Senate committee advances bill to keep minimum flows on Scott and Shasta rivers while permanent rules are developed

Assemblymember Heath (Rogers) presented AB 263 to the California Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee, asking the committee to adopt language that would allow emergency in‑stream flow regulations now applied to the Scott and Shasta rivers to remain in effect for five years or until the State Water Resources Control Board adopts permanent regulations, whichever happens first.

Assemblymember Rogers told the committee the migrations of Chinook and Coho on the Klamath watershed remain under strain from diversions and that emergency rules adopted in 2021 have provided a temporary balance between agricultural water uses and fisheries. "We're not trying to set the permanent regulations," Rogers said, adding the bill is meant to "not undo the progress that's been made over the last few years while DWR promulgates those regulations." He also cited a Department of Finance estimate that trimming annual interim rulemaking could save the state roughly $2 million.

Philp Williams, a member of the Yurok Tribal Council, said his people have gone nine years without a commercial salmon fishery and described salmon as "an integral part of their diet, the center of their life, and the center of their religion." Russell Atterberry (Karuk Tribal Council), who identified himself as "Buster," described fishing and salmon processing as cultural rites of passage and warned of past fish kills tied to low flows and warm temperatures.

Supporters at the microphone included representatives of environmental and conservation organizations who registered "me too" support from Environmental Defense Fund, Audubon California, Sierra Club California, Trout Unlimited and a range of regional keeper groups. They framed the bill as maintaining protections while the state finishes permanent flow rules.

Opponents, led by Alex Bring of the California Farm Bureau, the California Municipal Utilities Association (Andrea Abrugell), Valley Ag Water Coalition (Bob Reeb) and others, said the bill effectively converts an emergency regulation into a long‑term requirement without the Water Board’s full rule‑making process and public engagement. Bring told the committee the bill halted local collaborative negotiations and warned of economic harms in Siskiyou County, citing preliminary estimates from a forthcoming study by Dr. Robert Eiler of Sonoma State that a permanent 10% reduction in water supply could cost roughly 740 jobs in the county.

Members questioned both sides. Senator Laird said the bill "creates that bridge" if a gubernatorial drought proclamation is withdrawn and emphasized that without the bill, the emergency flows would disappear if the drought declaration ends. Laird said he supported advancing the bill despite reservations about using statute to preserve an essentially regulatory stopgap. Members including Senator Grove and Vice Chair Sciarto asked whether the bill would freeze local negotiations and whether additional interim checks or compensation (for example, water leasing programs previously funded by Department of Fish and Wildlife) should be included; sponsors said they were willing to meet with opponents to discuss possible short‑term check‑ins outside the emergency regulation framework.

The committee recorded a motion to pass AB 263 as amended to the Appropriations Committee. The motion was made by Senator Laird and the chair called the roll; the bill was advanced with the roll call recorded and placed on call during the hearing. (See Actions section for formal motion and recorded roll-call.)

Why it matters: The Scott and Shasta rivers are primary tributaries for wild Chinook and Coho in the Klamath watershed; tribal speakers tied river flows to public health, cultural practice and local economies. The bill does not set permanent flows; it keeps current emergency minimums in place while permanent Board rules are completed. Critics said the legislative approach could short‑circuit Water Board rulemaking, reduce adaptive tinkering that annual emergency orders allow, and produce local economic harms if curtailments become permanent without mitigation.

Next steps: The committee voted to pass AB 263 as amended to the Appropriations Committee and placed the item on call during the hearing; sponsors agreed to convene follow‑up meetings with local stakeholders and opponents to discuss potential short‑term checks and mitigation measures.