An apology from the California Department of Fish and Game
Updating a story from last week, the California Department of Fish and Game has apologized for a threatening letter it sent to landowners over alleged non-compliance with frost protection regulations that are in fact enjoined from being enforced. From the Ukiah Daily Journal:
The California Department of Fish and Game sent another letter to landowners last week apologizing for an earlier letter urging compliance with proposed new Frost Protection regulations.
“The department wishes to acknowledge it inadvertently omitted from its March letter that enforcement of the (Water Demand Management Plans) by the (State Water Resources Control Board) is currently under court stay,” a letter dated March 30 states. “We apologize for that omission.” . . .
To “clarify the purpose” of the first letter, the department writes that it was “sent as a means of communicating the department’s intent to assist frost protection water users in managing operations to avoid stranding of salmonids during frost events. We will remain available to you — whether eventually through a WDMP consultation process or not — and are sincere in our interest to assist you in developing options to minimize the effect of frost operations on instream flows and listed salmonids.”
Jordan Traverso, deputy director of Communications, Education and Outreach for the department of Fish and Game, said the second letter was “mailed out on Friday to everyone who received the first letter.”
Thanks to Aquafornia for the pointer.
What to read next
Shed a (crocodile) tear for Luke Skywalker today, as Mark Hamill’s much ballyhooed Autograph Law is set to be undone and reformed by the same California officials who made the mistake to pass it in the first place. AB 228 has arrived at the Governor’s desk, and in all likelihood will be signed into law any day.
Our new flagship publication, Sword&Scales, offers 16 pages of news and information to bring you up close to the vital work of our legal team. Our ardent defense of the right to own and use private property takes center stage in the inaugural issue. It’s at the core of our mission in the nation’s courts.
On Thursday, in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, PLF filed this reply brief in support of its cert petition to the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case, we’re representing Minnesota voters in a First Amendment challenge to a ban on political apparel at polling places.
The Daily Journal published my column on California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, recently decided by the California Supreme Court. As the op-ed points out, the ruling undermines Proposition 218’s requirements that all new taxes at the local level need voter approval.