State Water Board readopts emergency regulation for Scott and Shasta rivers, adds limited flexibility for short-term tests

The State Water Resources Control Board on Tuesday readopted an emergency regulation intended to maintain minimum in‑stream flows in the Scott and Shasta River watersheds and preserve critical habitat for salmonids, adopting change sheet No. 1 to allow limited, short-term evaluation of alternative flows in the Shasta Canyon and to add flexibility for groundwater metering and local cooperative solutions.

Board Chair Joaquin Esquivel and four board members voted in favor of the regulation following a multi-hour presentation by Division of Water Rights staff and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), public comment from tribal, fishing and agricultural representatives, and extended board discussion. The board directed staff to submit the regulation package to the Office of Administrative Law for a standard 10‑day review, after which the regulation would take effect following OAL approval and filing with the Secretary of State (anticipated in January 2025).

The regulation is the readoption of an emergency rule first adopted Feb. 1, 2024, and is designed to (a) establish minimum in‑stream flow requirements, (b) provide authority to curtail diversions to meet those minima, and (c) continue the groundwater local cooperative solution (LCS) program that allowed some irrigators to reduce groundwater diversions in exchange for conservation measures. Staff said no formal alternatives to readoption were submitted during the public comment period; the regulation being readopted incorporates revisions recommended after outreach held in November 2024.

Staff and CDFW presentations and why they matter Philip Dutton, supervising engineer and program manager in the Board’s Division of Water Rights, summarized hydrologic indicators and implementation experience under the emergency regulation. Dutton reported that on the morning of Jan. 5 the U.S. Geological Survey gauge at Fort Jones on the Scott River was reporting 2,390 cubic feet per second (cfs) and the Yreka gauge on the Shasta River was reporting 393 cfs. Staff stated those flows are above certain minimum flow requirements they track for other compliance points (staff attributed 200 cfs for the Scott and 125 cfs for the Shasta at the gauges cited), while cautioning that snowpack and midwinter high flows are not reliable indicators of summer availability.

CDFW Klamath Watershed Program supervisor Crystal Robinson told the board that fisheries returns remain well below historic means: preliminary counts included roughly 599 Chinook in the Scott (below the 1978–2023 mean of 4,758) and 4,944 Chinook in the Shasta (near but below longer‑term means). Robinson described monitoring efforts (video weirs and snorkel surveys) and reported that CDFW considers a minimum of 50 cfs in the Shasta River Canyon during July 1–Sept. 14 as the dry‑year flow recommended by McBain & Trush (2014) and supported by local temperature analyses. She described observed benefits under prior curtailments — higher base flows, improved groundwater levels in Scott Valley, and identified thermal refugia and cold-water seeps used by fish.

What changed in the regulation and staff rationale Staff summarized proposed updates that were adopted as change sheet No. 1. Key revisions include: - Allowing limited flexibility in how groundwater associated with an LCS is metered (metering at a point of application such as a pivot is allowed rather than requiring metering at every well). Weekly metered reporting is proposed instead of daily reporting in some cases; late applications may be accepted with justification. State Water Board staff reiterated that financial assistance for metering equipment remains available. - Clarifying CDFW’s process for determining whether an LCS is “equal or better” than curtailment, and explicitly allowing CDFW to propose alternative flows for limited terms in the Shasta River for evaluation of fishery response. The change sheet removes a two‑week cap that was in the preliminary draft and replaces it with a limited‑time evaluation provision (see discussion below about consent from affected water right holders). - Minor clarifications (continuation of existing curtailment orders and petitions, human‑health-and‑safety exceptions for firefighting, and removal of outdated penalty amounts).

Staff emphasized the emergency regulation has accelerated data sharing, improved understanding of groundwater–stream interactions (Division staff cited increased Scott Valley groundwater levels recorded since 2019), and enabled metering of over 15,000 irrigated acres in Scott Valley during 2024 (staff said this represented more than 85% of groundwater‑irrigated acreage that season, based on proposals they received).

Public comment and stakeholder concerns More than two dozen commenters spoke during the item. Tribal, fishing and environmental groups urged readoption and stressed economic, dietary and cultural harms of fish declines; they called for long‑term minimum flows and broader economic analysis that includes lost fishing and tribal subsistence value. Vivian Hallowell (commercial fishing representative) and others said emergency flows are a necessary backstop and that incremental restoration gains after dam removals could magnify the benefit of in‑stream flows.

Agricultural representatives (Siskiyou County Farm Bureau, California Farm Bureau and local producers) expressed concern about repeated annual reliance on emergency regulations, potential overreach of emergency authority in years with higher precipitation, and the fiscal analyses’ scope. They urged more complete, long‑term regulatory work and raised legal and CEQA concerns about repeated emergency readoptions. Several agricultural speakers also welcomed the programmatic goal of scientific testing in the Shasta Canyon but sought clearer assurances about who would be called on to voluntarily accept higher flows for testing.

Concerns about the LCS and information-for‑water language Multiple commenters and board members pressed staff on two related issues: (1) whether an LCS that proposes reduced extraction in exchange for information is an appropriate substitute for physical water in meeting immediate biological needs, and (2) how to ensure transparency and enforceability of LCS proposals. Staff and CDFW said that the LCS program is evaluated case‑by‑case and that CDFW’s “equal or better” determinations are based on best available science and field evidence (for example, French Creek was cited as a subtributary LCS where negotiated lower flows produced new data and some flow benefits). Staff said the additional language that allows CDFW to consider the value of information from an LCS was intended to recognize fisheries benefits from new monitoring and habitat assessments, not to replace minimum flow needs broadly.

A specific change sheet sentence drew repeated attention: the adopted text allows CDFW to propose alternative flows in the Shasta for limited terms; if an alternative flow is higher than the regulation’s baseline, staff will seek agreement from affected water right holders before implementing that temporary higher flow. Board members and commenters debated whether requiring consent from affected right‑holders would make higher‑flow testing unlikely; several speakers suggested alternative approaches for providing fish agencies operational water to run higher‑flow tests without reducing net water availability.

Fiscal analysis and next steps Staff presented a conservative fiscal estimate of agency costs under three hydrologic scenarios (expected range, extreme drought, above average). The Board estimated costs to state and local agencies of approximately $1,560,000 for the expected range scenario, $2,300,000 for an extreme drought scenario, and $374,000 for an above‑average scenario; staff said a more thorough economic analysis, including costs and benefits to fisheries, tribes and local communities, will follow as directed in the board’s October 16, 2024 resolution.

Formal action and board direction Board member Sean Maguire moved to adopt the resolution readopting the emergency regulation with change sheet No. 1; the motion was seconded by board member Nicole Morgan. A roll call vote recorded unanimous approval: Sean Maguire (aye), Nicole Morgan (aye), Laurel Firestone (aye), Vice Chair Doreen D'Adamo (aye), and Chair Joaquin Esquivel (aye). The board directed staff to submit the finalized regulation record to OAL for review and to continue the October‑directed long‑term work on a scientific basis report and an economic analysis to inform permanent regulation development.

Ending note Board staff and CDFW said they will continue outreach and encouraged stakeholders to submit data and proposals for local cooperative solutions. Board members asked staff to return with a focused informational update in late May or early June 2025 on LCS submittals, gauge status, and any Shasta testing plans so the board and public can monitor implementation before the summer irrigation season.