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• 3.11  Geology, Soils, and Minerals
• 3.12 Historical Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
• 3.13 Paleontologic Resources
• 3.14 Land Use and Planning
• 3.15 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• 3.16 Population and Housing
• 3.17 Public Services
• 3.18 Utilities and Service Systems
• 3.19 Aesthetics
• 3.20 Recreation
• 3.21 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• 3.22 Transportation and Traffic
• 3.23 Noise
• 3.24 Cumulative Effects

Section 4: Alternatives (4.1-4.8)

• 4.1 Alternatives Selection/Overview
• 4.2 No Project Alternative
• 4.3 Partial Removal Alternative
• 4.4 Continued Operations with Fish Passage Alternative
• 4.5 Two Dam Removal Alternative
• 4.6 Three Dam Removal Alternative
• 4.7 No Hatchery Alternative
• 4.8 Alternatives References

Section 5: Other Required CEQA Discussion and Consideration of Social and Economic Factors

Volume II: Appendices A – W

• Appendix A - Notice of Preparation and Scoping Report for Lower Klamath Project License Surrender Environmental Impact Report
• Appendix B - Definite Plan
• Appendix C - Water Quality Supporting Technical Information
• Appendix D - Water Quality Environmental Effects Determination Methodology Supplemental Information
• Appendix E - An Analysis of Potential Suspended Sediment Effects on Anadromous Fish in the Klamath Basin
• Appendix F - An Analysis of Potential Bedload Sediment Effects on Anadromous Fish in the Klamath Basin
• Appendix G - Vegetation Communities in the Area of Analysis
• Appendix H - Rare Natural Communities in the Area of Analysis
• Appendix I - Terrestrial Scoping Quadrangles
• Appendix J - Terrestrial Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Scoping List
• Appendix K - Flood Hydrology
• Appendix L - Groundwater
• Appendix M - Water Supply/Water Rights
• Appendix N - Air Quality Impacts
• Appendix O - Greenhouse Gases
• Appendix P - CONFIDENTIAL: Shasta Nation Confidential Tribal Cultural Appendix
• Appendix Q - CONFIDENTIAL: Shasta Indian Nation Confidential Tribal Cultural Appendix
• Appendix R - Aesthetics
• Appendix S - Recreation Supporting Technical Information
• Appendix T - Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
• Appendix U - Alternatives
• Appendix V - KHSA 2012 EIS/EIR Section 3.12 Tribal Trust
• Appendix W - Additional Information Incorporated by Reference

If you prefer, you may download the entire Draft EIR as:

• Volume I (Main Text of Draft EIR)
• Volume II (Appendices A – W)

  (Page last updated 1/2/19)

To read the entire 

Lower Klamath Project Draft Environmental Impact Report

Do a simple Google search for:

Lower Klamath Project -- draft Environmental Impact Report

January 22, 2019

Liz Writes Life

Yay -- rain! It is fabulous, but would appreciate it if the temperature was just a little bit cooler so more snow could be packing into the mountains. I did read where the Sierra mountain range should get hammered with up to 10 feet of snow from this latest storm. That is truly good news for the rest of the state. Sorry, if it sounded like I was complaining!

The indoor tulip bulbs have grown – two inches this week. Seemed like they really took-off on Friday and Saturday. Guess their root systems finally started doing the job. I didn’t get the manure on the rhubarb. Darn. Maybe this coming week. Oh, procrastination!

POW

Scott Valley Protect Our Water took a few months off from holding meetings. The next meeting will be held on Thursday, Feb. 28, 2019 at the Fort Jones Community Center at 7 p.m. So, there is no POW meeting this month.

2^nd Amendment

I heard the fundraiser for the 2^nd Amendment lawsuit was a great success on Jan. 12^th, so I called Mark Baird to get the skinny on it. He said that every seat in the Miner’s Inn Convention Center was filled. Dave and Kathy Tyler’s dinner with prime rib received raves and the generosity during the auction was incredible.

The auction included a beautiful Betsy Ross-type of quilt, a “Don’t Tread on Me” flag, painting of George Washington praying, a Henry lever-action 45-70 rifle with engraved stock, along with a dozen other guns, sculptures and many other items. Bills are still coming in, so Mark doesn’t have a tally on the net proceeds yet.

But, he said there is enough to get the New York lawyer writing the complaint that he believes will restore the 2^nd Amendment to California by using the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals decision regarding Young v Hawaii. That ruling states “open carry” is the core right guaranteed the people under the Second Amendment and that right extends outside the home to public spaces.

I wondered when we lost the open carry right and Mark said it was back in 1967, when the Mulford Act repealed a law allowing public carrying of loaded firearms. It was signed by Gov. Ronald Reagan. But, it must be said that the state government was reacting to the Black Panther Party, who was conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods in opposition to police. This was later termed “copwatching” and brought unease to residents. I remember those days.

Just goes to show how a law that seems like a good idea at the time ends-up affecting everyone and isn’t so good.

Then in 2012, the California State Legislature voted to take a tougher stand against the carrying of any firearms in public, even those that are not loaded. And under California Penal Code 26350 PC, it is a now a crime. This does not affect the California Concealed Weapon Permit, which is a permit – not a right. I haven’t talked with any local farmers, ranchers or hunters, but I believe this law has made it difficult to carry a gun in your vehicle and adds to confusion.
Mark’s goal is to restore the 2^nd Amendment right to open carry and will file the complaint in the federal Eastern District California Court. To those who are skeptical, Mark cites the Chambers v U.S. decision that stated all 9^th Circuit opinions are binding on all judges in the circuit.

To learn more from Mark, attend the Yreka Tea Party Patriots meeting tonight at the Convent Chapel Church at 200 Greenhorn Rd. in Yreka at 6:30 p.m. Ray Haupt, Siskiyou Co. Dist. 5 Supervisor, will also speak on the status of growing hemp in the county. There is a short-term moratorium, while the supervisors and Siskiyou Co. Ag. Commissioner, Jim Smith, hammer-out the details.

Richard Marshall, president of the Siskiyou Water Users Assoc., will speak to the newest situation from the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, which announced continued support of removal of four hydro-electric dams from the Klamath River in its draft Environmental Impact Report on Dec. 27, 2018.

Remember that the Water Quality Control Board does not have the authority to take out the dams. Yes, it can claim it the best environmental alternative, but that doesn’t mean the dams are coming out. In my estimation, this is just more propaganda.

Last month, Supervisor Haupt reminded us that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has not yet accepted Klamath River Renewal Corp’s definite plan to obtain the Klamath dams’ hydro-electric license; and then remove the dams. So, the Water Quality Control Board’s draft Environmental Impact Report is putting the cart before the horse. I am sure the county will be responding to Water Board’s report.

Frustration

Our Dist. 1 Congressman, Doug LaMalfa, sent out a statement this weekend regarding $12.1 billion in disaster funding that was targeted to help residents devastated by wildfires and hurricanes last year. Democrats amended the bill the night before the vote to include a continuing resolution to fund the government until Feb. 8, 2019, but did not include any funds for improved border security.

LaMalfa said: “This critical disaster funding bill has been in the works for weeks, and now Democrats have pulled a bait and switch and completely derailed it at the last minute. The Senate has made it clear they won’t consider a funding bill that lacks border security and the President has said he wouldn’t sign it. This was not a good faith attempt to re-open the government, nor was it a serious attempt at providing much-needed disaster funding to those who desperately need it. The people of Northern California that were affected by the Carr Fire and Camp Fire can’t afford these political games – a standalone disaster funding bill would’ve passed both chambers easily. Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi is more concerned with obstructing the President than helping people recover from wildfires and securing our border.”

Yep, this stalemate is pretty frustrating and the lack of Democrat leaders willing to work on real-life compromises is just wrong. I know political parties do not like each other, but this is not putting our county and its people – first!

Liz Bowen began writing ranch and farm news, published in newspapers, in 1976. She is a native of Siskiyou County and lives near Callahan. Call her at 530-467-3515. Check out her blog at: LizWritesLife.blogspot.com. # # #
 

Liz Writes Life 1-15-2019

January 15, 2019

Liz Writes Life

Spring has sprung in my house. Several mornings, last week, I woke to the fragrance from hyacinths floating into my bedroom. Yep, they are in full bloom – a white one, two pink ones and a very tall lavender one that needed to be propped-up with a small dowel. And, there is one more that still should bloom. This is a bright spot on the kitchen table! And hyacinth is one of my favorite smells. My deep red rose is another favorite fragrance and I just love fresh jasmine blossoms, but the plants aren’t hardy enough to survive at my place.

Most of the tulip bulbs that I started over a week ago are showing life and growing, but the daffodils not-so-much. Only two of six are showing a tiny tip of green. Just like summer gardening, there is anxiety in waiting for seeds to sprout. The three hyacinth bulbs I started are really growing and should bloom in a week or two.

Yep, it is January and I am receiving gardening catalogs in the mail. One wants me back as a customer. It has been quite a few years since I purchased bulbs or perennials from it. Photos of bright-colored flowers sure are enticing, but I don’t think I will be ordering. Not because I wouldn’t like to have more flowers, but I struggle to keep the garden watered in the summer and do not want to bite off more than I can chew.

I do hope to find more soaker hoses that seep well through-out the entire 50-feet and re-do my irrigation system this spring. I will likely need to get several more battery-operated timers as well. But, I do plan to decide on the vegetable seeds and purchase them early this year, so I can get the variety I want. So, I can’t procrastinate! Ha, ha!

Oh, and I realized I haven’t covered the two hibernating rhubarb plants with manure. I did purchase 10 bags of steer manure last fall. They are stacked at the north-end of the house. With these warm days, they shouldn’t be frozen by the afternoon so I better use a bag or two on the rhubarb.

Swearing-in

On Jan. 7, 2019, I attended the swearing-in of our nine county officials that were elected in November. It was held at the Miner’s Inn Convention Center in Yreka and most of the audience chairs were filled. The ceremony was organized by the county clerk’s office. A beautiful program was handed-out with the American flag on the front and included short bios on the elected officials. 

Those officials are: Craig Kay as Siskiyou Co. Assessor-Recorder and Laura Bynum as Siskiyou Co. Clerk, who were newly-elected. Enjoying re-election terms are Siskiyou Co. District Attorney Kirk Andrus; Siskiyou Co. Superintendent of Schools Kermith Walters; Michael Kobseff, Supervisor for Dist. 3; Wayne Hammer Siskiyou Co. Treasurer; Jon E. Lopey, Col. USA (Ret) Siskiyou Co. Sheriff- Coroner; Jennie Ebejer, Siskiyou Co. Auditor-Controller and Ray Haupt, Supervisor Dist. 5.

Lisa Nixon, Siskiyou Co. Supervisor for Dist. 4, opened the ceremony and Ed Valenzuela, Siskiyou Co. Supervisor for Dist. 2 closed the meeting. Siskiyou Daily News reporter, Danielle Jester, wrote a good article that was published on the front of Jan. 8, 2019 SDN edition. She was right. What I believe was an unplanned theme -- echoed. It was “service above self” as written in the headline.

Supervisor Nixon set the tone with her address. She is frustrated at the “extremely tight” county budget and is impressed at the 
“commitment of county people at all levels” to get what needs to be done with less and less funds. Lisa thanked Ray Haupt for his “fine leadership and expertise” in Forestry and Natural Resources and budgeting. Ray served as chairman of the supervisors’ board last year and he was busy responding to citizens, groups, county employees, department heads and fires; along with and state and federal issues threatening the county.

Six of the elected officials spoke. It was heart-warming as they all thanked their family, friends and especially their spouse for her tremendous support. They were sincerely humble and admitted their jobs were not easy, but are determined to do the best they possibly can.

D.A. Andrus reminisced that he came to this county in 2005 with his wife, Heide, and four children. Now, he has six children and several are in college. He also coaches girls’ basketball at Mt. Shasta High School, before going to his day job.

His reference to the past got me to thinking about the county bi-annual swearing-in ceremony. Many years ago, it seemed to not be a big deal. I remember when it was typically held in the county supervisors’ meeting room. When more people became involved with the candidates and elections, more people attend the swearing-in ceremony and the board’s room was not big enough.

One year, maybe 2006, it was held outside on the courthouse steps. That ceremony was short with not many speeches. It was a cold January day, but I think the sun was shining.

This year, we were warm in the Miner’s Inn Convention Center. There was a nice-sized crowd that witnessed this simple, yet dignified ceremony. I appreciate the fact that our leaders swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the, sometimes conflicting, State of California Constitution.

I want to give a personal “thank you” to our elected and appointed leaders. As a past news reporter, and now columnist, I attend meetings, ask questions and get to know many of them. I feel strongly that our 2019 leaders are good people, who truly want the best for Siskiyou County. They see and must respond to the devastating aspects of our society with less and less funding.

I also want to thank outgoing Siskiyou Co. Clerk, Colleen Setzer and Mike Mallory, who served as Assessor/Recorder. Whether it was a professional or personal matter, both were always accessible and enlightening. Happy trails to your retirements.

Liz Bowen began writing ranch and farm news, published in newspapers, in 1976. She is a native of Siskiyou County and lives near Callahan. Call her at 530-467-3515. Check out her blog at: LizWritesLife.blogspot.com.

# # #