Issue Paper for the San Joaquin River spring-run Chinook experimental population – Delta impacts

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) | July 23rd, 2013

Just the Facts: Land, Water, and Agriculture in the Colorado River Basin

Babbitt Center for Land and Water Policy (Babbitt Center) | March 1st, 2022

Juvenile Production Estimate (JPE) Calculation and Use/Application of Survival Data from Acoustically-tagged Chinook Salmon Releases Report

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | February 21st, 2014

Each year, NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) estimates the number of juvenile winter-run Chinook salmon expected to enter the Delta. NMFS’ June 4, 2009

Each year, NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) estimates the number of juvenile winter-run Chinook salmon expected to enter the Delta. NMFS’ June 4, 2009, biological and conference opinion on the long-term operation of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project provides an incidental take limit on natural juvenile winter-run based on the juvenile production estimate.

Kern Water Bank: Myth and Reality

Kern Water Bank Authority | September 21st, 2010

A recent lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity claims that the Kern Water Bank was a “ripoff’ that benefited a few large farms in the Central Valley, t

A recent lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity claims that the Kern Water Bank was a “ripoff’ that benefited a few large farms in the Central Valley, to the detriment of the state of California. Numerous media outlets have reported on this lawsuit, reciting almost word for word from the CBD’s press release, despite the fact that the lawsuit has yet to be heard and none of the claims in the lawsuit have been substantiated by a court. The following is the response by the Kern Water Bank Authority to the misinformation and erroneous reporting surrounding the Kern Water Bank and the lawsuit filed by CBD.

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.

Letter from John J. Entsminger, General Manager, Southern Nevada Water Authority, to Debra Haland, Secretary, U.S. Department of Interior

Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) | August 15th, 2022

Letter in support of the Temporary Urgency Change Petition (TUCP)

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | February 19th, 2023

Letter to State Water Board re: Flow Criteria that use Percent of Unimpaired Flow

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | May 22nd, 2012

The proposed use of percent of unimpaired flow is a step toward improving the outlook for fish and other wildlife utilizing the San Joaquin River and its tributaries. Fal

The proposed use of percent of unimpaired flow is a step toward improving the outlook for fish and other wildlife utilizing the San Joaquin River and its tributaries. Fall-run Chinook salmon are likely to benefit from February-through-June flows that are more natural in timing and variability than current flows. Compared with the existing maze of flow standards for the San Joaquin River and its tributaries, unimpaired flow comes closer to approximating natural flow, and it does so more transparently. Caveats include: (1) flow is but one of many stressors affecting fish and wildlife; (2) the choice of flow criteria and metrics needs to serve the broader needs of ecosystems as well as individual species; (3) a chosen percentage of unimpaired flow may fall short of the minimum needed by fish and wildlife in some years; and (4) such critical years are likely to become more common as Sierra Nevada snowpacks diminish as a consequence of climate change. This qualified endorsement is based on our reading of the “Technical Report on the Scientific Basis for Alternative San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Salinity Objectives” (State Water Resources Control Board, February 2012).

Listen to the River: An Independent Review of the CVPIA Fisheries Program

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | December 12th, 2008

In 1992 Congress directed the Department of Interior to develop and implement a program that makes “all reasonable efforts” to ensure and sustain on a long-term basis

In 1992 Congress directed the Department of Interior to develop and implement a program that makes “all reasonable efforts” to ensure and sustain on a long-term basis a doubling of the number of naturally produced anadromous fish in Central Valley rivers and streams by 2002. Doubling did not happen by the legislative goal of 2002, or by 2008, nor is it likely to ever occur unless renewed commitments and improvements are made to the CVPIA program. The specific “doubling” mission itself may make little scientific or policy sense, especially within the time frames demanded. Yet it is also far from clear that the agencies have done what is possible and necessary to improve freshwater conditions to help these species weather environmental variability, halt their decline and begin rebuilding in a sustainable way. A number of the most serious impediments to survival and recovery are not being effectively addressed, especially in terms of the overall design and operation of the Central Valley Project system. Underlying this independent review of the CVPIA anadromous fish program, asked for by the federal agencies, is the question why the CVPIA program has not been successful in achieving its mission. In this report, we identify scientific, institutional and programmatic obstacles to the success of the CVPIA, drawing conclusions from the information provided. Based on these conclusions, we make recommendations to Reclamation and the Service on how these obstacles might be overcome.