 |
 |
By CATHY BUSSEWITZ
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
A Mendocino County judge on Thursday postponed the state’s new rules on frost protection until grape growers who filed a lawsuit challenging the rules have their day in court.
Rudy and Linda Light, who own a small family vineyard in Redwood Valley on a tributary to the west fork of the Russian River, filed the lawsuit in October to challenge the frost protection regulations enacted by the state Water Resources Control Board last fall.
The ruling by Mendocino County Superior Court Judge Ann Moorman delayed enforcement of the new regulations, a decision that lawyers say will apply to all grape growers in the Russian River watershed.
“Everybody who was concerned about the regulation benefits from it,” said Matisse M. Knight, a Ukiah lawyer who represented the plaintiffs. “The board can’t enforce that regulation. And that’s not exclusive to the Lights.”
State water regulators urged growers Thursday to voluntarily comply with the controversial rules while the courts resolve two legal challenges filed by growers in Sonoma and Mendocino counties. Such actions would demonstrate that growers are taking precautionary steps to protect endangered species, said Kathie Smith, spokeswoman for the State Water Resources Control Board.
“The State Water Board is currently reviewing the court’s ruling,” Smith said in a statement. “However, this is not a ruling on the merits of the case, it is simply a ruling on whether the regulations are enforceable prior to trial.”
The new state regulations are designed to protect young salmon from becoming stranded when water levels in the Russian River and its tributaries are low.
The rules target grape growers who divert water from the watershed for frost protection, spraying the vines with water when the air temperature threatens to dip below freezing. The practice helps the temperature remain constant and reduces the chance of crop loss.
The state required such growers to submit water demand management plans and measure the cumulative effects of their water use on the river, at a cost that could hurt some farmers.
If growers didn’t comply with the regulations by March 15, they were prohibited from spraying their vines with water.
With frost season looming, the judge said that enforcing the new rules could cause “permanent damage” to growers while they challenge the legality of the regulations in court.
Light, who filed the Mendocino lawsuit, is no stranger to water rules and conservation. His organic vineyard, Light Vineyards, was certified by the “Fish Friendly Farming” program in 2002. And in recent years he planted thousands of oak trees and completed a major restoration of the west fork of the Russian River.
“It’s not a matter of the grape growers don’t like fish or the environment,” Light said. “And we are very committed environmentalists.
“At the same time, I just felt from the beginning that the water board overstepped its authority,” Light continued. “They’ve taken over a legislative function and assumed that authority for themselves.”
In addition to the vineyard, Light owns about 1,800 acres of property in Mendocino County, and served on the Mendocino County Fish and Game Commission for nearly a decade.
The trial in Light’s case is set to begin on March 23.
Meanwhile, a judge in Sacramento ruled on a related lawsuit filed by Russian River Water Users for the Environment, a group of grape growers from Sonoma and Mendocino counties. The state water board had sought to transfer Light’s case to the Sacramento court, combining his suit with the Russian River Water Users for the Environment case. Instead, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy M. Frawley ruled the opposite, writing that both cases should be consolidated and transferred to the Mendocino County Superior Court.
“One of the most important things that comes out of this is nobody is going to go off and launch into these extremely expensive water demand management programs until a court resolves whether it is even lawful,” said Nick Jacobs, a Sacramento attorney representing Russian River Water Users for the Environment.
The Sonoma County Winegrape Commission still plans to hold a series of upcoming meetings to talk with growers about the new regulations, said Nick Frey, president.
“I don’t know exactly how it will all turn out,” Frey said. “Will the state appeal? And if they do appeal, will they prevail? The scenarios are a little hard to predict at this point.”
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
See, this is the magic of INCREMENTALISM.
Two steps forward, one step back.
Even when they retreat a step, make the serfs feel like their input matters.
They have INDOCTRINATED us, softened us up to their intent.
Paved the way to their oppression.
Ag. people have groups they belong to,
it’s time to realize where all these over reaching, non-sensical ‘green’ regs are coming from and demand that we purge this cancer from our County.
Form your own movement, or join ours.
Come to S.R. City Council on the 14th.
Like the old boiling frog adage.
Right around now, all us frogs are goin’…
is it hot in here?
Time to jump out of the pot,
get out of ICLEI like several communities across America have done.
Thank goodness for a judge that has some sense of what is really happening re the environmentalists and growers.
As a Wine grape grower in Sonoma and Mendocino for over 35 years, I take issue with anyone who thinks that the growers are that 1% that the OWS folks are complaining about.
We have an interest in preserving the environment as much as any one else does. However, when we are asked to add cost to our operations to satisfy a questionable theory that our operations are the major threat to the RR fishery, we are entitled to ask, where is the evidence?
Has any one ever been to Jenner and seen the devastation wreaked on the Salmon and Steelhead by the Seals and Sea Lions as fish enter the RR on their annual migration?
If one is interested, they might discover that Seals and Sea Lions are protected by Federal Law and can’t be “thinned”, even if the population has grown by 200% over the last few years.
If the enviromentalists really care, how about coming up with a solution that encompasses an overall plan, rather than polarizing everyone, making a bunch of lawyers rich and keeping a bunch of politicians unelected bureaucrats busy passing laws that they can’t enforce.
More Agenda 21 sabotage under the ‘green guise’.
We pay them to damage and sabotage us.
Then we pay for both attorneys and the court house.
Growers, this is happening all over.
How did we ever get by without all the ‘protections’?
Great, remember?
Search:
Democrats Against UN Agenda 21
or
Freedom Advocates
or
Agenda 21 and Agriculture
or
The Wildlands Project (their goal).
Once these growers connect the dots
(if they haven’t already),
they’ll be asking…
THE QUESTION.
I guess Sonoma County needs to decide which is more important…the wine grapes or the salmon.
Seems like just more government regulation to me. Government causing more problems in the business world. How much does the legal expenses for this ridiculousness cost wine drinkers when the prices go up?