CSPA
Arroyo Grande Creek Steelhead
Letter to State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Water Rights, March 1994
Mr. Mark Stretars March 8, 1994
Complaint Unit
Division of Water Rights
State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 2000
Sacramento, CA 95812-2000
Re: Arroyo Grande Creek; Lopez Dam; San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; Permit 12814 (Application 18375); Complaint by William L'Hommedieu; Public Information Request by California Sportfishing Protection Alliance.
Dear Mr. Stretars:
On February 24, 1994, we directed a letter to you regarding a complaint filed by William L'Hommedieu. That letter was in response to a letter directed to him by you, dated February 10, 1994. In your letter to William L'Hommedieu you stated that you needed evidence from William L'Hommedieu and an IFIM fishery study by William L'Hommedieu to determine the effects to the fishery resources of Arroyo Grande Creek from the Lopez Project.
Please forward the following information and answer the following questions:
1. A copy of the fishery studies that was prepared by San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to the issuance of a water right permit by the State Water Board. The Permit was issued in 1961.
In the event fishery studies were not prepared by the permittee, please state that in writing. Also please include a statement why the State Water Board did not require fishery studies.
2. A copy of the environmental studies that was prepared by San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to the issuance of a water right permit by the State Water Board. The Permit was issued in 1961.
In the event environmental studies were not prepared by the permittee, please state that in writing. Also please include a statement why the State Water Board did not require environmental studies.
3. Please forward a copy of Permit 12814, including all amendments to the permit.
4. Please forward a copy of the protest filed by the Department of Fish and Game for Application 18375 (Permit 12814).
In the event the Department of Fish and Game did not file a protest on Application 18375, please state that in writing.
5. Please forward any agreement reached between the Department of Fish and Game and the Permittee which was incorporated into Permit 12814.
In the event an agreement between the Department of Fish and Game and the Permittee was not incorporated into Permit 12814, please state that in writing.
6. On March 26, 1992, Roger Johnson acting on behalf of Edward Anton, Chief, Division of Water Rights, approved an "Order Approving a New Development Schedule and Amending Permit" (Permit12814).
In said Order of March 26, 1992, the following was stated: " Permit Condition 7 pertaining to the continuing authority of the Board should be updated to conform to Section 780 (a), Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations ".
Also in said Order of March 26, 1992, the following was ordered: " New Development Schedule of the permit be amended to read: COMPLETE APPLICATION OF THE WATER TO THE PROPOSED USE SHALL BE MADE ON OR BEFORE - December 31, 2001 (0000009) ".
Prior to the approval of the Order, why didn't the Division of Water Rights acting on behalf of the State Water Board require the Permittee to prepare an IFIM study to determine the amount of water necessary to protect and restore the public trust fishery and aquatic resources of Arroyo Grande Creek?
Prior to the approval of the Order, why didn't the Division of Water Rights acting on behalf of the State Water Board require the Permittee to prepare environmental studies to protect and restore the environment affected by the Lopez Project and Permit 12914?
Prior to the approval of the Order, why didn't the Division of Water Rights acting on behalf of the State Water Board require the Permittee to release water from Lopez Dam to protest and restore the fish and aquatic life below the dam as required by California Fish and Game Code 5937?
7. In said Order of March 26, 1992, the following was ordered:
" Pursuant to California Water Code Sections 100 and 275, and the common law public trust doctrine, all rights and privileges under this permit and under any license issued pursuant thereto, including method of diversion, method of use, and quantity of water diverted, are subject to the continuing authority of the State Water Resources Control Board in accordance with law and in the interest of the public welfare to protect public trust uses and to prevent waste, unreasonable use, unreasonable method of use or unreasonable method of diversion of said water. "
Why did you attempt to reject William L'Hommedieu's complaint when in fact Permit 12814, as amended on March 26, 1992, did not protect public trust resources below Lopez Dam and was in violation of the common law public trust doctrine and Fish and Game Code 5937?
Why did you attempt to reject William L'Hommedieu's complaint when in fact the State Water Board has continuing authority to impose specific requirements such as mandatory flow requirements to protect and restore fishery resources affected by Permit 12814, as amended?
8. Forward a copy of the fishery studies that was prepared by San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to the issuance of the Order of March 26, 1992.
In the event fishery studies were not prepared by the permittee, please state that in writing. Also please include a statement why the State Water Board did not require fishery studies.
Forward a copy of the environmental studies that was prepared by San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to the issuance of the Order of March 26, 1992.
In the event environmental studies were not prepared by the permittee, please state that in writing. Also please include a statement why the State Water Board did not require environmental studies.
9. Forward a copy of the CEQA document which was prepared by the Permittee and approved by the Division of Water Rights for the Order of March 26, 1992.
In the event a CEQA document was not prepared, cite the point and authority of law which exempted the Permittee and the Division of Water Rights not to prepare said CEQA document.
10. This is to advise the Division of Water Rights that the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance objects to a license being issued to the Permittee until the State Water Board orders mandatory daily flow requirements from Lopez Dam to protect the fishery resources as required by Fish and Game 5937 and the common law public trust doctrine.
This is to advise the Division of Water Rights that the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance that Permit 12814 and the amendment to Permit 12814 of March 26, 1992 are in violation of Fish and Game 5937 and the common law public trust doctrine because the State Water Board failed to order mandatory daily flow requirements to protect the public trust fishery resources.
A written response is requested.
_______________________________________
Robert J. Baiocchi
For: California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
P.O. Box 357
Quincy, CA 95971
Bus Tel: 916-283-3767 (Quincy Office), 916-836-0338 (Home Office) and 916-283-1007 (law office)
Fax: 916-283-5017
cc: John Turner, Chief
Environmental Services
Department of Fish and Game
William L'Hommedieu
Jim Crenshaw, President
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
Mike Jackson, Counsel
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
Tom Gregory
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
Lewis Moeller
Complaint Unit
Division of Water Rights
Steve Herrera
Environmental Unit
Division of Water Rights
Interested Parties
For further information contact Bob Baiocchi at either 530-836-1115 or
at e-mail address: cspa@psln.com