Facing the continued collapse of Chinook salmon, officials today shut down California’s commercial salmon fishing season for an unprecedented third year in a row.

Under the decision by an interstate fisheries agency, recreational salmon fishing will be allowed in California for only brief windows of time this spring. This will be the first year that any sportfishing of Chinook has been allowed since 2022.

Tuesday’s decision by the Pacific Fishery Management Council means that no salmon caught off California can be sold to retail consumers and restaurants for at least another year. In Oregon and Washington, commercial salmon fishing will remain open, although limited.

“From a salmon standpoint, it’s an environmental disaster. For the fishing industry, it’s a human tragedy, and it’s also an economic disaster,” said Scott Artis, executive director of the Golden State Salmon Association, an industry organization that has lobbied for river restoration and improved hatchery programs.

The decline of California’s salmon follows decades of deteriorating conditions in the waterways where the fish spawn each year, including the Sacramento and Klamath rivers.

California’s salmon are an ecological icon and a valued source of food for Native American tribes. The shutdown also has an economic toll: It has already put hundreds of commercial fishers and sportfishing boat operators out of work and affected thousands of people in communities and industries reliant on processing, selling and serving locally caught salmon.

California’s commercial fishery has never been closed for three years in a row before.

Some experts fear the conditions in California have been so poor for so long that Chinook may never rebound to fishable levels. Others remain hopeful for major recovery if the amounts of water diverted to farms and cities are reduced and wetlands kept dry by flood-control levees are restored.

This year’s recreational season includes several brief windows for fishing, including a weekend in June and another in July, or a quota of 7,000 fish.

Jared Davis, owner and operator of the Salty Lady in Sausalito, one of dozens of party boats that take paying customers fishing, thinks it’s likely that this quota will be met on the first open weekend for recreational fishing, scheduled for June 7-8.

“Obviously, the pressure is going to be intense, so everybody and their mother is going to be out on the water on those days,” he said. “When they hit that quota, it’s done.”

One member of the fishery council, Corey Ridings, voted against the proposed regulations after saying she was concerned that the first weekend would overshoot the 7,000-fish quota.

Davis said such a miniscule recreational season won’t help boat owners like him recover from past closures, though it will carry symbolic meaning.

“It might give California anglers a glimmer of hope and keep them from selling all their rods and buying golf clubs,” he said.

Sarah Bates, a commercial fisher based at San Francisco’s Fisherman’s Wharf, said the ongoing closure has stripped many boat owners of most of their income.

“It continues to be devastating,” she said. “Salmon has been the cornerstone of many of our ports for a long time.”

She said the shutdown also has trickle-down effects on a range of businesses that support the salmon fishery, such as fuel services, grocery stores and dockside ice machines.

“We’re also seeing a sort of a third wave … the general seafood market for local products has tanked,” such as rockfish and halibut. She said that many buyers are turning to farmed and wild salmon delivered from other regions instead.

Davis noted that federal emergency relief funds promised for the 2023 closure still have not arrived. “Nobody has seen a dime,” he said.

Fewer returning salmon

Before the Gold Rush, several million Chinook spawned annually in the river systems of the Central Valley and the state’s northern coast. Through much of the 20th century, California’s salmon fishery formed the economic backbone of coastal fishing ports, with fishers using hook and line pulling in millions of pounds in good years.

But in 2024, just 99,274 fall-run Chinook — the most commercially viable of the Central Valley’s four subpopulations — returned to the Sacramento River and its tributaries, substantially lower than the numbers in 2023. In 2022, fewer than 70,000 returned, one of the lowest estimates ever.

About 40,000 returned to the San Joaquin River. Fewer than 30,000 Chinook reached their spawning grounds in the Klamath River system, where the Hoopa, Yurok and Karuk tribes rely on the fish in years of abundance.

The decline of California’s salmon stems from nearly two centuries of damage inflicted on the rivers where salmon spend the first and final stages of their lives. Gold mining, logging and dam construction devastated watersheds. Levees constrained rivers, turning them into relatively sterile channels of fast-moving water while converting floodplains and wetlands into irrigated farmland.

Today, many of these impacts persist, along with water diversions, reduced flows and elevated river temperatures that frequently spell death for fertilized eggs and juvenile fish.

The future of California salmon is murky

Peter Moyle, a UC Davis fish biologist and professor emeritus, said recovery of self-sustaining populations may be possible in some tributaries of the Sacramento River.

“There are some opportunities for at least keeping runs going in parts of the Central Valley, but getting naturally spawning fish back in large numbers, I just can’t see it happening,” he said.

Jacob Katz, a biologist with the group California Trout, holds out hope for a future of flourishing Sacramento River Chinook. “We could have vibrant fall-run populations in a decade,” he said.

That will require major habitat restoration involving dam removals, reconstruction of levee systems to revive wetlands and floodplains, and reduced water diversions for agriculture — all measures fraught with cost, regulatory constraints, and controversy.

State recovery efforts

State officials, recognizing the risk of extinction, have promoted salmon recovery as a policy goal for years. In early 2024, the Newsom administration released its California Salmon Strategy for a Hotter, Drier Future, a 37-page catalogue of proposed actions to mitigate environmental impacts and restore flows and habitat, all in the face of climate change.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Director Charlton H. Bonham said the decision to allow limited recreational fishing “brings hope. We know, however, that this news brings little relief” to the industry.

He said salmon “are still recovering from severe drought and other climate challenges and have not yet benefitted from our consecutive years of wet winters and other actions taken to boost populations.”

However, Artis of Golden State Salmon Association said while the state’s salmon strategy includes some important items, it leaves out equally critical steps, such as protecting minimum flows for fish. He said salmon are threatened by proposed water projects endorsed by the Newsom administration.

“It fails to include some of the upcoming salmon-killing projects that the governor is pushing like Sites Reservoir and the Delta tunnel, and it ignores the fact that the Voluntary Agreements are designed to allow massive diversions of water,” he said.

Experts agree that an important key to rebuilding salmon runs is increasing the frequency and duration of shallow flooding in riverside riparian areas, or even fallow rice paddies — a program Katz has helped develop through his career.

On such seasonal floodplains, a shallow layer of water can help trigger an explosion of photosynthesis and food production, ultimately providing nutrition for juvenile salmon as they migrate out of the river system each spring.

Through meetings with farmers, urban water agencies and government officials, Rene Henery, California science director with Trout Unlimited, has helped draft an ambitious salmon recovery plan dubbed “Reorienting to Recovery.” Featuring habitat restoration, carefully managed harvests and generously enhanced river flows — especially in dry years — this framework, Henery said, could rebuild diminished Central Valley Chinook runs to more than 1.6 million adult fish per year over a 20-year period.

He said adversaries — often farmers and environmentalists — must shift from traditional feuds over water to more collaborative programs of restoring productive watersheds while maintaining productive agriculture.

As the recovery needle for Chinook moves in the wrong direction, Katz said deliberate action is urgent.

“We’re balanced on the edge of losing these populations,” he said. “We have to go big now. We have no other option.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

The post Commercial Salmon Season Is Shut Down Again. Will CA’s Iconic Fish Ever Recover? appeared first on GV Wire.

That hearing will be held May 13.

The move provoked anger among growers who crammed into the irrigation district’s tiny board room to ask pointed questions and have their say.

“Everything seemed fine, and now things have changed,” said dairyman Matt Kidder. “You even voted to move ahead with the city. You want the power. That’s the problem.”

“Well, yeah!” responded Sean Geivet, general manager for the irrigation district. “I am comfortable with this board. They are elected by all of you guys. So that’s who I represent.”

Porterville Vice Mayor Ed McKervey said the only power struggle he saw was between the irrigation district and its own growers. He accused the board of deciding to kill the city partnership before Tuesday’s meeting even got underway.

“I’m looking at you guys thinking I don’t want to be involved with you,” McKervey said.

Partnership Dissolves Amid Anger

The breakup is a continuation of the strife that has dogged the Tule subbasin as it struggles to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, which mandates aquifers be brought into balance by 2040.

Squabbles and lawsuits have centered on the southeastern portion of the subbasin where some growers are blamed for overpumping so much that the ground has collapsed, sinking a 33-mile section of the Friant-Kern Canal.

All of this is playing out as most of the subbasin was scheduled to begin adhering to sanctions issued by the state Water Resources Control Board after it placed the region on probation last September. Those include that growers meter their wells, report extractions and pay an annual $300-per-well registration fee plus $20 per acre foot pumped. Farmers in two Tule GSAs were excluded from those reporting and fee sanctions.

Those exemptions didn’t include Porterville Irrigation District farmers.

In an attempt to get out from under state sanctions, water districts and GSAs have been frantically revamping plans and management structures.

Board Makeup Becomes Sticking Point

But the partnership with the City of Porterville, seen as advantageous to both entities when it was approved in February, suddenly soured for board members of the Porterville Irrigation District.

The point of contention, apparently, was the make-up of the board for the nascent Porterville Groundwater Sustainability Agency. The city and irrigation district would each fill two director seats, while a fifth seat had yet to be determined.

Irrigation district legal counsel Aubrey Mauritson had said the fifth board member couldn’t be an irrigation district board member as that would violate the Brown Act, which prohibits a majority of board members from discussing district business outside of noticed public meetings.

Growers wanted someone from their ranks to fill that seat but that idea apparently didn’t fly and the irrigation district wanted out.

Geivet said separating from the city would allow the irrigation district to tailor its own groundwater agency.

“I don’t see any downside to it,” he said of dumping the city. “I like control.”

McKervey said the irrigation district’s fear of losing control was “more perception than reality.”

“I think it’s wrong what you’re doing,” he told board members at Tuesday’s meeting. “We thought we had synergy and optimism. But this power struggle thing I don’t understand.”

Regardless of whether the city and district form a joint GSA, the two entities still need to work together as parts of the city are in the irrigation district’s boundaries and the city buys surface water from the irrigation district.

Transparency and Representation Concerns Raised

Grower Armando Leal said after the meeting that he is in favor of the irrigation district forming its own GSA, but feels the GSA board should not be a carbon copy of the irrigation district’s.

“We need more outside representation. Who’s going to do that? If it is only the district board, I have issues with that,” Leal said.

But irrigation district board member Brett McCowan pointed out it’s common practice for water district boards to also run GSAs. That’s how the Lower Tule River, Tea Pot Dome, Vandalia and Delano-Earlimart irrigation districts all operate.

“For speed, efficiency and agility, it’s a lot simpler if, as a continuation of this board meeting, we hold our GSA meeting,” McCowan said. “You guys are making this seem like we’re doing this differently than anyone else.”

Growers at Tuesday’s meeting don’t feel the irrigation district board is transparent enough nor representative of their needs.

“We came up with the rules that most people liked. What did you want us to do, stop everybody that was pumping and let them go broke to satisfy Friant? We compromised and Friant still sued.”
Porterville Irrigation District Board President Eric Borba on the Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency’s groundwater crediting system, which he helped create and which Friant Water Authority alleged caused overpumping that damaged the Friant-Kern Canal.

They also pointed to both Geivet’s and irrigation district board president Eric Borba’s involvement in the embattled Eastern Tule GSA as reasons they didn’t want them running the new GSA.

The irrigation district had been a member of the Eastern Tule GSA.

Borba had been that board’s president when Eastern Tule created a groundwater crediting system that allegedly allowed farmers to continue overpumping, exacerbating subsidence on the Friant-Kern Canal. The Friant Water Authority sued Eastern Tule.

“We came up with the rules that most people liked,” a clearly irritated Borba snapped. “What did you want us to do, stop everybody that was pumping and let them go broke to satisfy Friant? We compromised and Friant still sued.”

That didn’t strike growers as a successful groundwater management strategy.

“That’s the confidence factor you can give us?” dairyman Kidder asked. “That makes no sense.”

With Porterville Irrigation District and the City of Porterville likely to form their own GSAs, that will bring the Tule subbasin GSA count to 13. It started the SGMA process back in 2020 with six GSAs.

About the Author

Lisa grew up in Tulare County. She has reported on agriculture and other issues for a wide variety of publications, including, Ag Alert, Visalia Times-Delta, the Fresno Bee and the Tulare and Kings counties farm bureau publications.

About SJV Water

SJV Water is an independent, nonprofit news site covering water in the San Joaquin Valley, www.sjvwater.org. Email us at sjvwater@sjvwater.org.

The post Porterville Irrigation District Kills Partnership Amid Accusations of Power Mongering appeared first on GV Wire.

Legislation that aims to reduce downstream disasters by funding floodplain restoration projects in Kern, Tulare and Kings counties was introduced March 28 in the California Senate.

Author Melissa Hurtado (D-Bakersfield) proposes funneling $43 million toward floodplain acquisition, habitat restoration and conservation projects:

• $2 million for enhancement of Panorama Vista Preserve along the Kern River in Bakersfield.
• $20 million for acquisition and restoration of floodplains along Poso Creek in Kern County.
• $16 million for acquisition and restoration of floodplains along the North and South forks of the Kings River in Kings County.
• $5 million for enhancement and restoration of floodplains along the upper Kaweah River in Tulare County.

The funding would come from Proposition 4, the $10 billion Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness and Clean Air Bond Act passed by voters in 2024.

Prop. 4 includes $870 million for Wildlife Conservation Board grant programs that will help the state meet biodiversity, public access and conservation goals. Hurtado is angling for these funds. The money would go to the nonprofit River Partners for use in the Tulare Basin, a region Hurtado said has not historically received its fair share of state investment.

“This is a good bill that has multiple benefits and builds consensus among all stakeholders,” said Chris Brieno, Hurtado’s press secretary. “We feel like that consensus will help us go forward successfully.”

Strong Support for Floodplain Restoration

Floodplain restoration is a tool that can be in place before waterways are overrun, putting people, property and communities at risk. That’s because these broad spaces allow water to slow down and fan out across native habitat. Floodplains also give aquifers more time to absorb floodwaters and naturally recharge.

Subsidence, land sinking from overpumping, has compounded flooding issues by damaging infrastructure and changing how water flows across the region, something that was seen during the 2023 floods in Tulare and Kings counties.

Because of that, irrigation districts, farmers, environmental groups and a wide variety of state and federal organizations support floodplain restoration, a rare feat in the contentious world of California water politics.

The Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District board voted this week to send a letter of support for the bill to the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee. The agency manages the Kaweah River watershed.

“The flooding that struck the southern San Joaquin Valley and the Tulare Basin during the historic winter of 2023 was a stark reminder of the need for major improvements in the region’s flood management capacity,” the letter states, calling floodplain restoration a “common sense, proven and scalable solution.”

General Manager Shane Smith said the agency was initially tipped off to the funding opportunity from nonprofit Sequoia Riverlands Trust in Visalia. Any extra funding for flood control is helpful especially if it also enhances groundwater recharge, he said.

“Because of this, we’re in support of funding coming to the area in hopes that the appropriate agencies that do flood control and groundwater recharge can benefit,” Smith said.

Poso Creek Flooding

McFarland Mayor Saul Ayon is hopeful the legislation is enacted. For years, Poso Creek has been problematic for the city.

In 1998, Poso overran its banks east of Highway 99. Floodwaters swept through a dairy and carried manure and mud into the homes of hundreds of McFarland residents, including Ayon’s parents.

In March 2023, three months after taking office, floodwaters again forced residents to evacuate.

“I got a call at 2:30 in the morning that we were going to incur the floodwaters,” Ayon said. “The next call was from my dad who was getting evacuated. He was the first person who yelled at me. He told me to find a way to fix this problem.”

Ayon said Hurtado’s bill gets to the root of the issue.

“This is long overdue,” he said. “Floodplains are a critical buffer. Poso does not begin in McFarland, but we’ve been paying the price for a long time.”

Poso runs along the west side of the city limits on its way toward Tulare Lake. Ayon pointed out that economic development is difficult on this side of town because businesses cannot afford the insurance of operating in a flood zone.

“Residents are always worried, asking about how much snow and rain is coming. It’s their livelihood that’s being impacted.”

Ayon is testifying Tuesday in Sacramento before a Senate subcommittee, and plans to share video of past flood events that will “open a lot of people’s eyes.” View the livestream here.

The post Hurtado’s Bill Seeks More Funds to Protect South Valley From Floods appeared first on GV Wire.

“It was a gut punch,” said Kelly Damian, spokesperson for Bring Back the Kern, one of the plaintiffs that had sought the injunction to keep water in the river.

“While we are disappointed, we are not dissuaded. This is life when you’re fighting for the environment. Get ready for a lot of losses.”

She noted the underlying lawsuit over the river is still ongoing.

Underlying Lawsuit Continues

Bring Back the Kern, Water Audit California and several other public interest groups sued the City of Bakersfield in 2022 for dewatering the river. They are demanding the city study the environmental impacts of its river operations.

That lawsuit is set for trial in December.

The preliminary injunction was an outgrowth of that 2022 lawsuit. It was an attempt to keep water in the river for fish that had come teeming back with high flows in 2023.

The 5th District’s ruling, issued Wednesday, reversed the injunction but didn’t close the door to a possible future injunction and, in fact, gave lengthy direction for how that could be done.

But tucked into the ruling was a seeming side issue that could prove more momentous.

Bond Requirement Raises Concerns

That issue involves how much money plaintiffs seeking such injunctions must put up as a “bond” in the event the injunction causes harm and is later set aside.

In this case, Kern County Superior Court Judge Gregory Pulskamp required the plaintiffs to put up $1,000 as a “nominal bond” before the injunction would go into effect.

That’s not enough, according to justices with the 5th District.

The bond should be closer to what the injunction could actually cost the parties being enjoined, according to the ruling.

In the Kern River case, the agricultural water districts that appealed Pulskamp’s injunction said the loss of water during the  five months it was in effect cost them $5.7 million, according to their opening brief.

Under the 5th District’s ruling, Pulskamp would have had to collect at least $5.7 million from the plaintiffs, not just $1,000.

This ruling was “certified for publication,” meaning it can be cited as legal precedent. That could create an almost insurmountable hurdle for just about any injunction sought by public interest groups, making it fodder for a possible California Supreme Court appeal.

Court Cites Reasonable Use Doctrine

The main issue the 5th District had with Pulskamp’s injunction is he didn’t consider the possible impacts his injunction could have on all Kern River water users under the state’s reasonable use doctrine.

Though Bakersfield was somewhat neutral in this legal skirmish it was pleased with that part of the ruling.

“It gave clear and helpful direction to the parties to determine how much water is needed for fish and for the trial court to balance the impacts on all water users,” according to the city’s attorney Colin Pearce.

Whether the Kern River plaintiffs attempt to seek another injunction remains to be seen.

Both Bill McKinnon and Adam Keats, attorneys for Water Audit California and Bring Back the Kern, respectively, said they are still reading through the 47-page ruling to understand all its complexities.

Even so, Keats said Wednesday’s ruling was not fatal either to obtaining another injunction or to the main lawsuit.

“The question isn’t whether the Kern River is going to flow again, the question is when,” he said.

The agricultural entities that brought the appeal were pleased with Wednesday’s ruling.

“The Appellants appreciate reading today’s decision from the Court of Appeal redressing and reversing each of the trial courts orders that were subject to appeal,” wrote attorney Scottt Kuney in a text message.

He referred to Pulskamp’s injunction issued Nov. 9, 2023 and a later implementation order that laid out how much water would remain in the river. That implementation order was later modified by Pulskamp.

The ag districts, including  the North Kern, Rosedale-Rio Bravo and Buena Vista water storage district, Kern Delta Water District, the Kern County Water Agency and the J.G. Boswell Company, appealed the injunction and implementation order in January 2024.

The 5th District ordered the injunction stayed in May 2024.

About the Author

SJV Water CEO and editor Lois Henry has spent 30 years covering the San Joaquin Valley.

About SJV Water

SJV Water is an independent, nonprofit news site covering water in the San Joaquin Valley, www.sjvwater.org. Email us at sjvwater@sjvwater.org.

The post Order That Kept Water in the Kern River Reversed by 5th District Court of Appeal appeared first on GV Wire.

“The state represents LA and Sacramento, not us,” said home owner Cynthia Dias, who registered her domestic well with the South Fork Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) at its second well-registration workshop held March 26.

“I’d rather it be on a local level than the state,” she said of giving out her private well information.

The turnout, about 45 people, was significantly higher than the GSA’s first workshop March 3 where only nine people showed up.

Local Control Preferred Over State Intervention

“We’ve made really good progress,” South Fork General Manager Johnny Gailey reported at a grower’s advisory group the following day.

The GSA now has 45 accounts in its system with 120 ag and 38 domestic wells registered. South Fork Kings is aiming to register all wells within its boundaries by July 1.

Gailey said he’s spoken to some growers who are against the requirements and don’t plan on sharing their well data or location.

Ultimately, Gailey believes those who register late may face a fee. That would need to go to the board for approval, he confirmed.

Related Story: CA Snowpack Is Near-Average. What Does This Mean for Water Supplies?

Warnings Against Avoiding Registration

Another landowner and domestic well owner, Joe Annon, who attended the March 26 workshop warned against avoiding registration.

“It’s going to catch up to them,” he said.

Landowner Dean Shiroyama agreed.

“Doing this is going to be way better than dealing with the state,” he said of local registration.

He referred to the state Water Resources Control Board, which put the Tulare Lake subbasin, most of Kings County, into probationary status nearly a year ago for lacking an adequate groundwater plan per the Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan.

Under probation, farmers were going to have to meter and register their wells, at an annual cost of $300 each, report extractions and pay $20 per acre foot pumped. That would have been on top of fees and assessments they already pay to their groundwater agencies and water districts.

Probation would last a year while state and local water managers work to come up with a groundwater plan that protects domestic wells and halts subsidence, among other requirements.

State Probation and Legal Hurdles

If a plan didn’t come together in that year’s time, the state could step in and set its own pumping limits.

However, all of that was paused in the Tulare Lake subbasin after the Kings County Farm Bureau sued the state and a judge issued a preliminary injunction against those state sanctions.

Since then, South Fork and the other four groundwater agencies in the subbasin have been working to redo the region’s groundwater plan, including building their own well registration and monitoring systems.

It’s unclear when the Water Board could review the groundwater agencies’ efforts, as the state has appealed the injunction and ceased communicating with local water managers while the legal issues are ongoing.

About the Author

Monserrat Solis covers Kings County water issues for SJV Water through the California Local News Fellowship initiative. 

About SJV Water

SJV Water is an independent, nonprofit news site covering water in the San Joaquin Valley, www.sjvwater.org. Email us at sjvwater@sjvwater.org.

The post Progress Picks Up on Well Registration Efforts Among Kings County Landowners appeared first on GV Wire.

Despite some heavy rainstorms and squalls of snow in recent months, the Sierra Nevada snowpack stands at 90% of average, according to state officials.

This year’s measurements mark the first below-average April snowpack since 2022, when it dropped to a dismal 38% of the historical average. Last year at this time, the statewide calculation reached 110% of the average, and in 2023, the snowpack was one of the largest ever, measuring more than twice the average.

More snow is on the way, however, which could make this year right around average. “This will be the third year in a row that the snowpack conditions at the start of April are near or above the average,” which is “great news for the state,” said Andy Reising, manager of the Snow Surveys and Water Supply Forecasting Unit.

Snow levels in the Sierra Nevada at this time of year are considered especially important, since they help water managers determine how much water will be available through the dry season, which typically begins around May.

Sierra Nevada snowpack supplies about a third of the state’s water on average.

As snow fell Friday morning, a Department of Water Resources survey team measured several spots on the snowy meadow at Phillips Station, a few miles south of Lake Tahoe. The average snow depth was 39.5 inches, with a water content of 17 inches — numbers representing 70% of the April 1 average for that location.

“We hope to add a few more inches before the year is out,” Reising said, noting that storms forecast to cross the Sierra could add more snow.

Reising said the erratic winter weather patterns of the past six months “are a good reminder that the next flood or drought could come at any time.”

“We know future years won’t all unfold like this one has, and in addition we know that floods and droughts can happen at any time,” Reising said. “It is the California way of life to expect that.”

Central Sierra Snowpack 83% of Normal

Throughout the state’s main mountain range, snowpack averaged from more than 250 sites ranged from above average to considerably below. In the northern Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade peaks, it stands at 108% of the historical April 1 average, but in the central and southern Sierra, it’s just 83% and 81%.

The data reflects a sharp regional discrepancy this winter, with wet conditions prevailing in the northern half of the state and drought across Southern California. Reising noted that Southern California has experienced roughly 50% of its average annual rainfall.

Sierra Nevada snow provides cold runoff that feeds rivers and reservoirs and helps support fish habitat all summer.

“As we near the end of the wet season, our focus shifts to snowpack runoff and whether temperatures allow for a slow melt so we can capture as much of that runoff as possible,” said Department of Water Resources Director Karla Nemeth.

The north-to-south disparity in the state’s precipitation this year “affects how much water the State Water Project will be able to deliver,” she said.

“It’s great news that our state’s snowpack has recovered from several weeks of extremely dry conditions in the heart of our winter storm season,” Nemeth said. “However, it’s not a wet year across the entire Sierra Nevada.”

State officials earlier this week announced that deliveries to water users would be increased this year from an earlier allocation. As of March 25, water users who depend on the State Water Project receive 40% of requested supplies.

A final allocation will be issued in May or June and could result in another increase, according to the department.

The State Water Contractors, which receives and distributes the water to farms and urban areas, mostly in Southern California, issued a statement on March 25 noting a “mismatch in hydrology and exports” from the Delta.

General Manager Jennifer Pierre urged state officials “to continue to pursue modernized infrastructure to further develop scientific rationale to refine regulatory requirements and ramp up adaptive management.”

Reservoir Levels Above Average

Reservoir levels statewide are well above average. In Southern California, in spite of a relatively dry winter, most reservoirs are nearly full. In Northern California, Lake Shasta, the state’s largest reservoir, is 111% of its average capacity for this date. Lake Oroville, the largest reservoir of the State Water Project, is at 120%.

Together, these two reservoirs now contain about 7 million acre-feet of water. While that’s almost enough water to supply all of the state’s residents for about two years, most of it is diverted to farms.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which manages the Central Valley Project, has also announced an increase in the 2025 allocation of water supplies.

President Donald Trump repeatedly tried to blame water issues and the Los Angeles fires on the Newsom administration’s management of Delta water supplies. Though corrected repeatedly by media and outspoken officials, he ordered the release of water from two federal reservoirs in late January. San Joaquin Valley farmers and others said the releases wasted water because they came at a time when their crops didn’t need irrigation. That water also doesn’t reach Los Angeles.

California’s ski resorts report mixed results this year. Mammoth Mountain has reported 248 inches of snow this season, considerably less than the ample amounts that fell during the past two winters but more than the 168 inches in the drought-plagued winter of 2014-15.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

The post CA Snowpack Is Near-Average. What Does This Mean for Water Supplies? appeared first on GV Wire.

Brad Cavallo comes to Westlands Water District by way of Cramer Fish Sciences, where he was vice president and principal scientist at the research institute, according to a release from Westlands.

Before that, he also worked as senior environmental scientist for the California Department of Water Resources and as a fisheries biologist with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Cavallo says there is a way to balance water needs for California’s endangered fish species and ensure water availability.

“There are real opportunities to improve water supply reliability for Californians while also supporting the health of important fish species like Chinook salmon,” Cavallo said. “I’m excited to collaborate with the highly talented Westlands team and its partners to advance science-based solutions that benefit both water users and the environment.”

Related Story: Will Kevin McCarthy Take a Job at Westlands? Talks Underway.

Cavallo Brings Decades of Scientific Background to Water Agency

Federal and state water policies stem from the Endangered Species Act. Regulators decide how much water flows through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and out to the ocean based in part on ideal conditions for the Chinook salmon and other fish species such as the Delta smelt. Another consideration is the need to protect fresh water from high concentrations of salinity.

Salmon need cold water to spawn and ample water supplies keep temperatures cool. However, that put fish populations at odds with farmers who rely on allocations from state and federal sources.

In addition to 18 years at Cramer Fish Sciences, Cavallo has published several scientific articles on topics ranging from predation on salmon to how Delta flows affect the fish, according to his LinkedIn.

He also has a masters in aquatic ecology from University of Montana and a bachelors in fisheries biology from UC Davis.

“Brad Cavallo’s deep expertise in fisheries science and water management will be a tremendous asset to Westlands,” said Allison Febbo, general manager of Westlands.

“His extensive background as a biologist and leader in environmental research — combined with his track record of developing innovative, evidence-based solutions — will strengthen our ability to address California’s evolving water challenges while balancing the needs of agriculture, fisheries, and communities.”

The post Westlands’ New Science Adviser Brings Deep Knowledge of Fish appeared first on GV Wire.

Lisa McEwen

SJV Water

It also agreed to give Friant pumping data that’s at the heart of a much larger dispute.

The deal is one small piece of the ongoing conflict between Friant and several of its member contractors over who should pay – and how much – to fix the Friant-Kern Canal, which has been sinking due to excessive groundwater pumping.

Friant has already spent $326 million from a mix of local and federal funds to rebuild the worst section of canal, which runs through the Eastern Tulare Groundwater Sustainability Agency in southern Tulare County.

Four of Friant’s members — Tea Pot Dome and the Porverville, Saucelito, and Terra Bella irrigation districts — once ran Eastern Tule.

But Friant says Eastern Tule policies not only exacerbated subsidence beneath the canal, but also shorted Friant on funding it needs to repay the federal government for a portion of that $326 million.

So, Friant went after the individual irrigation districts for that money.

Small Fraction of Needed Funds

Friant has only reached an agreement with Tea Pot Dome for a small fraction of the estimated $90 million to $295 million it needs to cover its portion of the bill for repairs already made and more coming.

Friant and the other three irrigation districts remain mired in a tangle of lawsuits and counter lawsuits.

For Tea Pot Dome, the agreement signed Feb. 20 means its farmers are protected against future litigation connected to Friant’s efforts to recoup that shortfall funding, according to Teapot Dome’s General Manager Eric Limas.

“By agreeing to pay the $1.4 million, Friant has assurance of appropriate funding from Tea Pot for the Middle Reach Capacity Correction Project and Tea Pot is able to move forward with a clean slate,” wrote Johnny Amaral, Friant Water Authority chief operating officer, in an email.

He referred to a 10-mile parallel canal completed in June to address the worst areas of subsidence damage. The sag in that section had cut the canal’s carrying capacity by 60%.

Part of Tea Pot Dome’s “clean slate” includes its decision last summer to break away from Eastern Tule and form its own groundwater sustainability agency.

Under this new agreement, Friant will be a kept apprised of Tea Pot Dome’s groundwater reporting.

Among other things, the agreement states Tea Pot Dome:

• • Won’t annex new land without Friant’s prior written consent.
  • Is not required to accept groundwater credits given to landowners by Eastern Tule.
  • Will hand over all groundwater account information for landowners as assigned by Eastern Tule, including trades, credits and transfers, to Friant.
  • Will assign its farmers a “transitional” pumping allocation at a fee through 2040 and pay Friant 90% of that fee.
  • Will provide Friant quarterly reports summarizing landowner groundwater accounts.

Ongoing Disputes Over Groundwater Accounting

The emphasis on groundwater accounting and transparency reflects Friant’s long running dispute with Eastern Tule over its groundwater crediting policies.

Friant and Eastern Tule signed an agreement in 2021 that Friant had hoped would provide up to $220 million toward the Friant-Kern Canal repairs.

The crux of the agreement was that Eastern Tule would set pumping allocations to ramp down over the years and charge substantial “penalty fees” for any pumping over those allocations then hand 90% of those amounts to Friant.

Over the past four years, however, Eastern Tule has only paid Friant about $21 million. Meanwhile, the canal, including the newly repaired portion, is still sinking, indicating excessive pumping continues.

Friant sued Eastern Tule alleging it had lavished its farmers with groundwater credits and allowed too much trading so they never dipped into the “penalty” pumping, which shorted Friant.

The lawsuit went into mediation last summer after a Tulare County judge found the 2021 agreement “…does not state an unconditional obligation to collect a minimum of $220,000,000.000 in penalties.”

Two months later, the Friant board assessed Tea Pot Dome, Porterville, Saucelito, and Terra Bella irrigation districts fees of $90 million up to $295 million.

While Tea Pot Dome sought an agreement with Friant, the other districts filed a flurry of lawsuits alleging Friant had violated the Brown Act, among other things.

Those districts are managed by Sean Geivet, who had no comment on the agreement between Friant and Tea Pot Dome.

Meanwhile, Eastern Tule is now a shell of its former configuration as Tea Pot Dome, Porterville, Saucelito and Terra Bella all fled to form their own groundwater agencies.

That has left the County of Tulare to pick up the pieces so farmers outside of irrigation district boundaries have representation as the region navigates its probationary status.

The Water Resources Control Board placed the region on probation in September and, in particular, questioned Eastern Tule’s groundwater accounting methods, calling them “alarming.”

About the Author

SJV Water Reporter Lisa McEwen grew up in Tulare County. She has reported on agriculture and other issues for a wide variety of publications, including, Ag Alert, Visalia Times-Delta, the Fresno Bee and the Tulare and Kings counties farm bureau publications.

About SJV Water

SJV Water is an independent, nonprofit news site covering water in the San Joaquin Valley, www.sjvwater.org. Email us at sjvwater@sjvwater.org.

The post Tea Pot Dome Agrees to Pay $1.4M for Canal Fix, Share Pumping Data With Friant appeared first on GV Wire.

Lisa McEwen

SJV Water

Assembly Bill 1044, introduced by Assembly Member Alexandra Macedo (R-Tulare) Feb. 20, would create a new agency administered through Tulare County covering  half of Eastern Tule’s original acreage.

The bill was written at the county’s request after Eastern Tule lost all of its irrigation district members. They left to form their own groundwater agencies following a probationary finding in September by the state Water Resources Control Board, which scrutinized Eastern Tule’s water accounting methods.

The splintering off of irrigation districts, left the county as the lone governmental agency of the original Eastern Tule joint powers agreement.

Growers in large areas of Eastern Tule don’t have contracts for surface water. They farm areas called “white lands,” as they’re outside of water district boundaries and almost entirely dependent on groundwater.

The new groundwater entity will include the Hope and Ducor water districts, neither of which have surface water contracts either. But under recent Proposition 218 elections, the districts were able to levy land assessments to fund a study to look at connecting to the Friant-Kern Canal.

Related Story: Madera Groundwater Agency Can Collect Fees From Farmers Amid Legal Fight

Trying to Save Productive Farmland

“We’re trying to save some productive farmground by working toward bringing it some surface water,” Hope Water District Board Member Andrew Hart said. “We know we’re going to have to lose some of it. But if we can save some part of it, that will be best not only for growers but for the general economy of the area. The ripple effect will go pretty far if the majority of it comes out of production.”

Under AB 1044, administrative duties for the new groundwater agency would go through the county with the board made up of one member each from Hope and Ducor water districts, one supervisor, and two others from groundwater-dependent ag interests.

“It’s better representation for the growers this way,” said Supervisor Dennis Townsend, who sits on the Eastern Tule GSA board.

Hart said after the September Water Board meeting, growers “saw the handwriting on the wall” in terms of state concerns.

Under probation, farmers must meter and register their wells with the state at $300 each annually, report extractions and pay a $20 per-acre-foot pumped fee. If, after a year, local managers can’t develop what the state considers an adequately protective groundwater plan, the state can impose its own “interim” pumping mandates.

Farmers and local water managers want to avoid that.

Related Story: Latest Forecasts Predict a Wet March for Fresno

“If we can form a GSA of white area properties, have reasonable rules and regulations that abide with (the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act), and we are doing the things the state wants us to do, hopefully we can stave off implementation of an interim plan,” Hart said. “Everything with SGMA is an unknown.”

The Tule subbasin was placed on probation with some exceptions for certain GSAs. Eastern Tule was not given a pass and its groundwater accounting was called “alarming” by Water Board members.

Groundwater accounting is also the subject of a lawsuit against Eastern Tule by the Friant Water Authority, which alleges the GSA gave farmers too many credits, allowing them to continue overpumping, contributing to subsidence that has damaged the Friant-Kern Canal.

About the Author

SJV Water Reporter Lisa McEwen grew up in Tulare County. She has reported on agriculture and other issues for a wide variety of publications, including, Ag Alert, Visalia Times-Delta, the Fresno Bee and the Tulare and Kings counties farm bureau publications.

About SJV Water

SJV Water is an independent, nonprofit news site covering water in the San Joaquin Valley, www.sjvwater.org. Email us at sjvwater@sjvwater.org.

The post New Bill Could Reshape Tulare County Groundwater Agency’s Boundaries and Governance appeared first on GV Wire.

However, an injunction that had prevented those fees from being collected for nearly three years was also lifted by Madera County Superior Court Judge Eric LiCalsi.

LiCalsi did not prevent the fees from being assessed retroactively, which would be a huge financial hit to farmers. In the Madera subbasin, fees are $246 per acre, per year. In the Delta-Mendota subbasin, the fees are $183.

“That’s $20 million a year spread out over 900 property owners,” said Attorney Patrick Gorman, who represents the Valley Groundwater Coalition, which was formed by growers who alleged that an election to establish the fees under Proposition 218 rules was done improperly.

Whether the fees will be assessed retroactively, when they will be assessed, or even if they will remain at the same level, are all issues still to be determined by the GSA board, said Stephanie Anagnoson, the director of water and natural resources for Madera County who also serves as the GSA Manager.

“There isn’t any intention of trying to punish people,” Anagnoson said of the fees. “The question is, how can we best comply with what we all agreed to do in our Groundwater Sustainability Plan that seems to work for everybody?”

Related Story: California Lacks the Capacity to Store Water From Atmospheric Rivers

Not Set in Stone

The fee issue will be hashed out by the GSA board in public meetings before any decisions are made on how much will be assessed and when, Anagnoson said.

Since they were first instituted in 2022, the GSA has received several grants for recharge, land repurposing and well mitigation projects, which have been ongoing. It also instituted pumping allocations that Anagnoson said appear to be working. So, groundwater use has gone down somewhat.

“We’ve been looking for ways of reducing those fees based on the success of those projects,” she said.

An April 16 date has been set for the next case management conference.

Attorneys for both sides felt LiCalsi’s ruling was a bit of a mixed bag.

“We were disappointed the court denied the GSA’s (motion to dismiss the case) but pleased the injunction was lifted and now the GSA can move forward with managing these basins,” said attorney Kyle Brochard, who represented the Madera County GSA.

Gorman, who represents the farmers, said he was glad both sides could “finally get to the merits of the case” rather than arguing over what he deemed technicalities.

Pay First

The County GSA had sought to have the case dismissed under what’s known as the “pay first, litigate later” rule. That is a longstanding rule that fee, or tax, objectors must pay the money even if they sue the government agency over the fee. If the fee is found improper by the courts, they can get a refund. But they can’t hold up taxes and fees through litigation.

“Otherwise, thousands of people – millions of people – would do that,” LiCalsi said during the hearing Thursday.

A Kern County SGMA case reiterated that rule very clearly when Mojave Pistachios lost its lawsuit against a $2,130-per acre foot groundwater “replenishment fee” in Feb. 2024. Mojave Pistachios never paid the fee, then sued, which isn’t allowed.

LiCalsi cited the Mojave case for both dissolving the injunction against the Madera County GSA fees, as well as not dismissing the underlying case.

His reasoning was that, had the Mojave decision been in place prior to the Madera court imposing the fee injunction in December 2022, the injunction never would have been issued. LiCalsi also said that because some farmers had paid the fees before the injunction, they had complied with the “pay first” rule, so the case differed somewhat from the Mojave Pistachios case.

“We’re going to have our members pay the fee and if the court determines the County was wrong and throws out the Prop. 218 election, the county will have to refund every penny,” Gorman said.

He said his members understand the groundwater issues very well and know that the aquifer can’t sustain pumping at past levels.

“We agree with more recharge, water banking, capturing additional flows during the wet years. That’s all good stuff and that’s where the focus needs to be,” Gorman said.

Anagnoson said some farmers and farmer groups are doing some projects independently and the County GSA is moving forward with grant funded projects. But without a steady and predictable funding source projects aren’t being done “…on the scale growers envisioned with us during our groundwater planning process.”

Related Story: Army Corps General Grilled About Trump’s Tulare County Water Dump

Large Scale Projects on Hold

When the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was implemented in 2015, Madera County agreed to take over management of what are known as “white lands,” or farmland that’s outside of irrigation district boundaries. Those areas rely almost exclusively on groundwater.

In Madera County, the white lands area covers about 215,000 acres across three different groundwater subbasins, the Chowchilla and Delta-Mendota subbasins and Madera subbasins.

In the Chowchilla subbasin, farmers mounted a successful campaign against proposed land fees, Anagnoson said.

Without money for projects, the Madera County GSA has focused on demand management. It set strict pumping allocations with a penalty for going over those allocations set at $300 per acre foot, ramping up to $500 per acre foot by 2040.

The allocation for Chowchilla farmers is 25.1 inches per acre, per year, which will ramp down as the SGMA deadline of 2040 approaches.

In the Delta-Mendota subbasin, farmers were allotted 18.9 inches per year and Madera subbasin farmers have 27.1 inches this year.

That’s right at, or below, two acre feet, per acre, per year – not enough for most permanent crops, Anagnoson acknowledged.

Funding generated through the disputed fees, she said, would allow the county GSA to build facilities, buy water and help farmers repurpose land.

“That would be adding water to the system so farmers would end up with a higher allocation,” Anagnoson said.

(Freelance writer Hannah Johansson contributed to this article.)

About the Author

CEO and editor Lois Henry has spent 30 years covering the San Joaquin Valley.

About SJV Water

SJV Water is an independent, nonprofit news site covering water in the San Joaquin Valley, www.sjvwater.org. Email us at sjvwater@sjvwater.org.

The post Madera Groundwater Agency Can Collect Fees From Farmers Amid Legal Fight appeared first on GV Wire.