State Water Board adopts order for Marble Mountain Ranch; requires diversion controls and compliance plan

The State Water Resources Control Board on Feb. 4 adopted a proposed order in an enforcement proceeding against Marble Mountain Ranch, directing the ranch to install diversion control(s), limit diversions to amounts reasonably needed for beneficial use, and submit a compliance plan for review by the Division of Water Rights.

The order, prepared by the Administrative Hearings Office, responds to allegations that long‑standing methods of diversion and hydropower operations at the ranch were contributing to dewatering and water‑quality problems in Stanshaw Creek, a tributary to the Klamath River that provides seasonal cold‑water refuge for coho salmon. "I'm Sam Bivens with the Administrative Hearings Office," the hearing officer said while presenting the proposed order to the board.

Board members adopted the proposed order with a change sheet (Change Sheet No. 1). The board recorded a roll‑call vote and the order passed unanimously: Maguire — Aye; Firestone — Aye; Morgan — Aye; Vice Chair D'Adamo — Aye; Chair Joaquin Esquivel — Aye. The adopted order does not quantify a single bypass flow for the anadromous reach but requires the respondent to limit diversions to reasonable beneficial use, install a diversion control capable of limiting diversion accordingly, and return non‑consumptive water to Stanshaw Creek above the anadromous reach when the hydropower operation diverts water.

Why this matters: Stanshaw Creek provides thermal refuge and habitat in a portion of the Klamath system used by listed coho salmon, and the case drew tribal, conservation and agency participation. Parties and commenters debated whether the order should require a specific bypass flow — the National Marine Fisheries Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife had recommended a 90% unimpaired bypass in the anadromous reach (and a 2 cfs minimum in non‑anadromous reaches). The Administrative Hearings Office recommended against imposing a 90% bypass in this proceeding, citing the evidentiary record and rule‑of‑priority constraints (the presence of junior diverters not before the board), and concluded the existing record does not support adoption of a specific bypass flow at this stage.

Key directives in the adopted order include: - Install a diversion‑control mechanism capable of limiting diversions to the amount reasonably needed for beneficial use and provide measurement information as required by the State Water Board's measurement regulations (alternative compliance options may be considered where site conditions make installation difficult). - Water not put to consumptive use must be returned to Stanshaw Creek above the anadromous reach rather than being discharged to Irving Creek. - Respondents must prepare and submit a compliance plan with a schedule and engineering details for how they will meet the order; disputes about the plan may be resolved by the deputy director for the Division of Water Rights.

What the order does not do: It does not validate or quantify the respondents' asserted pre‑1914 water right amount; the order treats reasonableness of use and method of diversion as the enforcement issue. It also stops short of imposing the 90% bypass recommendation, finding that the current evidentiary record and the procedural posture do not support that particular remedy in this proceeding.

Reaction and next steps: Prosecution counsel told the board the regulations for measurement and diversion control apply generally and that alternative compliance approaches exist for difficult sites. Respondent counsel and other participants emphasized site‑specific constraints (steep creek channel, flashy flows, wildfire and erosion hazards) and the ranch's recent investment in solar power to reduce its reliance on hydropower. Several local residents, tribal representatives and conservation groups urged stronger bypass protections and piping of the diversion ditch to reduce conveyance losses and sediment delivery.

The board adopted the order and directed implementation through the Division of Water Rights and the Office of Enforcement; the compliance plan process will establish technical steps and permits needed to meet the order's requirements. The board and staff indicated they expect ongoing coordination with other permitting agencies (CDFW, regional water boards) as plan implementation proceeds.