State Water Board Takes Action to Protect Klamath River Salmon and Steelhead
Stanshaw Creek Diversion 2015 Source: North Coast RWQCB Inspection Report
On February 4, 2025, the California State Water Board issued Water Rights Order WR 2025-0002 settling longstanding disputes regarding the diversion of water from Stanshaw Creek, a tributary of the Klamath River in Siskiyou County.
The Order found waste of water, unreasonable use of water, and unreasonable method of diversion. Implementation of the Order will benefit Klamath River Coho salmon and steelhead by protecting their juvenile rearing and cold-water refuge habitat in the lagoon at the mouth of Stanshaw Creek. The enforcement action will benefit the Karuk Tribe’s rights and culture.
Background
In 2000, the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) and others filed protests of a water rights application of Marble Mountain Ranch (Ranch) to divert water from Stanshaw Creek. CSPA’s protest alleged public trust resource violations and unreasonable use of water and method of diversion. Though the State Water Board later determined that the Ranch was diverting under an existing water right established prior to 1914, the concerns remained. Eventually, the Ranch’s use of water went to hearing before the State Water Board in 2017.
Marble Mountain Ranch diverted so much water from Stanshaw Creek that at times the creek downstream was disconnected from the Klamath River. The Ranch used most of the water it diverted from the creek to operate an old hydroelectric turbine that generated an amount of electricity in excess of what the Ranch required.
Reduced flow in Stanshaw Creek prevented fish from seeking refuge in the lagoon at the mouth of the creek during the summer. Water temperatures in the lagoon were at times too high for juvenile salmon and steelhead, which rear in the creek. Fish were also in danger of being stranded with no way out of the creek.
On August 30, 2016, the State Water Resources Control Board’s Division of Water Rights issued a Draft Order alleging the Ranch’s diversion and use of Stanshaw Creek water violated the California Water Code. The State Water Board held a public hearing in November 2017 about the alleged violations. CSPA participated in the hearing by conducting cross-examination of witnesses and by filing a closing brief. State Water Board and North Coast Regional Water Board staff, the Karuk Tribe, and the National Marine Fisheries Service presented the bulk of the case against the Ranch.
In 2021, the State Water Board reassigned the matter to its Administrative Hearings Office (AHO). After several procedural steps, the AHO issued a draft order. Following comment by parties involved, the AHO issued a final draft order, which the State Water Board approved.
Order WR 2025-0002
Order WR 2025-0002 requires Marble Mountain Ranch to:
(1) Limit diversions to the amount of water reasonably needed for beneficial use;
(2) Install a control mechanism at the point of diversion adequate to limit diversions to the amount needed for reasonable beneficial use;
(3) Measure, monitor, and report the quantity of water it diverts; and
(4) Return any water diverted for non-consumptive use to Stanshaw Creek (rather than to another creek nearby, where the Ranch historically discharged water after generating power).
The Order and its requirements establish important precedent. The State Water Board has historically been very reluctant to exercise its authorities under the doctrine that prohibits waste and unreasonable use of water and unreasonable methods of diversion, as stated in Article X Section 2 of the California Constitution and Section 275 of the California Water Code.
Though outweighed by the positive outcome, there are also some downsides to the Order.
The Order does not find that substantial loss of water in the Ranch’s canal constitutes an unreasonable use of water. This is disappointing. It suggests that in future cases, better quantification of losses would be helpful, as well as an evidence-based recommendation about an appropriate threshold above which the Board should consider conveyance losses to be unreasonable.
Though outweighed by the positive outcome, there are also some downsides to the Order.
The Order does not find that substantial loss of water in the Ranch’s canal constitutes an unreasonable use of water. This is disappointing. It suggests that in future cases, better quantification of losses would be helpful, as well as an evidence-based recommendation about an appropriate threshold above which the Board should consider conveyance losses to be unreasonable.
The Order also does not mandate a specific bypass flow requirement at the Ranch’s point of diversion. This too is disappointing. It relies on the existing level of water use at the Ranch to limit diversions and thus maintain the amount of water that remains in the creek. However, water use can increase. Though it is likely (and hopefully) not an issue in this case, it is bad precedent not to require a bypass flow. In future hearings, parties will need to provide more site-specific flow recommendations. Another option is an overarching default expectation for flow requirements, similar to the North Coast Instream Flow Policy that covers several northern California counties (but not Siskiyou County).
The Bigger Picture and Better Process
The Stanshaw Creek Order is an example of how the Administration Hearings Office is helping to cut through the backlog of pending water rights applications, petitions, and complaints. CSPA believes that, overall, this is a major procedural improvement (although we continue to have major concerns over water rights matters, like the proposed Delta tunnel, that go to hearing prematurely, before essential aspects of a proposed project are clear).
Issues relating to water diversions from Stanshaw Creek festered for 25 years prior to the Order, and over 7 years between the end of the hearing and a draft order. CSPA was involved in this process from start to finish. However, it is unreasonable to expect parties to water right actions to track and remain versant in the issues over such prolonged time periods. Most importantly, we can’t wait for decades for the State Water Board to take enforcement or other actions to protect and help recover salmon and steelhead.
The post State Water Board Takes Action to Protect Klamath River Salmon and Steelhead was originally posted by CSPA.
