Latest from the California Fisheries Blog:

California Fisheries Blog Logo

Loading RSS Feed

Posted in Fisheries | Comments Off on Latest from the California Fisheries Blog:

An Inadequate Analysis of Long-Term Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project

On September 9, 2024 a coalition of nonprofits submitted comments to the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) in response to its 2024 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the Long-Term Operations of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP). The coalition consists of California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA), California Water Impact Network, Friends of the River, Golden State Salmon Association, Institute for Fisheries Resources, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Restore the Delta, San Francisco Baykeeper, Save California Salmon, and Water Climate Trust. 

In its comment letter, the coalition contests the paradigm that underpins the DEIS: that delivery of water should come before protecting endangered species. The DEIS falls short in safeguarding endangered species and water quality, and instead prioritizes water deliveries that will exacerbate the ecological decline of California’s rivers and estuaries.

Alternatives That Don’t Protect Fish

The DEIS proposes alternatives for managing the CVP and SWP that are fundamentally flawed. The analysis shows that most of the alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, would worsen conditions for endangered species such as the Chinook Salmon and Longfin Smelt—a clear violation of the Endangered Species Act.

Only Alternative 3 in the DEIS, developed by several environmental groups, is legally adequate. Alternative 3 would significantly reduce water diversions and provide better protection for endangered species. Yet, despite the benefits, Alternative 3 was not selected as the Preferred Alternative in the DEIS. 

Plan For Drought Violates Minimum Water Quality Objectives

The scientific analysis used in the DEIS uses flawed standards to evaluate water temperatures. The temperature analysis for juvenile winter-run Chinook salmon—a species already on the brink of extinction—fails to account for recent scientific studies that show that colder temperatures than previously accepted are needed to support salmon survival rates. 

The DEIS downplays the likely harm that will be caused to endangered species by increased water diversions and long-term drought conditions. The DEIS fails to provide details and criteria for imposing shortage provisions on water contractors, especially Sacramento River Settlement Contractors. 

Instead of offering concrete drought mitigation strategies, the DEIS relies on an undefined “Drought Toolkit” that involves voluntary measures such as water purchases that have no clear source of funding and no clear plan for implementation. 

Voluntary Agreements

The DEIS relies on Voluntary Agreements (VAs) to make a small increase in environmental flows. It is not reasonably certain that the State Water Board will accept the VAs, but the DEIS treats them largely as a done deal. 

CSPA has also worked extensively along with its allies to stop the VAs from being accepted by the State Board. CSPA opposes the VAs because the VAs would not provide enough water to restore fish. 

Ignoring Environmental Justice

The DEIS fails to address impacts on environmental justice communities. The Delta’s subsistence fishing communities, who rely on local fish populations for food, are among the hardest hit by declining fish numbers and deteriorating water quality. The DEIS does not take into account the increased exposure to toxins and the economic burden placed on these communities as fish populations continue to plummet and Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) become more common.

Legal Violations and Calls for Change

In its current form, the DEIS falls short of complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act. Reclamation must revise and recirculate the DEIS, and accept a more protective alternative, to ensure that the long-term operations of the CVP and SWP protect both endangered species and the communities that rely on healthy ecosystems.

The Path Forward

California’s water system has been pushed to its limits. Protecting endangered species while meeting water needs is not an easy task but Reclamation must do better to achieve this goal. The DEIS in its current form will create a future where water deliveries come at the expense of biodiversity, environmental justice, and the very survival of California’s growing list of endangered and threatened species. 

Posted in Water Quality | Comments Off

A Win for the Bear River: NID Abandons Plans to Build Centennial Dam 

On September 25, 2024, the Nevada Irrigation District (NID) Board of Directors voted four to one to abandon its proposed Centennial Dam Project. The resolution was brought forward by NID staff, who had analyzed years of data and determined that the proposed project would be too costly and ineffective in supplying additional water to meet demand.

NID proposed to build Centennial Dam on the Bear River. The dam would have flooded six miles of the river and would have destroyed recreational opportunities and riparian habitat that is treasured by many, including Native American Tribes. 

The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA), along with a broad coalition of environmental groups, local residents, indigenous leaders, and recreational enthusiasts, fought to protect the Bear River from the project for the past decade. 

NID’s decision is a win for rivers and fish. It is also a win for smart water policy generally and, thus, a win for NID. 

The Centennial water rights proceeding before the Administrative Hearings Office of the State Water Resources Control Board, which has been pending for three years, will now end without going to a formal hearing. The decision will also preserve flow requirements in the Bear River that CSPA and others spent close to a decade negotiating with NID in the relicensing of NID’s Yuba-Bear Hydroelectric Project.  

Much of the impetus for NID’s change of direction came about because of NID’s 3-year planning process called Plan for Water. The process generated technical data that showed that NID’s future water supply was likely in better shape than some at NID had previously thought. The study also highlighted vulnerabilities to NID’s water supply that Centennial Dam would not have addressed. CSPA was a regular participant in the Plan for Water planning process.

Judging from statements of NID Board members before voting, cost, and lack of benefits to many NID customers in Nevada County, also played a key role in the Board’s decision.  

NID will now consider possible alternatives to Centennial Dam, such as raising the dam on Rollins Reservoir. CSPA will continue to participate in proceedings on possible alternatives and will encourage NID to pursue water management solutions that do not come at the expense of the environment. 

The forthcoming withdrawal of the Centennial water rights application is the culmination of a ten-year campaign. The campaign was truly a coalition effort. CSPA wishes to acknowledge the pivotal role of several people: Traci Sheehan, coordinator of the Foothills Water Network coalition and now Policy Director at the South Yuba River Citizens League (SYRCL), and the ringleader of the campaign; Allan Eberhart, Sierra Club volunteer extraordinaire and advocate for the Bear River, who mobilized widespread opposition to Centennial even as he brought people together in the broader community; Melinda Booth, former Executive Director of SYRCL, who expanded her organization’s mission to take on the Bear River; and Bear River local residents Dianna Suarez and Otis Wollan, who were tireless and effective from start to finish. 

Posted in Alerts & Advisories, Water Rights | Comments Off on A Win for the Bear River: NID Abandons Plans to Build Centennial Dam 

Press Release: CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE SECURES AT&T’s REMOVAL OF TOXIC LEAD-CONTAINING PHONE CABLES FROM LAKE TAHOE

Emerald Bay, Lake Tahoe, California. September 18, 2024 – California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) is pleased to announce Pacific Bell Telephone Company, dba AT&T of California, has agreed to remove its abandoned telecommunications cables that have been leaching toxic lead into the waters of Lake Tahoe for decades. This settlement comes as a direct result of CSPA’s advocacy and litigation efforts to protect California’s waterbodies.

“This is a monumental win for the environment, the communities who drink Lake Tahoe water, the people with lake-dependent livelihoods, and the millions of annual visitors,” said Chris Shutes, Executive Director for CSPA.

After conditionally settling in 2022, AT&T reinitiated litigation to determine the merits of CSPA’s claims. The lawsuit alleges AT&T’s cables discharged lead violating California’s voter- approved Proposition 65, (The Safe Drinking Water and Toxics Enforcement Act of 1986), and those discharges presented an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the environment, in violation of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The cables are comprised of paper-wrapped copper wires, inside a thick lead conduit, wrapped in spiral-wound steel rods and covered with a bitumen/tar-impregnated fiber coating. Each foot of the lead-clad cables contains approximately 3.39 pounds of lead. There are approximately 6 miles of submerged cables. As a result of this settlement, AT&T will remove about 107,000 pounds of lead from Lake Tahoe.

CSPA’s investigation revealed the abandoned cables were discharging lead. Due to wind-caused currents, anchor strikes, and deterioration over time, the cables have become damaged and degraded, exposing the lead conduit in numerous locations.

CSPA-supported scientific investigations confirmed elevated levels of lead in water and sediment adjacent to the cables. The investigations found lead in algae, which forms the base of the food web for the fisheries at Lake Tahoe. CSPA also found lead in clams and crawdads collected at the cables.

“Designated as an Outstanding National Resource Water, Lake Tahoe has no major pollution sources of lead or other metals entering the lake. So, our expectations were to see minimal to low concentrations of lead in this exceptionally clean and clear lake. The team conducted a structured scientific collection and laboratory analyses of water, sediment and microscopic plants and bacteria called biofilms (a.k.a. algae). One sample of biofilm on the cables showed lead at 67,000 times more concentrated than a reference biofilm sample taken from a rock. These biofilms are a food source for fish, and the lead can be biomagnified as it travels up the food chain,” said Sudeep Chandra, PhD, Professor of Limnology, Director of Global Water Center, University of Nevada, Reno.

Lake Tahoe, known for its breathtaking beauty, clear waters, and ecological significance, has been burdened by these lead-leaching cables. “CSPA remains dedicated to Lake Tahoe as one of nation’s most iconic waterbodies. We are proud to have fought for the removal of this toxic waste from Lake Tahoe, and we are happy that AT&T decided to finally step up,” stated Shutes.

CSPA was represented by the Aqua Terra Aeris Law Group (through Matthew C. Maclear and Erica A. Maharg), Klamath Environmental Law Center (through William “Bill” Verick), Law Offices of Andrew L. Packard, Law Office of Dr. John Kirk Boyd, Law Office of Brian Acree and the Law Office of William Carlon.

CSPA’s investigation resulted, in part, from the generous funding of therootcauseproject.org, spearheaded by Founder, Roland Peralta. Local divers, Kris Kierce and Scott Fontecchio from Lake Tahoe Diving & Environmental, performed the sampling.

CSPA is a 501(c)(3) public benefit organization whose mission is the protection of fisheries, habitat, and water quality in California.

Media Contacts

– Chris Shutes, Executive Director, CSPA: (510) 421-2405 – cshutes@calsport.org
– Matthew C. Maclear, Attorney for CSPA: (415) 568-5200 – mcm@atalawgroup.com
– Erica A. Maharg, Attorney for CSPA: (503) 380-4242 – eam@atalawgroup.com

Enclosures

First Amended Complaint
Consent Decree
Maps of Sample Locations
Summary of Sample Results 
Analytical Lab Results – Multiple: 1, 2, 3, 4

Posted in Alerts & Advisories, Press Release, Water Quality | Comments Off on Press Release: CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE SECURES AT&T’s REMOVAL OF TOXIC LEAD-CONTAINING PHONE CABLES FROM LAKE TAHOE

PG&E Withdraws Application for Transfer of Hydropower Assets

On May 10, 2024, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) reported that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) had denied an application for the transfer of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) hydropower assets to a subsidiary, Pacific Generation.  The CPUC found that PG&E’s application failed to meet “even the minimal public interest standard.”  The CPUC, however, gave PG&E leave to file a new application addressing the inadequacies of the first effort.

On August 12, 2024, PG&E filed a letter with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). PG&E’s application would have needed additional approval from FERC to initiate the asset transfer.  In its August 12 letter PG&E withdrew its application to FERC, ending, once and for all, PG&E’s effort to spin off its hydroelectric projects in order to raise money. 

The end of PG&E’s attempt to spin off its hydropower projects  is a big win for the California Hydropower Reform Coalition (CHRC), of which CSPA is an active member. CHRC challenged PG&E’s application throughout regulatory hearings conducted by the CPUC and FERC.  

More specifically, CHRC called attention to poor maintenance on a number of PG&E’s hydropower projects and the fact that many of the projects are money losers.  CHRC also highlighted the potential liability the subsidiary would have faced in the event of a catastrophic dam failure at one of the hydropower dams.

CSPA has worked for many decades to hold PG&E and other hydroelectric project operators accountable both for public safety and for the danger their projects pose to fisheries and riparian habitats.  PG&E’s withdrawal of its application to transfer its hydropower assets is a welcome outcome for CSPA and its colleagues in the CHRC, who represent a wide range of interests that are impacted by hydroelectric facilities.

The steering committee of the California Hydropower Reform Coalition (CHRC) includes California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, American Rivers, American Whitewater, California Outdoors, California Trout, Inc., Foothill Conservancy, Friends of the River, South Yuba River Citizens League, and Trout Unlimited.

Posted in Alerts & Advisories, Press Release, Water Quality | Comments Off on PG&E Withdraws Application for Transfer of Hydropower Assets

Adaptively Managing Extinction

In the never-ending saga of calling a skunk an adorable striped kitten, the proponents of the Voluntary Agreements released, on August 16, 2024, their latest defense of the scheme to undermine the flows needed for San Francisco Bay and the Delta to once again thrive. 

A flood of water agencies, headed by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), frame the new defense of the indefensible as “Common Responses” to criticisms of the Voluntary Agreements (VAs).

The proponents know that the VAs do virtually nothing to improve conditions in “Critically Dry” water years.  These are the driest years that have decimated fish and water quality in the last decade.  To fill the void, DWR et al. tell us (on pdf p. 49) that they plan to continue the failed Critically-Dry-year policies of the last decade as part of a strategy of “adaptive management.” 

No matter that these failed policies led, in 2014 and 2015, to the functional extinction of Delta smelt

Here’s a rundown of the gambits (quotes in italics are from p. 49 of the “Common Responses):

1. Can’t fix it here; look over there. DWR et al. tell us that VAs don’t have to improve conditions in Critically Dry years because it is covered in other processes.  (“[P]roposed actions as part of USBR’s and DWR’s reinitiation of consultation for the long-term operation of the CVP and SWP are focused on Critical water years and improved temperature conditions downstream of Shasta Reservoir for the protection of winter-run Chinook salmon.”)  But the proposed actions in the consultations under the state and federal endangered species acts don’t require major changes in Critically Dry year water management.

2. Revise history.  Attribute environmental motivation to actions that bolster water supply.  DWR et al. tell us the State Water Board weakened protections for fish and water quality in recent droughts (2014, 2015, 2021, 2022) to protect salmon.  (“The improved ability to manage water temperature for winter-run Chinook salmon has been a common reason for temporary urgency change petitions (TUCPs) granted by the State Water Board in the recent past.”)  Nope.  The goal was not improved salmon management.  The goal was triage, mostly for water supply: take water for minimal environmental protection and reallocate it to agricultural water users. 

3. Misstate the problem.  Use a bunch of wiggly modifiers to make reaction-after-the-fact appear to be the only possible solution.  (“Critical droughts are unique events and hard to fully anticipate.”)  As my dad would have said, “balderdash.”  As CSPA’s Bill Jennings did say to the State Water Board in April 2021, droughts are normal.  “In the last 103 years, there have been 11 multi multi-year droughts in California of large large-scale extent, spanning 43 years.”


DWR and the Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) gave away too much water in Dry water years 2013 and 2020; the following years (2014, 2021) were even drier, leaving no reservoir storage to effectively manage.  See figure from Bill Jennings’s April 2021 presentation, below.

 

4. Mislabel the strategy.  These “temporary urgency change petitions” (TUCPs) are neither temporary nor urgent.  They are the predictable result of giving away too much water in the first Dry year.  They are not really changes, because they are serial abuse that happens every time a Critically Dry year follows a Dry year.  In the Common Responses, the VA parties officially adopt TUCPs as part of their business model.  

Here’s a fairer statement of the strategy: Deliver water aggressively knowing that you’ll be out of water if next year is dry, and then throw yourself on the mercy of the politically vulnerable State Water Board and the Governor when you run out of water.  

5. Give it the trappings of science.  The TUCPs are a form of adaptive management where USBR and DWR seek the State Water Board’s input on how to best balance beneficial uses of water during critical droughts … TUCPs are a flexible tool …”  (Emphasis added.)  The TUCPs as practiced by USBR and DWR in the past decade are “flexible” only in the sense that they allow evasion of legal protections for fish and wildlife.  USBR and DWR don’t seek “the State Water Board’s input.  They seek a rubber stamp for irreversible overallocations of water they made in a previous year.  Failing all else, they’ll all blame climate change.

Adaptive management would require enough decision space to actually make a difference.  But once a TUCP rolls around, success is no longer an option: bad management has left no room for adaptive management.

DWR and the other VA proponents are promoting “adaptive management” all over the state: for the VAs, for the Delta tunnel, for Sites Reservoir, for implementation of the state and federal endangered species acts.  The admissions in DWR et al.’s “Common Responses” reveal the emptiness of the claims that what they call adaptive management will protect fish and wildlife.

Posted in State Board Bay-Delta Standards, Water Quality | Comments Off on Adaptively Managing Extinction

CSPA Submits Scoping Comments on Water Rights Application 29835 – Mokelumne River Conjunctive Use Program

On July 30, 2024, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) and The Center for Biological Diversity (The Center) submitted public scoping comments on Water Rights Application 29835 (Application 29835) and the associated Mokelumne River Conjunctive Use Program (MICUP). Public scoping comments are intended to inform project leaders on what should be included in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), in this case for a water development project. 

Application 29835 seeks to appropriate up to 110,000 acre-feet (AF) of Mokelumne River water per year. This water would be diverted at a rate of up to 620 cubic feet per second (cfs) between December 1 and June 30 during wetter years. Most of this water would be stored in aquifers that are currently overdrafted. Up to 48,000 AF of this water would also possibly be stored in Camanche and/or Pardee reservoirs. 

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) has designated the Mokelumne River as a fully appropriated river, granting only a conditional exception to new water rights specifically designed to store water as groundwater. Application 29835 proposes to divert water for conjunctive use only during peak flows, but absent specific flow requirements this does not eliminate potential harms such diversions could have on fish and wildlife. In their comments, CSPA and The Center urge San Joaquin County and the Coordinating Committee leading MICUP to prepare an EIR that is protective of ecosystems in the Mokelumne River, San Joaquin River, and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Application 29835 was originally submitted by San Joaquin County and partners in 1990. Application 29835 sought to appropriate water from the Mokelumne River for conjunctive use.  

In 2014 San Joaquin County and partners amended Application 29835. The amended application proposed to store appropriated water in underground storage rather than in Middle Bar Dam or Duck Creek Dam. The amended application also reduced the points of diversion to Pardee Dam and various points between Camanche Dam and the Intersection of Mokelumne River and Interstate 5. 

In 2014-2015, through a stakeholder initiative called MokeWISE, CSPA unsuccessfully sought to engage San Joaquin County on how much water the County would agree to leave in the river should a water right under Application 29835 be granted.

San Joaquin County and others propose to use water diverted under Application 29835 for agricultural irrigation, municipal use, and industrial use, and to recharge aquifers for later use. Under existing law, aquifer recharge is not considered a beneficial use of water in and of itself.

In their comments, CSPA and The Center urge San Joaquin County to produce an EIR that is protective of flow-dependent aquatic species. Such an EIR must include a water availability analysis that does not presume unappropriated flows to be excess flows. CSPA and the Center recommend that the EIR investigate an alternative that includes bypass flow requirements for the proposed water right of 55%-75% of unimpaired flow downstream of Camanche Dam. They also recommend that the EIR consider the Project’s direct and cumulative impacts to threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, incorporate the impacts of climate change on water resources, and consider the direct and cumulative impacts to riparian habitats.

CSPA first protested Application 29835 in 1996. CSPA has closely monitored Application 29835 ever since. Over the following decades, CSPA declined to dismiss its protest as the County changed the project. CSPA has the skill and the perseverance to stick with this long regulatory process. That is often what it takes to protect rivers and fish.

Posted in Water Rights | Comments Off on CSPA Submits Scoping Comments on Water Rights Application 29835 – Mokelumne River Conjunctive Use Program

Merced ID Continues its Attempts to Avoid Compliance with the Clean Water Act and CEQA

On June 27, 2024, CSPA and allies submitted a letter to Merced Irrigation District (Merced ID). The letter was written in response to Merced ID’s recent Notice of Intent (NOI) to rely on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) produced by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in 2015 for the relicensing of the Merced River Hydroelectric Project and Merced Falls Hydroelectric Project (Projects).

Merced ID’s decision to rely on FERC’s FEIS is a continuation of its efforts to avoid compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements and Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The environmental standards required by the Clean Water Act are more stringent than those applied by FERC.

In May 2024, the State Water Board set aside for procedural reasons the joint water quality certification (certification) for the Projects. The Board acted following a lengthy battle in federal courts with Merced ID and other water agencies that successfully defended the State Water Board’s authority to issue certifications as part of the FERC relicensing process.

Merced ID must produce an environmental review document under CEQA as part of the new certification process.

FERC’s FEIS issued under the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not satisfy CEQA requirements. Merced ID proposes a supplement to FERC’s FEIS, but the proposed scope of the supplement would not be adequate to support the State Water Board’s certification process.

CSPA and allies call upon Merced ID to expand the scope of the CEQA analysis to cover the update of the Bay-Delta Plan. CSPA and allies also call out the need for analysis of new information known since 2015 regarding native fish species in the upper Merced River and the fact that the lower Merced River has run dry in four out of the last 10 years.

A complete CEQA document for these Projects must also include proposed mitigation measures. CEQA requires mitigation of significant impacts where feasible. NEPA requires only disclosure of significant impacts.

CSPA has been involved with FERC relicensing of California’s hydroelectric projects for over three decades. CSPA works to ensure that the state’s hydroelectric projects are managed to protect fisheries, aquatic habitat, and public health. CSPA has also worked particularly hard over the last five years to defend the state’s authority to place conditions on hydroelectric projects under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

Posted in Hydroelectric (FERC), Water Quality | Comments Off on Merced ID Continues its Attempts to Avoid Compliance with the Clean Water Act and CEQA

Conservation Groups Undaunted by Court Ruling: Sites Reservoir is a Bad Deal for Rivers, for Fish, and for California

PRESS RELEASE

Court gives Sites Reservoir green light to degrade the environment

SACRAMENTO, CA – This week, a coalition of conservation groups, including Friends of the River (FOR), California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA), Center for Biological Diversity, California Water Impact Network, and Save California Salmon (plaintiffs) received a ruling on their challenge to the proposed Sites Reservoir’s faulty environmental impact report (EIR). The court found the EIR to be legally adequate, however, conservation groups stand firm that the EIR has major legal deficiencies because it failed as an informational document, and doesn’t account for major environmental harms and liabilities. This is unsurprising, because the Sites Water Authority itself prepared and approved the EIR.

Of key interest, The EIR:

  • Doesn’t consider an alternative that would protect fish and wildlife. It only considers a single operational alternative that takes too much water from the Sacramento River, and did not consider alternatives that would reduce or avoid degrading fish and wildlife resources. CEQA requires and EIR consider a reasonable range of alternatives.
  • Relies upon an inaccurate environmental baseline by inappropriately using Trump-era regulations that were remanded by the courts. An accurate baseline is legally required by CEQA and is essential to best understand potential impacts.

Meanwhile, communications from Sites Project Authority (Authority) continue to greatly overstate any alleged environmental benefits and exaggerate water supply benefits.

Statements from plaintiffs:

Keiko Mertz, Policy Director, Friends of the River: “Sadly, the court found that the Sites FEIR was a legally adequate document. We still think there were significant flaws, including that the FEIR doesn’t provide an alternative that protects fish and wildlife.”

Chris Shutes, Executive Director, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance: “The Court allowed Sites to reject as “infeasible” any alternatives that would better protect fish and wildlife. The diverters get to divert and the fish get to suffer. This project should not be built.”

Frances Tinney, Attorney, Center for Biological Diversity: “An enormous reservoir with enormous consequences should be planned with care, so it’s extremely disappointing that this damaging project is so rushed. We face a serious extinction crisis and I fear Sites will put an end to the vulnerable fish and wildlife that make the Sacramento River ecosystem one-of-a-kind.”

Kasil Willie, Attorney, Save California Salmon: “We are disheartened by this ruling and what it means for culturally significant salmon that are facing extinction and the Tribal communities that rely on having healthy river flows. The Sites FEIR remains inadequate and the Project is still a threat to the health of the Sacramento River and Bay Delta watersheds and communities. After this ruling and subsequent press release from Governor Newsom, we question this administration’s commitment to Truth and Healing for California Tribes and California’s Human Right to Water.”

The ruling of the court does not change the fact that the proposed Sites Reservoir is a boondoggle that will harm communities, Tribes, culture, and degrade the environment. It also does not validate the Authority’s claims on environmental issues. In practice, the ruling means business as usual for expensive and damaging 20th century infrastructure projects. Sites pretends to address climate change and water scarcity, while itself demonstrating that the reservoir would only produce water at the expense of fish and wildlife. Moreover, Sites will funnel benefits to a few investors.

FOR and other plaintiffs are currently considering appealing this ruling. Due to the Governor’s streamlining, an appeal will likely need to be filed sometime next week.

FOR and other plaintiffs are continuing their other work to stop the proposed Sites Reservoir.

What’s next:

  • Any appeal would be decided on a short turnaround.
  • Sites water rights hearings will occur through 2024.

For more than a half-century, Friends of the River (FOR) has been dedicated to protecting and restoring California’s rivers, streams, and watersheds, while advocating for sustainable water management and water solutions that protect the environment. Healthy rivers are a critical component of a sustainable water future in California and FOR rejects the notion that the state must choose between healthy river ecosystems and having enough water.

The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) has been an advocate for fish, habitat, and water quality for 40 years. A leader in efforts to improve fisheries and fishing opportunities, CSPA is also one of California’s major water policy organizations, with decades of consistent and effective advocacy before the State Water Board and regional water quality control boards.

Posted in Press Release | Comments Off on Conservation Groups Undaunted by Court Ruling: Sites Reservoir is a Bad Deal for Rivers, for Fish, and for California

CSPA Intervenes in Litigation on Drum-Spaulding and Yuba-Bear Hydroelectric Projects

On May 7, 2024, CSPA and its allies intervened in the ongoing case of Nevada Irrigation District (NID) versus the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, NID is challenging the authority of the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) to issue a water quality certification for NID’s Yuba-Bear Hydroelectric Project.

Joining CSPA in the intervention are Friends of the River, South Yuba River Citizens League, American Whitewater, and the Sierra Club Mother Lode Chapter.

The case has been consolidated with an earlier lawsuit filed by NID challenging the State Board’s authority to issue a certification for PG&E’s three Drum-Spaulding hydroelectric projects. CSPA and allies intervened in that case on January 18, 2024. Consolidation means that the Court will hear and rule on the two cases in one trial.

Clean Water Act Section 401 grants the State Board the authority to issue water quality certifications. The Clean Water Act is a federal law put in place to keep the nation’s waters “fishable, swimmable, and drinkable”. NID is attempting to circumvent regulatory measures that would improve outcomes for rivers, habitat, and fish related to the operation of the Yuba-Bear and Drum-Spaulding hydroelectric projects. NID is also, in essence, seeking to reduce regulation by the State Board.

CSPA intervened in these cases to protect the Clean Water Act, to uphold the State Board’s authority to apply license terms on these and other hydroelectric projects in California, and to defend the earlier court victory of CSPA and allies in overturning waiver of certification for the Yuba-Bear Project.

Why CSPA is Intervening

For many decades, CSPA has advocated for the state’s fisheries by participating in FERC’s relicensing processes and the State Board’s associated water quality certification processes. Through these processes, CSPA and its allies have won significant protections for the North Fork of the Feather River, Caples Creek, Silver Fork of the American River, the Mokelumne River and others. These protections will be in place for many decades to come.

NID refuses to accept the State Board’s authority to impose regulations on how NID and PG&E operate their hydroelectric projects. This adversarial position toward the Clean Water Act is not an isolated case. Turlock Irrigation District (TID) and Modesto Irrigation Districts (MID), Merced Irrigation District (Merced ID), and Yuba County Water Agency have all engaged in similar litigation tactics to avoid state regulation of their hydroelectric projects.

State Board Takes Action

On May 7, 2024, the State Board adopted an order to set aside water quality certifications it had issued for hydroelectric projects operated by NID, TID and MID, and Merced ID. The State Board requested that NID request certification again and comply with CEQA by producing documentation on the project’s environmental impacts.

The State Board made this decision in response to the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s 2023 Rule, which prevents certifying authorities from issuing certification in the absence of a pending request for certification. CSPA supports the State Board’s decision because it will expedite the certification process and will increase the legal defensibility of the State Board’s water quality certifications.

Conclusion

The lack of terms placed on the original licenses of hydropower projects has left many of California’s rivers and fisheries in dire condition. Hydropower projects must be subject to license terms that minimize the impact they have on the water quality of California’s rivers, including flows.

The Clean Water Act provides the legal framework for the State Board to protect the state’s waterways from degradation. By participating in NID’s cases before the DC Circuit, CSPA is continuing its campaign to protect the Clean Water Act and its wider campaign to protect rivers from the effects of hydropower dams.

——–

Read more here for a description of earlier cases and additional background.

Posted in Hydroelectric (FERC) | Comments Off on CSPA Intervenes in Litigation on Drum-Spaulding and Yuba-Bear Hydroelectric Projects

CSPA Protests Water Right Petition for Proposed Delta Tunnel

CSPA, AquAlliance, and the San Joaquin Audubon Society filed a protest on May 13, 2024 opposing the Department of Water Resources’ (DWR’s) petition to change its water rights.  The change in water rights would allow DWR to construct and operate a proposed tunnel under the eastern side of the Sacramento – San Joaquin Delta estuary.

If constructed and operated, the tunnel would divert and move massive amounts of Sacramento River water to the San Joaquin Valley and southern California each year.

The tunnel would harm fish, birds, and land animals.  It would worsen water quality in the Delta and San Francisco Bay.

DWR proposes to keep the existing weak standards that have failed to protect fisheries and water quality.  In addition, DWR proposes to establish new weak standards specifically to govern the tunnel’s operation.  DWR also plans to put more power in the hands of the people who have devastated the Delta ecosystem, and to allow them to weaken standards even further in the future.

The protest states: “The exorbitant costs of the Delta tunnel make the program feasible only if it funded by taxpayer money, thus making the public finance the further degradation of public trust resources …”

The protest concludes, in part:

“Compatibility of Delta export operations with protection of the Bay-Delta ecosystem … is ultimately dependent on reduction of the annual volume of Delta exports. … Development of alternative means to achieve water supply reliability begins with reduction of the existing unreasonable and unsustainable uses of water in the southern two thirds of California.  … The State Water Board should deny the Petition.”

State Water Board hearings on the proposed Delta tunnel will likely begin in early 2025.  The hearings are likely to last at least a year.

Posted in Chris Shutes, No Tunnels Campaign | Comments Off on CSPA Protests Water Right Petition for Proposed Delta Tunnel

California Public Utilities Commission Denies PG&E Application for Transfer of Assets: A Big Win for CSPA and California Hydropower Reform Coalition

On May 9, 2024, the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) denied an application for transfer of assets filed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and its subsidiary, Pacific Generation.

This decision is a win for the California Hydropower Reform Coalition (CHRC), of which California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) is an active member. CHRC challenged PG&E’s application throughout regulatory hearings conducted by the Commission, on the grounds that the transfer of assets was not in the public interest.

In its decision, the Commission agreed, stating that PG&E was required to “demonstrate, among other things, that their requests are adequately justified, reasonable, and in the public interest.” The Commission found that PG&E’s proposed transaction failed to meet “even the minimal public interest standard.”

Background

On September 28, 2022, PG&E filed an application to transfer all of PG&E’s non-nuclear generation assets to a newly formed subsidiary, Pacific Generation.

Among the assets PG&E proposed to transfer were all of its hydropower projects. These included projects that PG&E has proposed to fully or partly decommission: the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project located on Butte Creek and the West Branch of the Feather River, the Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project on Battle Creek, and the Potter Valley Hydroelectric Project on the Eel River and East Branch of the Russian River. PG&E applied to transfer the hydroelectric facilities as well as the land associated with those facilities to Pacific Generation.

The assets PG&E applied to transfer are worth approximately $3.5 billion. PG&E intended to transfer these assets to Pacific Generation without receiving any cash payment for those assets. Further, PG&E proposed to provide all the personnel to operate and maintain the facilities it wanted to transfer.

Section 854(a) of the Public Utilities Code requires any transaction related to public utilities to be approved by the Commission. The transaction must meet a range of requirements for the Commission to approve the transaction including the stipulation that the transaction must be in the public interest.

Why CSPA and CHRC Challenged PG&E’s Application

In testimony delivered to the Commission on June 16, 2023, CSPA’s Chris Shutes stated that PG&E has a “corporate practice of deferral and delay” when it comes to maintaining its hydroelectric facilities. In addition to safety concerns, this practice has led to PG&E’s failure to fulfill its obligations to keep waterways and fish below its hydroelectric facilities in good condition.

In 2006, CSPA became involved in Federal Energy Regulatory Committee (FERC) relicensing procedures for the DeSabla-Centerville Project in an effort to secure better conditions for spring-run Chinook salmon in Butte Creek. PG&E stalled the relicensing process and the DeSabla-Centerville Project remains without a renewed license today.

In the early 1980s PG&E began investigating how to make the 125-year-old Centerville Powerhouse more reliable and efficient. The Centerville Powerhouse has now been completely offline since 2011, and PG&E has determined it to be irreparable.

The assets that PG&E applied to transfer are operated for a range of beneficial uses including water supply, environmental mitigation, recreation, and flood control. CHRC stated that PG&E showed no evidence that Pacific Generation had the financial capacity to repair and maintain the facilities. Further, PG&E did not address how the new arrangement would impact its own ability to maintain the reliability and safety of the hydroelectric projects involved.

The Commission’s Decision

PG&E applied to transfer these assets to Pacific Generation to use them to raise money without subjecting investors to liability for PG&E’s overall operations. This would shield investors from fires caused by PG&E’s transmission lines. However, a result of transfer would also be that PG&E would avoid liability and responsibility for the transferred assets. Thus, if a dam failed at one of the hydropower projects, the subsidiary would become the legally responsible entity.

In its decision, the Commission stated that if the application was successful, Pacific Generation would own $3.5 billion worth of public utility assets despite having only one employee. Pacific Generation would be legally accountable and responsible for the operation and safety of the assets, yet the assets would be operated solely by employees of PG&E.

The Commission also found that the transfer could increase costs for ratepayers and further reduce the safety of the affected projects.

PG&E stated that its application to transfer assets was not adverse to the public interest and as such it did not have to prove that the transfer would be of benefit to consumers. The Commission disagreed and stated in its decision that the “proposed transaction is novel and unprecedented” and as such a “heightened standard of review should apply.” PG&E’s application did not survive the Commission’s scrutiny.

Conclusion

CSPA has worked for many decades to hold PG&E and other hydroelectric project operators accountable both for public safety and for the danger their projects pose to fisheries and riparian habitats. The Commission’s decision is a welcome outcome for CSPA and its colleagues in the CHRC, who represent a wide range of interests that are impacted by hydroelectric facilities.

The steering committee of the California Hydropower Reform Coalition (CHRC) includes California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, American Rivers, American Whitewater, California Outdoors, California Trout, Inc., Foothill Conservancy, Friends of the River, South Yuba River Citizens League, and Trout Unlimited. Julie Gantenbein of Water Power Law Group represented CHRC in this matter.

Posted in Alerts & Advisories, Hydroelectric (FERC), Press Release | Comments Off on California Public Utilities Commission Denies PG&E Application for Transfer of Assets: A Big Win for CSPA and California Hydropower Reform Coalition

California Sportfishing Protection Alliance and Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group Announce Lake Tahoe Lawsuit Victory

PRESS RELEASE:

The Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group and the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) are thrilled to announce victory in their lawsuit against herbicide discharges into the Tahoe Keys lagoons connected to Lake Tahoe. In January 2022, the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a permit allowing the first ever discharge of herbicides into Lake Tahoe’s waters.

The Sierra Club and CSPA filed suit in El Dorado County Superior Court in June 2022 asking the Court to rule against the dangerous precedent set by the Board’s permit. The judge agreed with the Sierra Club and CSPA and vacated the permit to use herbicides in the Tahoe Keys. Jason Flanders and Kenya Rothstein of the Aqua Terra Aeris Law Group represented the Sierra Club and CSPA in this matter.

From the beginning of the Control Methods Test project and throughout the project’s environmental analysis and final permit processes, the Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group and CSPA commented that allowing the discharge of herbicides before non-chemical methods were fully analyzed and demonstrated not to work would violate the Board’s own regulations in their Basin Plan.

This court ruling released April 25, 2024 confirms that the Lahontan Board “abused its discretion in granting the exemption,” and ordered the Board to “vacate and set aside its approval of the project and any and all approvals” during project implementation. The Court also ordered the Board to withdraw its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which the Court found deficient for not analyzing the reasonable possibility of repeated future applications of herbicides.

The Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association originally asked for multiple years of herbicide applications and is already beginning discussions about future herbicide applications. This ruling sends an important message to the Board and the Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association regarding future applications for herbicide treatments. Non-chemical methods must be tested very thoroughly and proven ineffective before any herbicide treatments can be approved.

“We are very pleased with the Court’s ruling requiring the Board to follow its own rules,” said Tobi Tyler, volunteer with the Sierra Club’s Tahoe Area Group. “The Board violated the public trust and circumvented Basin Plan regulations that were diligently established after a great deal of public input and scrutiny.”

“Lake Tahoe is a national treasure, and I hope to help preserve it for my children to recreate in and appreciate. Using dangerous chemicals in this beautiful lake would have put it at risk, so I count this as a huge victory for our region,” said Olivia Tanager, Director of the Sierra Club’s Toiyabe Chapter.

CSPA’s Executive Director Chris Shutes said, ”CSPA is proud to work with the Sierra Club to protect Lake Tahoe’s iconic clean waters. Lake Tahoe is no place to be experimenting with herbicides, especially when non-chemical options are available.”

__________________

Since 1983, the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance has been an advocate for fisheries, habitat, and water quality throughout California.

Posted in Alerts & Advisories, Press Release | Comments Off on California Sportfishing Protection Alliance and Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group Announce Lake Tahoe Lawsuit Victory

State Board’s Proposed Order Set to Expedite and Strengthen Water Quality Certifications for Hydroelectric Projects

On April 9, 2024, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) and other fishing and environmental advocacy groups submitted a response to the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) supporting its recent decision to set aside water quality certifications for five hydroelectric projects.

These projects are the Merced Irrigation District’s (Merced ID) Merced River Hydroelectric Project and Merced Falls Hydroelectric Project, Nevada Irrigation’s District’s (NID) Yuba-Bear Hydroelectric Project, and Modesto Irrigation District (MID) and Turlock Irrigation District’s (TID) Don Pedro Hydroelectric Project and La Grange Hydroelectric Project.

The State Board proposed this order in response to the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) issuance of the final Clean Water Act, Section 401 Water Quality Certification Improvement Rule that took effect in November 2023. The State Board has put the proposed order on the agenda for its meeting on May 7, 2024.

The USEPA’s 2023 Rule prevents the State Board and other certifying authorities from issuing water quality certifications in the absence of a pending request for certification. When the State Board issued water quality certifications for projects managed by Merced ID, NID, MID, and TID, those projects did not have pending requests for certification.

Background

Every hydroelectric project in California that seeks to renew its license with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) must obtain a water quality certification or a waiver of certification from the State Board.

Prior to the USEPA’s 2023 Rule, there was ambiguity surrounding whether or not the State Board was authorized to issue a water quality certification for a hydroelectric project if the relevant entity did not have a pending request for certification. The USEPA’s 2023 Rule clarified this issue.

Licensees Have Taken Advantage of Ambiguities

For far too long, Merced ID, NID, MID and TID, and other operators of hydroelectric projects have sought to exploit ambiguities in the regulatory process in order to delay or avoid meeting their responsibilities under Clean Water Act Section 401. These entities have challenged the state’s authority under Section 401 and have tied up water quality certifications in lengthy court battles.

The question of whether the State Board can issue a water quality certification in the absence of a request for certification from the relevant entity is often at the center of these battles. In fact, MID and TID actively withdrew pending requests for certification with the clear aim of not allowing the State Board to issue a certification. At the same time, MID and TID unsuccessfully sought a waiver of the state’s authority to issue a certification.

Each of these entities also deliberately failed to initiate and complete state environmental analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for their respective certifications. The state legislature recognized this practice as obstructionist.

In June of 2020, the California legislature enacted Water Code § 13160 (b)(2) to allow the State Board to issue a water quality certification prior to the completion of the CEQA process “if the state board determines that waiting until completion of that environmental review to issue the certificate or statement poses a substantial risk of waiver of the state board’s certification authority under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or any other federal water quality control law.”

Conclusion

CSPA and its allies stated in their comments that they largely supported the water quality certifications the State Board issued for these projects. CSPA and allies participated in the respective licensing proceedings for these projects for over a decade and devoted great amounts of time and resources to advocate for “appropriately protective water quality conditions” to be included in these water quality certifications.

Nonetheless, CSPA and allies support the State Board’s proposed order to set aside these water quality certifications. The USEPA’s 2023 rule has the potential to expedite future water quality certifications and, more importantly, will expedite the certification process and “increase the legal defensibility” of the State Board’s water quality certifications.

CSPA and allies further urged the State Board to request that FERC compel the licensees in question to request water quality certification for the projects at issue within 30 days.

Posted in Hydroelectric (FERC), Water Quality | Comments Off on State Board’s Proposed Order Set to Expedite and Strengthen Water Quality Certifications for Hydroelectric Projects

Newsom’s 2023 California Water Plan: Supplying Imaginary Water to Meet an Insatiable Demand

On April 2, 2024, Governor Gavin Newsom announced the release of the 2023 update of the California Water Plan (Water Plan). Governor Newsom announced the Water Plan at a press conference held at Phillips Station in the high Sierra, just after this year’s snowpack was measured there at 113 percent of average.

At the press conference, Governor Newsom stated that the Water Plan contains a new strategy to help California adapt to future cycles of extreme drought and extreme precipitation. At the core of this strategy is the plan to build Sites Reservoir for more storage and the Delta tunnel for more conveyance. The Water Plan also supports the weakening of regulations that could be used to keep more water in rivers to protect public trust resources.

The update of the Water Plan offers no reckoning with the fact that the state constantly promises and delivers more water than falls from the sky or is left in the ground. Rather, the Water Plan outlines a strategy that will continue the same overallocation of the state’s water resources that has led to the near collapse of ecosystems in the Bay-Delta, its tributaries, and beyond.

The Water Plan’s Backward Reasoning

Chapter 3 of the Water Plan describes how healthy watershed ecosystems play a crucial role in “enhancing adaptation to climate change, and ensuring long-term resilience for built infrastructure.”

Chapter 2 of the Water Plan details the destructive force California’s past water management has had on these ecosystems stating, “Reclamation has eliminated most of the state’s historical wetlands. Reduced stream flows, increased temperatures, lack of habitat, pollution, and proliferation of invasive species have affected many fish species across the state. Native fish and wildlife evolved to cope with drought, but prolonged dry periods are increasingly stressful because many streams warm, lessen, or dry up. In many areas, fish and wildlife exposure to these dry periods is often extended or amplified by consumptive water use.”

The Water Plan update doubles down on supplying more water to the unsustainable practices of relentless impoundment and over-diversion of water that have done such tremendous damage to California’s water-dependent ecosystems.

The Water Plan mentions the need to manage demand for water but advocates the fast tracking of the proposed Sites Reservoir and Delta Conveyance Project (Delta tunnel) as new “built backbone infrastructure.”

How Overallocation of Water Impacts Fisheries

California water users have been promised five times more water than exists.

The overallocation of the state’s water resources has deprived the Bay-Delta and its tributaries of so much flow that it has decimated its ecosystem and threatens the survival of native fish. This has led to six native fish species, including two runs of Central Valley Chinook salmon, to be listed as endangered. In 2023, populations of Chinook salmon were so low that California closed its Chinook salmon fishery. On April 10, 2024 the Pacific Fishery Management Council announced that ocean salmon fisheries will continue to be closed for the 2024 season.

The population of white sturgeon in the Bay-Delta has also plummeted due to low flows and warm temperatures. In 2022, these conditions combined with high nutrient levels caused an algal bloom that led to the death of at least 400 white sturgeon. CSPA is currently campaigning to list California’s white sturgeon as threatened under the state and federal endangered species acts.

The Water Plan Weakens Regulations

To make matters worse, objective 6 of the Water Plan calls for creating “regulatory flexibility.” In accordance with this objective, the Water Plan supports the State Water Resources Control Board’s (State Board’s) potential adoption of Voluntary Agreements in the next update to the Bay-Delta Plan.

The Voluntary Agreements are intended to substitute clear enforceable requirements for water users to leave enough water in rivers for the survival of fish and ecosystems. In the past, Voluntary Agreements have failed to protect water quality and have thus failed to protect fish in both wet and dry years.

California State Water Code requires the State Board and other regulators to protect the water quality of the state’s rivers. The Voluntary Agreements shift this responsibility to water users, who are in the business of making a profit from the state’s water resources. The update to the Water Plan advocates for this practice to be the new status quo.

Conclusion

The 2023 Water Plan continues the old paradigm of storing and diverting water first and thinking about the environment second. The state’s past management of water with this mindset has left our rivers, streams, wetlands, and Bay-Delta in poor condition.

This paradigm must change.

CSPA is currently challenging both the proposed Sites Reservoir and Delta tunnel in the courts and through regulatory processes. CSPA is also campaigning to restore rule of law by opposing proposed Voluntary Agreements.

To ensure water security in California and to address climate change, demand for water resources must be brought into alignment with the actual water that is available. Enough water must be left in waterways to ensure the survival of fish, wildlife, and ecosystems. These basic principles should be at the center of the California Water Plan.

Posted in Water Rights | Comments Off on Newsom’s 2023 California Water Plan: Supplying Imaginary Water to Meet an Insatiable Demand

Celebrating the Life and Achievements of Bill Jennings

On Sunday April, 7, 2024, friends of Bill Jennings gathered by the Mokelumne River to remember and celebrate his life and achievements.  The following eulogy was delivered by Chris Shutes, Executive Director of California Sportfishing Protection Alliance.

Eulogy for Bill Jennings, by Chris Shutes

Good morning, everyone.  Thank you very much for coming. 

We’re gathered here on this cold but sunny Delta morning to remember our friend and colleague Bill Jennings.  

We remember Bill here on the banks of the lower Mokelumne River, a river that Bill and his friends brought from the brink of ruin to become the home of one of the most abundant salmon runs in California.

Bill did not have family, at least that he talked about or kept up with.  He was an only child.  For the last years of her life, Bill’s mother lived close to Bill in Stockton until her death in 2000.  

So in many regards, Bill’s family, such as it was, was drawn from the ranks of players and actors in the world of California fisheries, water policy, and pollution enforcement.  Most all of us here today are part of that world.  Many others who are part of that world sent regrets, remembrances, and best wishes.

Bill was a profoundly moral man, motivated by an overriding sense of justice and acting for the common good.  It is fair to say he was a moral inspiration to many.  He recognized the power of putting people face to face with their own moral poverty.  His experience as a young man in the civil rights movement and draft resistance in Tennessee surely shaped that recognition.

But for all his time and leadership in the realm of moral persuasion, Bill didn’t have much truck with organized religion.  So it’s left to some of his friends and colleagues to remember him today.  

For the few of you who don’t know me, I’m Chris Shutes.  For seventeen years, I worked for Bill and Bill’s organization, the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, otherwise known as C-S-P-A, C-Spa, CalSpa, Sispa, or other, depending on the venue and the epoch of initial acquaintance.  At Bill’s direction, I’ve taken over the leadership of CSPA and a majority of its program work.  And thus it’s also fallen to me to preside today, because it is unimaginable that an event to remember Bill would be organized by any entity other than CSPA.

After he became Executive Director of CSPA in 2005, Bill built CSPA into a powerful statewide advocate for fisheries, abundant water in rivers and estuaries, and clean water.  He was tireless.  I think he had a degree from the University of Tennessee in something, but I have no idea what.  It didn’t matter.  Bill was widely read and, for what he spent the last half of his life doing, almost completely self-taught.  Learning by doing, he figured out how different parts of the regulatory world of water work.  He saw how to adapt lessons on one issue and deploy them on another issue.  And another.  And another.  He was relentless.  

Bill’s career as a water advocate really started with the Committee to Save the Mokelumne in the mid-eighties.  Bill and friends formed the Committee in 1987 following the death of almost all the salmon in the Mokelumne River Fish Hatchery, located right downstream of Camanche Dam about thirty miles east of where we are today.  

There were so many problems.  Mine runoff from the old Penn copper mine was leaching into Camanche Reservoir, killing life in the reservoir and downstream.  The hatchery was also seeing die-offs from high water temperatures, lack of oxygen, and simply lack of flow.

So Bill put his own stamp on the term “all-of-the-above” strategy.  He went after East Bay MUD, the owners of Camanche and the land around it, including Penn Mine, at every regulator he could think of.  He brought in a new organization called CSPA to help.

Among his papers, I found a poster that’s 3 by 3½ feet in size. It’s got about two hundred boxes on it, each of which shows a step in the regulatory pathway Bill blazed and followed to save the Mokelumne.  

So here’s a few of the major trailheads: 

  • Bill filed a complaint against EBMUD at the State Water Board.
  • He filed a public trust lawsuit against EBMUD.
  • He filed a complaint at the regional water quality control board over pollution from Penn Mine.
  • He filed a complaint with, and thus solicited the support of, the San Joaquin County District Attorney, who went after EBMUD in court.
  • He filed a complaint with the US Environmental Protection Agency seeking declaration of Penn Mine as a “point source” of pollution
  • He filed a complaint with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and actually got FERC to re-open EBMUD’s hydropower license.

All of these actions led to further regulatory process, and many ended up in court.  A few of you who are here today were there with Bill on one or more of these pathways. 

And there was another series of what one might call softer-path actions, building support, getting the word out, and addressing a bunch of other problems on the Mokelumne River. It was a full-out campaign.  

In the end, Penn Mine was cleaned up.  That really worked.  There was a settlement agreement among EBMUD and two fish agencies that resolved the FERC and water rights processes.  Bill of course didn’t sign that settlement; he wanted more water.  

As I have come to learn, 10-13 years start to finish is about the time horizon for an awful lot of regulatory processes relating to fish and water.  Sometimes, it’s a lot longer.

The outcomes on Mokelumne, I think, shaped much of what became Bill’s preferences in his advocacy.  He liked water quality enforcement because it has clear standards.  Compliance is not ambiguous.  A judge generally decides if a regulator is unwilling.  

From the Mokelumne experience, Bill learned the power of the Clean Water Act.  And he leveraged it to new levels.  At one point he told me that CSPA had prosecuted more citizen enforcement actions under the Clean Water Act than any other non-profit in the country.  Bill initiated that whole line of advocacy at CSPA. 

Bill thought less of stakeholder processes, like hydropower relicensings.  He sat through a lot them in the nineties.  He lost patience and for the most part eventually lost interest.  He happily left those to Chris.

When Bill died, he left a room full of binders and an attic full of boxes with the paper records of his work, mostly before about 2007 when he started keeping most of his work and records on a computer.  Dave Fries and I spent about eight sessions going through Bill’s paper documents, deciding what was appropriate to send to a new Bill Jennings archive at the University of the Pacific.  There were just under 30 boxes of documents from the Mokelumne campaign of the 80’s and 90’s. There were another 40 boxes of other materials.

It was quite an experience going through those papers, most of which had not been reviewed for a long, long time.  There were records of proceedings relating to the permits for wastewater treatment plants of most of the bigger cities that ring the Delta: Sacramento Regional, Stockton, Manteca, Lodi, Modesto, Lathrop, Davis.  For Sac Regional, there were binders for four separate rounds of permitting.

There were also many files from the days before 2005 when Bill was the Deltakeeper, part of San Francisco Baykeeper.  In those files were folders on a series of local industrial facilities, where someone working for Bill had gone to sites, mostly around Stockton, checking stormwater runoffs.  Included there were photos of the facilities and observations about them.  From that era were a lot of write-ups of water quality samples that people working for Bill had collected in the Delta.

Dave and I heard the story from Ernie Mitchell, who lives on the property Bill rented in Stockton, about how Bill had taken the stove out of the kitchen because he wanted the space for water quality testing equipment.  

In various parts of Bill’s files, I found copies of reports by Felix Smith, the US Fish and Wildlife Biologist who blew the whistle on deformed waterfowl at the Kesterson Wildlife Refuge.  Felix did some of the reports for Bill; others, Felix just sent to Bill so Bill would have them.  I pulled all of those reports; eventually, they’ll end up electronically on CSPA’s website. 

The sheer amount of work those binders and files represent is staggering.  Bill was tireless as well as relentless.

I first met Bill in 2006.  John Beuttler, CSPA’s Conservation Director, had recruited me to represent CSPA in a hydropower licensing proceeding on Butte Creek.  Going to meet Bill at a Denny’s in Sacramento, John told me to not say very much, which of course is a hard thing for me to do.  So I talked a bit about my years of volunteer experience with hydropower.  Bill asked me only one question, which I’ll have to paraphrase at bit.  He asked, “Can you kick an adversary where it hurts and still maintain decorum?”  In this case, I complied with Beuttler’s recommendation and answered with one word: “Absolutely.”  Jennings said “Okay” and got up and left.  The whole interview took less than half an hour. 

As well as being colorful, this story illustrates something about Bill’s approach to advocacy.  You fight to win, but you don’t get to be a jerk.  A key point for CSPA came about 6 months later, when CSPA faced a crisis about how to work with whitewater boaters on the Feather River.  Bill listened to the various opinions and then wrote a memo to the CSPA Board and staff, framing the issue as: “I guess the question before us is whether CSPA can play well with others.”  Some folks saw it differently, and left the Board.  One staff member resigned.  All of a sudden, I became a very busy guy.  I guess that’s part of what happens when you do play well with others.   

As I later learned, Bill had another key principle: you do your homework, and you back up what you say.  It’s all right to have a general way of looking at things.  But being more or less right in general does not mean you can skate on particular issues because you’re a good guy.  Bill’s general view was that the answer to any issue should come down to the evidence. 

I never met anyone who believed more in the law than Bill.  It is no surprise that many of you here today are attorneys, and Bill was profoundly grateful for the work each of you did on his behalf.  One of the things that particularly scared Bill was the Trump administration’s concerted effort to change bedrock environmental laws.  Sometimes bedrock isn’t as solid as you thought it was. 

For the first eight years or so that I worked for Bill, I didn’t really talk with him very much.  He made me show up at the Delta flow criteria workshops in 2010, after I had convinced him they were worth the effort despite the fact that they weren’t going to lead to a final decision.  But mostly, I went my way and he went his.  

Bill and I started talking a lot more in 2014 when the big drought hit.  We had to show up at the Water Board four or five times in a few months to defend weak Delta water quality standards from being made weaker still.  Bill recruited me to draft comments and pull multiple materials and documents together, and he decided I was good enough to do that.  Bill was a very good writer, but he was happy to have someone else do the editorial and administrative grunt work.  One of Bill’s first pieces of advice to me about writing was the phrase “simple declarative sentences.”  In the last few years of Bill’s advocacy, it was I who was shortening his sentences and paragraphs.  He, and others, taught me well. 

By the end of 2015, Bill was having problems getting around such that he really didn’t want to come to Sacramento.  So he’d write a speech the night before a Board meeting, send it to me late at night, and ask me to go before the Board and read it.  Now Bill was a wonderful speaker, but a lot of that had to do with his delivery and his persona, and asking me to read his speeches just wasn’t me or him.  So I’d sometimes change things around a little.  And sure enough, as soon as I’d get done, my cell phone would ring and he’d tell me what I didn’t say.  One day I finally told him that if he had to have it as written, he was going to have to come to Sacramento and say it himself.  After that, we reached détente. 

This of course was all before the days of Zoom and Covid.  Bill was glued to the live video of many Water Board meetings, and I showed up to speak at quite a few.  I learned that about the highest praise I could get from Bill was that I did okay.  Then Bill would spend ten minutes talking about the wonderful speeches of Gary Bobker or Doug Obegi. 

After about 2014, Bill and I also started chatting more on the phone.  In part, it was during weekly calls with Bill, our treasurer Cindy, and our webmaster Denise about the CSPA website and such.  Those calls often digressed.  But I also had more calls about current events or basketball or jazz.  After CSPA President Jim Crenshaw died very unexpectedly in late 2019, my calls with Bill became more frequent. 

Bill was going strong on the work front right up to the day of his auto accident in late June, 2021.  He was staying up till 1 or 2 in the morning writing and researching, and sending out emails, to be sure we got everything in our submittals just right. 

With the accident, it all changed.  Overnight, emails went to near zero.  The fight had pretty well gone out of him.  It was shocking.  And it was immensely sad.  Though the immediate injuries did not seem particularly bad, Bill just never got better.  And after a while, he seemed to stop trying to get better.  The isolation from the age of Covid made the situation way, way worse. 

Kathy Keeling and Dave Fries stepped in so much and kept Bill going for so long.  Eventually they just passed the limits of their ability to help.  When Bill went to an assisted living facility in September 2022, he didn’t even take a computer.  He was past the point of wanting to learn more about using his cell phone.  Covid, on top of all his underlying health problems, caught up with Bill that December.  He never made it home from his “temporary” stay in assisted living.  

Bill was a real aficionado of jazz, and had an impressive collection of jazz CDs.  Near the end of his life, he had several jazz stations dialed up on his computer, and he mostly relied on those.  Austin and outlaw country music sometimes speaks to me in the way jazz spoke to Bill, and I have found myself remembering, before and after Bill’s death, the words of a tune from Willie Nelson and Merle Haggard that says, “we’d’ve taken better care of ourselves if we’d know we were going to live this long.”  I wish Bill had taken better care of himself.  I wish he hadn’t lived the last years of his life so often alone. 

So remember Bill Jennings and the amazing work he did.  Remember his kindness and the profoundness of his concern and his love for humanity, for this earth, for the natural world, and for this Delta.  Remember his dedication and his dauntless work ethic.  And take care of yourselves and each other.  

The most important thing to Bill was that his life’s work in CSPA would continue.  It will continue, and it will continue to cover the breadth of work Bill directed.  It is also making sure there are people to follow who have the knowledge and skills to make it even more effective than it has been to date.

Thank you everyone.  Please stay and talk.  It’s a smallish but very interesting group of people gathered here today.  Those include CSPA staff Sarah Vardaro and Angelina Cook.  They also include CSPA Treasurer Cindy Charles and CSPA webmaster Denise Zitnik.  And they include CSPA Board members Richard Izmirian, Dave Fries, Deirdre des Jardins, and Richard McHenry, as well as Mike Jackson.  Please introduce yourselves to these people as you find them.  

I hope today brings you strong and warm memories of Bill.  Bill would probably say that it was okay, but that my description of some of Bill’s actions and adventures would have been better if Gary Bobker had done it. 

 

 

  

Posted in Water Quality | Comments Off on Celebrating the Life and Achievements of Bill Jennings

PRESS RELEASE: Groups and Tribe Urge Regulators to Control Toxic Pollution from Selenium

PRESS RELEASE April 3, 2024

In an April 1, 2024 letter to three water boards, fishing and conservation groups and a Tribe have urged regulators to control recently measured excess levels of selenium in Mud Slough. Mud Slough drains selenium-impaired land on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley into the San Joaquin River and ultimately San Francisco Bay. Selenium is known to cause reproductive failure, deformities, and death in fish and waterfowl.

“Our groups have spent over a decade at the water boards and in court trying to bring runoff from Mud Slough into compliance with water quality standards,” said Chris Shutes, Executive Director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance. “Past selenium discharges accumulated in downstream waters, impacting fish and causing deformities. The water boards need to act to protect fish and wildlife from this toxic pollutant.”

Previous action by the water boards limited discharges of water from Mud Slough to San Joaquin Valley wildlife refuges. It required the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority to instead supply the refuges with better quality groundwater. However, a new plan would resume delivery of water from Mud Slough to the refuges. Considering the history of waterfowl deformities in San Joaquin Valley refuges due to selenium contamination, the proposed change in source water is particularly alarming.

San Joaquin Valley wildlife refuges are part of the Pacific Flyway. Birds that stop in these refuges migrate as far away as Alaska.

The letter cites to a 2018 study which found that selenium deformed Sacramento splittail, a native fish, in the San Joaquin River. It calls on regulators to strengthen the standards for selenium pollution, beginning with a wet-year monitoring program of splittail funded by the Water Authority.

More broadly, the letter calls on the board to enforce existing protective standards for wetlands and to adopt more protective standards consistent with the findings of the Environmental Protection Agency of what is necessary to protect fish and wildlife.

Posted in Press Release, Water Quality | Comments Off on PRESS RELEASE: Groups and Tribe Urge Regulators to Control Toxic Pollution from Selenium

Superior Court Upholds State Board’s Plan to Increase Flows on San Joaquin River but Denies Claims Flows are Inadequate to Protect Fish

In December 2018 the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) adopted updates to the Bay-Delta Plan (Plan) in accordance with its obligations under the Porter-Cologne Act. The updated Plan included flow objectives intended to restore and protect Chinook salmon and Central Valley steelhead in the lower San Joaquin River and its tributaries.

Twelve lawsuits and 116 claims were filed challenging the State Board’s updated Plan. On March 15, 2024, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Stephen Acquisto rejected all lawsuits and claims.

To some degree the court’s decision is a win for California’s fisheries, but the decision also affirmed the discretionary right of the State Board to keep less water in rivers than needed to restore fisheries and aquatic ecosystems.

Why the State Board was Sued

The court ruling for this case is 161 pages long and the details of claims made by petitioners are complex. In the most simple terms, protestants filed lawsuits to challenge the flow objectives proposed by the State Board in its 2018 update to the Bay-Delta Plan.

Several water districts including Westlands Water District and Merced Irrigation District filed lawsuits against the State Board arguing that the flow objectives in the 2018 update to the Plan are arbitrary and as such violate the Porter-Cologne Act. The ruling states that petitioners representing municipal and agricultural interests claimed that the flow objectives required “too much water to be released…without leaving enough for agricultural and municipal uses.”

Several environmental groups including San Francisco Baykeeper and the Bay Institute also challenged the State Board’s updated Plan in court. In their view, the prescribed flow objectives for the San Joaquin, Merced, Tuolumne, and Stanislaus Rivers do not go far enough to protect fish.

Bay-Delta Plan Background

California’s Porter-Cologne Act and the federal Clean Water Act require the State Board to create a water quality control plan for the Bay-Delta. The plan must identify beneficial uses of water in the Bay-Delta. The plan must also establish and implement flow objectives to protect those beneficial uses.

The State Board is supposed to review the Bay-Delta Plan every three years. This review includes water quality standards, notably, flow into and out of the Delta. However, the State Board last established flow objectives for the San Joaquin River in its 1995 update to the Bay-Delta Plan. In a 2010 report, the State Board acknowledged that Bay-Delta inflows and outflows are insufficient to support native fish populations.

To address the decline of fish populations the State Board reassessed the Bay-Delta Plan’s flow objectives for the lower San Joaquin River in its 2018 update. The State Board proposed new flow objectives to sustain “inflow conditions from the San Joaquin River watershed to the Delta at Vernalis sufficient to support and maintain the natural production of viable native San Joaquin River watershed fish populations migrating through the Delta.”

The State Board proposed 40% of unimpaired flow with an adaptive range between 30-50% from the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced rivers from February through June. Unimpaired flow refers to the amount of water that would naturally flow in a river in the absence of dams and diversions. The State Board also proposed that from February through June the flow at Vernalis, the San Joaquin River’s confluence with the Stanislaus River, should be no lower than 1,000 cubic feet per second (cfs).

The Problem with the State Board’s Flow Objectives

Stockton East Water District, a protestant in the lawsuit, claims that the State Board “violated the Porter-Cologne Act by erroneously determining that the LSJR [lower San Joaquin River] flow objectives are necessary to provide protection for the LSJR salmon population.” Stockton East Water District went as far as to claim that there is no substantial evidence on the record that shows a significant decline in the salmon population.

The court denied this claim, stating that “there is abundant scientific evidence in the record showing that decreased flows caused by rim dams and reservoir operations have caused a significant decline in the LSJR [Lower San Joaquin River] salmon population.”

San Francisco Baykeeper claimed that the 40% unimpaired flow objective and 1000 cfs minimum at Vernalis, is insufficient to restore and maintain native fish populations. San Francisco Baykeeper points to multiple scientific studies that show “unimpaired flows of 50% to 60% are the minimum necessary to reestablish and sustain fish and wildlife uses.” California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) agrees with this assessment and campaigned for flow objectives consistent with those advocated by SF Baykeeper.

The court also agreed that unimpaired flows of 50% or 60% would better protect native fish in the Lower San Joaquin River. However the court’s ruling determined that the Porter-Cologne Act does not require the State Board to best protect fish, but to reasonably protect fish. The court ruled that 40% unimpaired flow in the Lower San Joaquin River is sufficient to reasonably protect native fish.

How this Ruling Impacts CSPA’s Campaign to Restore Fisheries

To some degree Judge Acquisto’s decision is thus a win for California’s fisheries. The decision upholds the authority of the State Board to limit diversions from the San Joaquin River and its tributaries to protect native fish species. It affirms the use of a percent of unimpaired flow as a reasonable basis for flow objectives (requirements).

However, the decision affirmed the State Board’s discretion to keep flow requirements lower than the flows needed to recover fish and aquatic ecosystems. This part of the decision is extremely concerning, as the State Board now faces proposed “voluntary agreements” that would allow even lower flows throughout the Central Valley. The purpose of the Voluntary Agreements is to replace enforceable protective flows with voluntary and non-flow measures.

CSPA was involved with this lawsuit for some time, but was forced to cease involvement due to procedural matters. CSPA is, however, deeply involved in negotiating better conditions for fish with the State Board as it prepares its next update to the Bay-Delta Plan. CSPA also continues to participate in other legal and regulatory proceedings to secure flows to protect fisheries in the San Joaquin River and its tributaries.

 

Posted in California Delta, State Board Bay-Delta Standards | Comments Off on Superior Court Upholds State Board’s Plan to Increase Flows on San Joaquin River but Denies Claims Flows are Inadequate to Protect Fish

Memorial for Bill Jennings: April 7, 2024

Join CSPA in celebrating the life and achievements of Bill Jennings, our longtime leader who passed away on December 27, 2022.

Bill was chairman of CSPA’s board of directors since 1988 and its executive director since 2005. Bill’s unique legacy of protecting California fisheries, habitat, and water quality will endure for many years to come.

A BBQ Lunch will be provided at the memorial. When you register please indicate if you will be joining us for lunch.

Location
Wimpy’s Marina Restaurant, Bar & RV Park
14001 W Walnut Grove Rd, Walnut Grove, 95690

Date & time
Apr 7, 2024
10:00am

Register
Register online by clicking this link
or email Sarah Vardaro at sarah@calsport.org.

Posted in Bill Jennings | Comments Off on Memorial for Bill Jennings: April 7, 2024

Department of Water Resources Gets a Free Pass: CSPA Asks State Water Resources Control Board to Follow its Own Rules

On March 15, 2024, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) and allies submitted a letter to the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) requesting that it resolve the protests of CSPA and others of a petition for extension of time submitted by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in 2009. 

CSPA submitted this letter because the State Board issued notice of DWR’s recent change in point of diversion petition for the Delta Conveyance Project (proposed Delta tunnel) without resolving protests made by CSPA and allies in 2010 regarding the same water rights. 

DWR must be subject to the same laws and procedures as other water rights holders in the Bay-Delta watershed.

Background of DWR’s Petition for Extension 

DWR was required to put water under permits associated with the State Water Project to full beneficial use by December 31, 2009. On the day of the deadline, DWR filed a petition for extension of time. 

On October 13, 2010, CSPA and allies filed a timely protest of DWR’s petition for extension of time with the State Board. CSPA’s protest stated that DWR had not made an accounting of water used under each of its water rights. CSPA further stated that in order to store more water in one year in Oroville Reservoir than DWR had done in the past, DWR would have to draw down the reservoir so far that it would harm fish. 

Today, almost 14 years later, the State Board has not acted on DWR’s petition for extension of time, and CSPA’s protest remains unresolved. 

On June 6 and July 7, 2023, CSPA and allies submitted letters to the State Board regarding their unresolved protests. In these letters CSPA and allies requested that the State Board “clarify the status of DWR’s permits” and assign DWR’s 2009 petition to the Administrative Hearings Office (AHO) for resolution.  The State Board has not responded to these requests. 

On February 22, 2024, DWR filed a petition for change in point of diversion for the proposed Delta Conveyance Project. The State Board issued a notice of that petition just seven days later and gave protestants a mere 60 days to file protests against that new petition. 

State Board Must Follow the Rules

In Water Rights Order WR 2008-045, the State Board described the rules regarding petitions for extension of time: 

The Board’s regulations provide that the Board will grant a petition for an extension of time only upon such conditions as the Board determines to be in the public interest, and only upon a showing that (1) due diligence has been exercised, (2) failure to comply with previous time requirements was caused by obstacles which could not reasonably be avoided, and (3) satisfactory progress will be made if an extension is granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 844.)

The State Water Board has not held DWR’s petition for extension of time to these requirements. 

CSPA and allies conclude in their March 15 letter that the State Board’s “proposed ordering of proceedings is inconsistent with the water rights statutory scheme, implementing regulations, case law, and SWRCB [State Board] Orders in other water rights proceedings.”

DWR’s petition for change in point of diversion for the proposed Delta tunnel should not proceed until the 2010 protests submitted by CSPA and allies are resolved. 

Posted in No Tunnels Campaign, State Board Bay-Delta Standards | Comments Off on Department of Water Resources Gets a Free Pass: CSPA Asks State Water Resources Control Board to Follow its Own Rules

Show Time: DWR Files Petition to Change Water Rights for Delta Tunnel Despite Pending Lawsuit and Widespread Opposition

On February 22, 2024, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) submitted a water rights petition for change in point of diversion to the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) for the Delta Conveyance Project also known as the Delta tunnel.

DWR submitted this petition despite broad opposition to the project from environmental advocacy groups, environmental justice groups, Native American tribes, and Delta cities and counties. CSPA opposes the Delta Conveyance Project  primarily because it would divert more water away from the Bay-Delta, and thus have a detrimental effect on Delta water quality, the Bay-Delta ecosystem generally, and Delta fisheries in particular. CSPA opposed previous incarnations of the Delta Conveyance Project for the same reason.

In the petition, DWR proposes new points of diversion that include two intakes on the Sacramento River between its confluence with Sutter Slough and Freeport. These intakes would each have a maximum capacity of 3000 cubic feet of water per second (cfs).

Fisheries at Risk

Fish in the Delta need increased flows to survive and thrive. For six consecutive years, the Department of Fish and Wildlife found zero Delta smelt in its surveys of the Delta. Longfin smelt have also declined by 99.96%, American shad by 67.9%, splittail by 100%, and threadfin shad by 95%. 

Last year, due to historically low Chinook salmon populations, the California Fish and Game Commission closed recreational salmon fishing in the ocean off California and Central Valley rivers. CSPA has also petitioned the federal and state government to list California’s white sturgeon as “threatened” under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts. 

These species are in decline because too much water is being diverted from the Delta’s tributaries for urban and agricultural use, primarily in southern parts of the state. 

In the face of this ecological crisis, DWR and the Newsom Administration continue to pursue the Delta Conveyance Project, which would divert more water away from the Delta. 

Background of CSPA’s Opposition to the Delta Conveyance Project

In 2020, CSPA and others opposed a “validation” action by DWR to fund the Delta Conveyance Project. In January 2024, a superior court judge ruled against DWR in this matter. This means that DWR has no way to fund its project for the moment. It is likely that the Newsom Administration will try to pass a new law that voids the court’s ruling.

On December 8, 2023, DWR published a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Delta Conveyance Project and later approved the project by filing a Notice of Determination. 

In January, CSPA joined a lawsuit against DWR. CSPA and its allies sued DWR on the grounds that the Final Environmental Impact Report does not adequately consider the project’s potential negative impact on water quality, fish, and wildlife. It does not say how the project and upstream reservoirs would operate and does not propose flows for the Delta as required by law. 

The Choice Between Fisheries and the Delta Conveyance Project

In its recently released “Salmon Strategy,” the Newsom Administration stated its goals are to “recover salmon in this state across their range … while also reducing the risk of extinction”. Reaching these goals “will require abundant, healthy populations of salmon that return to California’s rivers each year.” 

The Newsom Administration cannot have it both ways. Chinook salmon and other species of native fish in the Bay-Delta need increased flows to survive. The Delta tunnel will reduce inflow and outflow in the Bay-Delta. 

The State Board has a legal mandate under California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act to protect beneficial uses of water within the Bay-Delta. If the State Board acts in accordance with its legal mandates, it will deny DWR’s petition for change in point of diversion. 

CSPA will continue its campaign to stop the Delta tunnel by presenting testimony and through legal participation in the State Board’s water rights hearing for the petition, which will likely start near the end of 2024.

You can help CSPA defeat the Delta tunnel by donating to our No Delta Tunnel campaign today. 

Posted in California Delta, No Tunnels Campaign, Water Rights | Comments Off on Show Time: DWR Files Petition to Change Water Rights for Delta Tunnel Despite Pending Lawsuit and Widespread Opposition