Santa Clara District Suing State Over Water Grab

SAN JOSE, CA -- With humorist author Mark Twain saying it best: "(Whiskey's) for drinkin' and water's for fightin' (over)" -- the Santa Clara Valley Water District has filed a lawsuit challenging the state's plan that would result in reduced amount of water to the county the agency's water allocations on the San Joaquin River and its tributaries, the agency announced Monday.

The suit filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court takes issue with the California State Water Resources Control Board changing and adopting an amendment on Dec. 12 to a plan that would increase the uninterrupted water flows on the San Joaquin River and its tributaries. The effort is aimed at increasing regional river flows to 40 percent in order to protect fish habitat.

The initial allocation established last July amounted to at least 14 percent less to maintain waterways to keep nine species, among them Chinook salmon, from dying off. A few decades ago, the flows once supported 70,000 fall-run salmon adults returning to the San Joaquin Basin. The state claims the numbers have dropped to under 10,000 as of 2017.

But tell that to a concerned regional district already asking its consumers to conserve 20 percent of its water use and crossing its fingers through the winter. It's a wait and see if Mother Nature delivers the snow in the Sierra Nevada to make up for last year's lackluster winter and four years of drought that started in 2013.

The first snow survey of the year at the Phillips snow course at 7,000 feet measured 9 inches of water in 25.5 inches of snow depth equating to an 80 percent average to date. This year so far, the statewide Sierra snowpack overall is 67 percent of average among its 41 electronic sensors. Water from the Sierra Nevada trickles down to be funneled to regions through the Central Valley and State Water projects.

While the snowpack provides about a third of the state's water needs, allocations from the Sierra snowmelt is responsible for about half the Santa Clara Valley Water District's supply. The Sierra Nevada snowmelt ends up in the San Luis Reservoir off Highway 152, where the Pacheco Pump Station cranks it out to the South Bay through treatment plants.

The deluge from an unprecedented winter two years ago has allowed the district to catch up "to pre-drought levels," district spokesman Marty Grimes had told Patch. But that's where the celebration ends -- with more uncertainty in what this winter will bring.

The district is requesting the court review and determine whether the state acted properly when requiring increased flows for fish and wildlife in the San Joaquin, Tuolumne, Stanislaus and Merced rivers at the expense of water users downstream in the South Bay.

Santa Clara County has more than 1.9 million residents as well as agriculture and a high-tech mecca.

For one, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission is expected to see a significant reduction -- which supplies Santa Clara County with 15 percent of its water.

"The Santa Clara Valley Water District is an agency that places a great deal of importance on the environment, and we respect the state's efforts over the last few years to address the issue of fish decline," district board Chairwoman Linda J. LeZotte. "But the board would like to find a better balance and believes that there are other, more effective solutions that focus on the fishes' distinct problems."

The district has questioned whether the state researched the effects of predator fish on the endangered and threatened species -- not just reviewing the water flows. As it is, one study indicated the increased flows would save another 1,100 fish, a claim the Water Resources Board rejected but couldn't re-estimate.

As a practice, the state board declined to comment on pending litigation.

Nonetheless, water board spokesman said the agency isn't surprised by the legal challenge and admitted to expecting "lawsuits in the future."

The district in its legal complaint describes a scenario with "devastating effects on the Bay Area" with reduced flows going toward South Bay water users downstream, the legal complaint reads, adding: "Because of the lack of available water to be transferred into Santa Clara County, the local users will rely on groundwater. These groundwater depletions will require additional supplies to recharge groundwater levels to avoid subsidence."

The district cites in its causes of action the California Constitution's "prohibition on the unreasonable use of water" and the federal Clean Water Act's requirements on water quality standards, among other laws, the state is violating in the amendments.

--Image via Sue Wood, Patch