North Coast

Juvenile salmonids traverse coastal meta-nurseries that connect rivers via the sea

Ecological Society of America (ESA) | April 30th, 2025

Conventionally, juvenile salmonids are thought to migrate unidirectionally from freshwater systems to marine systems and therefore only inhabit natal drainages. Although

Conventionally, juvenile salmonids are thought to migrate unidirectionally from freshwater systems to marine systems and therefore only inhabit natal drainages. Although scattered evidence suggests juveniles can move bidirectionally between freshwater rivers and the ocean, including into non-natal drainages, such movements have never been documented with high replication. Here, we detected hundreds of movements of juvenile salmonids between drainages that involved 0–22% of cohort emigrants in Washington State and California. Individuals moved up to nine times and between drainages up to 70 km apart. These findings reveal a life-history type of salmonids whose remarkably complex migrations have gone unnoticed. Implicitly, juveniles may use any coastal freshwater habitat accessible from the sea and may not descend from spawning populations of drainages they inhabit. Consequently, typical conservation focused on natal drainages may overlook freshwater habitat elsewhere. A concept of coastal areas as meta-nurseries formed by multiple watersheds connected by the sea may accurately describe anadromous species’ habitat options and better inform management.

Klamath Basin Settlement Agreements

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | October 21st, 2015

The Klamath River Basin on the California-Oregon border is a focal point for local and national discussions on water allocation and species protection. Previously, water

The Klamath River Basin on the California-Oregon border is a focal point for local and national discussions on water allocation and species protection. Previously, water and species management issues have exacerbated competition and generated conflict among several interests—farmers; Indian tribes; commercial and sport fishermen; federal water project and wildlife refuge managers; environmental groups; hydropower facility operators; and state, local, and tribal governments. Drought conditions and a call for water by senior water rights holders in 2013 have again brought these issues to the forefront. In 2010, the Secretary of the Interior and the governors of Oregon and California, along with multiple interest groups, announced the results of a multiyear negotiation process to resolve long-standing issues in the basin: two interrelated agreements, supported by the federal government and signed by the two states and numerous other parties. These agreements, known as the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), together aim to provide for water deliveries to irrigators and wildlife refuges, fish habitat restoration, and numerous other related actions. Generally, the KBRA provides for actions intended to restore Klamath fisheries and for assurances for water deliveries to wildlife refuges and federal project irrigators under certain circumstances, among other things. The KHSA lays out a process that could lead to the removal of four privately owned dams on the Klamath River. This dam removal would be one of the largest and most complex projects of its kind ever undertaken. Some parts of the Klamath agreements are being carried out under existing authorities. Studies to inform a determination on dam removal under the KHSA by the Secretary of the Interior are complete, and some restoration actions have been initiated. However, congressional authorization is required for the most significant components of the agreements to be implemented. The KBRA and KHSA did not address all outstanding issues in the basin. A water rights adjudication by the state of Oregon (in progress since the 1970s) is ongoing. In 2013, the adjudication reaffirmed “time immemorial” tribal water rights in the upper part of the Klamath Basin, confirming that tribal water rights are senior to those of other water rights holders. This resulted in a “call” on water rights (i.e., notice by senior water rights holders that their demands exceed available flows), and led to reductions to water supplies for some junior users during the low water year of 2013. To resolve these issues and prevent such a scenario from occurring again, a separate settlement agreement (the Upper Klamath Basin Settlement Agreement) was negotiated by stakeholders and finalized in April 2014. To be implemented, the agreement would need to be authorized along with the KBRA and KHSA. The KBRA and KHSA were originally set to expire in 2012 if no authorizing legislation was enacted, but they have since been extended (most recently through 2015). Parties may also withdraw individually from the agreements, and several parties initiated this process of withdrawal. In the 114th Congress, S. 133 would authorize the Klamath agreements, including a suite of new federal actions that have received support from disparate parties and are required for the agreements to be implemented. Previous legislation in the 113th Congress (S. 2379) was ordered to be reported out of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on November 13, 2014.

Klamath River Basin Issues: An Overview of Water Use Conflicts

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | June 13th, 2002

Severe drought in 2001 affected the Klamath River Basin, an area on the California-Oregon border, exacerbating competition for scarce water resources and generating confl

Severe drought in 2001 affected the Klamath River Basin, an area on the California-Oregon border, exacerbating competition for scarce water resources and generating conflict among several interests – farmers, municipal and industrial users, commercial and sport fishermen, other recreationists, federal wildlife refuges, environmental groups, and Indian Tribes. The conflicts over water distribution and allocation are physically and legally complex, reflecting the varied and sometimes competing uses of limited water supplies in the Upper Basin. On April 6, 2001, the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau), which has supplied water to farms in the Upper Basin for nearly 100 years, announced that “no water [would] be available” for farms normally receiving water from the Upper Klamath Lake, so that scarce water could be used to protect species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Water was available to some farmers from other sources (e.g., wells and other Bureau sources); however, many farmers were not able to plant or harvest crops due to severe cutbacks in water supplies. Emotions ran high on all sides of the issues, and the water control gates were unlawfully opened by protesters. Although the Basin has received significantly more precipitation in 2002, many issues remain in dispute. In addition, several judicial decisions have affected the issues with respect to the listed species as well as tribal rights. On May 31, 2002, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service both issued Final Biological Opinions on the Bureau’s 10-year Operation Plan for the Klamath Project. The agencies found that the Bureau’s proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the two listed suckers and coho salmon, as well as result in the adverse modification of proposed critical habitat; however, both Opinions also included “reasonable and prudent alternatives” for operating the Project that would remove the jeopardizing effects of the proposed action. However, on June 3, 2002, the Bureau formally rejected both Final Biological Opinions, but opted instead to operate under a one-year plan that it asserts complies with the Opinions. Independently, in March 2002, the President appointed a high-level working group to develop solutions. Congress has responded to the controversy in a number of ways, including holding several oversight hearings and appropriating funds for water conservation activities in the area. This report provides background on the geographic, historic, and legal underpinnings of the current conflicts. Because the report focuses on the current conflicts, it deals primarily with Klamath Project operations in the Upper Klamath Basin and effects associated with water releases from Upper Klamath Lake.

Klamath/San Joaquin/Sacramento Hydroclimatic Reconstructions from Tree Rings

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | February 7th, 2014

This is a draft final report for Agreement Number 4600008850, “Klamath/San Joaquin/Sacramento Hydroclimatic Reconstructions”, signed October 13, 2010.  Work includes

This is a draft final report for Agreement Number 4600008850, “Klamath/San Joaquin/Sacramento Hydroclimatic Reconstructions”, signed October 13, 2010.  Work includes developing new and updated tree-ring chronologies, reconstructing specified streamflow and/or precipitation records in the Klamath, San Joaquin and Sacramento River Basins, and analyzing the time series properties of the reconstructions. These reconstructions allow assessment of hydrologic variability over centuries to millennia and give context for assessing recent drought events. Tasks on this project included field collections; laboratory work in sample preparation, dating and measurement; and statistical work in chronology development, reconstruction, and analysis of those reconstructions. The interpretation of the reconstructions includes five main components : 1) place instrumental-period flow statistics in a long-term context, 2) quantify droughts and wet periods, 3) identify cycles in wetness and dryness, 4) check consistency with other paleoclimatic data, and 5) assess reconstructed flow variations in the context of expected scenarios of climate. A total of 16 different hydroclimatic series – 11 flow records and 5 precipitation records, were reconstructed. This report summarizes the research project products and results. The Data and Methods section of this report describes the field collections and development of tree-ring chronologies, reconstruction modeling, and methods of analyzing reconstructions. The Results section focuses on the interpretation of selected key reconstructions for the Klamath, Sacramento, and San Joaquin basins. Annual time series of the 16 reconstructions are included as products in an appendix and in a digital spreadsheet.

LandFlex Grant Program Guidelines

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | January 14th, 2023

The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) is administering the LandFlex Grant Program (LandFlex) through DWR’s Sustainable Groundwater Management (SGM) Grant P

The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) is administering the LandFlex Grant Program (LandFlex) through DWR’s Sustainable Groundwater Management (SGM) Grant Program. LandFlex (referred to as Ag Drought Relief) will award funds authorized by the California Budget Act of 2021 (Stats. 2021, ch. 44, § 25). This document contains DWR’s Guidelines and scoring criteria (Guidelines) for LandFlex. Climate change means that California needs to plan for a hotter, drier future. Long-term drought, fueled by climate change, has adversely affected the State’s water supplies, which includes groundwater availbility. In response to the Governor’s California’s Water Supply Strategy, Adapting to a Hotter, Drier Future, DWR will launch the LandFlex Program as a new and innovative tool to protect vulnerable drinking water wells. LandFlex will provide incentives to farmers to limit groundwater pumping in areas near communities reliant on vulnerable drinking water wells before they go dry. LandFlex combines traditional short-term fallowing incentives with the elimination of long-term unsustainable groundwater pumping, a unique approach to groundwater resilience. LandFlex is a program that will provide $25 million in block grants to local government agencies to grant to farmers who limit agricultural water use. Local government agencies will work directly with farmers in critically overdrafted (COD) basins (as identified in Bulletin 118) to identify lands that would reduce pumping impacts to nearby drinking water wells. Through financial incentives to farmers, LandFlex will provide multiple community benefits such as drinking water well relief, groundwater overdraft prevention, and climate resilience.

Landflex Grant Program Guidelines (revised)

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | October 31st, 2024

Lessons from California’s 2012–2016 Drought

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) | October 1st, 2018

California’s 5-year drought has ended, even as its aftermath lingers. From 2012–2016 much or all of California was under severe drought conditions, with gre

California’s 5-year drought has ended, even as its aftermath lingers. From 2012–2016 much or all of California was under severe drought conditions, with greatly diminished precipitation, snowpack, and streamflow and higher temperatures. Water shortages to forests, aquatic ecosystems, hydroelectric power plants, rural drinking water supplies, agriculture, and cities caused billions of dollars in economic losses, killed millions of forest trees, brought several fish species closer to extinction, and caused inconvenience and some expense to millions of households and businesses. The drought also brought innovations and improvements in water management, some of which will better prepare California for future droughts. This paper summarizes the magnitude and impacts of the 2012–2016 California drought. The paper then reviews innovations arising from the drought in the larger historical context of water management in California. Lessons for California and for modern drought management are then discussed. Droughts in modern, well-managed water systems serving globalized economies need not be economically catastrophic, but will always have impacts and challenges, particularly for native ecosystems. In California and every other water system, droughts usefully expose weaknesses and inadequate preparation in water management. In this regard for California, managers of ecosystems and small rural water supplies had the most to learn.

Light v. State Water Resources Control Board

Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate District | July 11th, 2014

Linked fire activity and climate whiplash in California during the early Holocene

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | November 23rd, 2022

Recent wildfire activity in semi-arid regions like western North America exceeds the range of historical records. High-resolution paleoclimate archives such as stalagmi

Recent wildfire activity in semi-arid regions like western North America exceeds the range of historical records. High-resolution paleoclimate archives such as stalagmites could illuminate the link between hydroclimate, vegetation change, and fire activity in pre-anthropogenic climate states beyond the timescale of existing tree-ring records. Here we present an analysis of levoglucosan, a combustion-sensitive anhydrosugar, and lignin oxidation products (LOPs) in a stalagmite, reconstructing fire activity and vegetation composition in the California Coast Range across the 8.2 kyr event. Elevated levoglucosan concentrations suggest increased fire activity while altered LOP compositions indicate a shift toward more woody vegetation during the event. These changes are concurrent with increased hydroclimate volatility as shown by carbon and calcium isotope proxies. Together, these records suggest that climate whiplash (oscillations between extreme wetness and aridity) and fire activity in California, both projected to increase with anthropogenic climate change, were tightly coupled during the early Holocene.

Linking variation in water democracy to system performance on the human right to water

Springer Nature | October 8th, 2025