CSPA

CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE

THE MIDGE THAT ROARED

By Lorna Carriveau

(Originally printed in the Fall 1995 issue of Fly Fisher, the magazine of the Federation of Fly Fishers)

What is the name of the California-based fishery advocacy organization that was begun in 1983 by the Northern California and Southwest Councils, has affected waters not only in California but throughout the United States, and employs only one consultant in the tiny Sierra town of Quincy? If you know the answer to that question, you're one in a million. It's the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, known variously as CSPA or CalSPA, and one of the best kept secrets in California.

In 1982, the Northern California Council (NCC), led by the late Roy Haile, felt that there was a strong need for active lobbying on behalf of fish in California's capitol. Lobbying, however, could jeopardize the NCC's nonprofit status, so a separate organization had to be created. According to Marty Seldon of the NCC, they also believed that the new organization should represent more than fly fishing interests, and therefore all angling groups should support this effort. The founding groups, represented by Roy Haile (then President of the NCC), John Beuttler (United Anglers), Jay Engel (Southwest Council), Marty Seldon (NCC), and Chuck Gilpin (California Striped Bass Association), contributed $25,000 to the fledgling CSPA and established its initial mission: to cover all aspects of fishery conservation and legislation in Sacramento.

Over the years, much has changed. CSPA now receives the bulk of its annual budget (approximately $36,000) from the NCC, the Southwest Council and individual donors. And its focus has changed from lobbying to administrative remedies.

What are administrative remedies? Basically, they are ways to use the system to enforce the system. California has excellent laws protecting fisheries, but a poor track record of enforcing them. CSPA files dozens of protests and water right petitions every year with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to ensure that adequate amounts of water flow from dams and diversions. In addition, it files complaints and petitions of intervention with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to ensure that hydroelectric projects provide adequate flows for fish. If all these measures fail, CSPA also files lawsuits against violators.

Filing protests and complaints, appearing before Boards and Commissions, writing briefs and appearing in court is a numbingly slow, painstaking effort. Along the way, Bob Baiocchi, chief consultant (and only paid person) for CSPA, environmental attorneys Mike Jackson and Tom Gregory, Chairman Jennings, and President Crenshaw have become the state's leading experts on water rights and public trust complaints. As Mike Jackson has stated, "Historically, if it's been a matter of the public trust versus private interest, the public trust has always won."

By basing their complaints on public trust arguments and not vulnerable legislation such as the Endangered Species Act, CSPA has maintained solid legal footing and earned the respect of water users and administrators throughout California.

Because it works within the system and behind the scenes, CSPA'saccomplishments are unheralded and often unwelcome. In the 1980's CSPA's biggest challenge was to be taken seriously by the SWRCB. It was easier for the Board to rubber stamp water right applications and petitions rather than accept protests. Protests can take years of work on the part of an advocacy organization, involving environmental documentation, studies and consulting with SWRCB and other agency staff, in the hope that the protest will eventually be accepted by the SWRCB staff and a hearing held.

CSPA's hard work filing protests on the lower Yuba River, the lower Mokelumne River, the Carmel River, and the Bay-Delta Estuary paid off in 1992 with its being a party to 75 days of hearings before the SWRCB. Although this was a major time commitment by CSPA and its budget was consumed in acquiring witnesses and developing evidence, it won the hearings and established an excellent hearing record - but to date the SWRCB has not made decisions on these protests. A suit against the SWRCB to force it to make decisions is probably the next step. It's frustrating, but as Bob Baiocchi says, "Filing protests keeps the governmental process honest and levels the playing field for fish.

Backroom deals will always occur, but now the water users have to dealwith CSPA."

CSPA's use of the water rights process has left its mark on many riversand streams in California. A partial listing of those waters on whose behalf CSPA filed protests in 1994-1995 alone includes Lake Almanor, Hot Creek, the North Fork of the Feather River, and the Carmel, Salinas, San Joaquin, Russian, Stanislaus, Big Sur, Merced, San Luis Rey, and Santa Ynez Rivers - waters covering the length and breadth of California.

Protests often are just the beginning. Although CSPA was able to stopthe proposed San Clemente Dam from being built on the Carmel River, the proposed New Los Padres Dam Project will probably demand the same amount of attention. CSPA's protests against increasing water rights applications on the Russian River (over 1,600!) have forced the SWRCB to review the cumulative affects of the applications. The Town of Mammoth Lakes has cancelled the proposed crosswind runway at its airport that would have directed jets directly over Hot Creek because of action taken by CSPA and attorneys for Hot Creek Ranch. CSPA plans to file a lawsuit against the Bureau of Reclamation to require adequate flows to restore steelhead fisheries on the Santa Ynez River. And the end of CSPA's work is not in sight.

CSPA has also documented over 64,000 days of dam flow violations by hydroelectric project licensees in California. As a result of CSPA complaints with FERC and dealing with a congressional subcommittee, the Federal Power Act was amended to increase violations from $500 per day up to $10,000 per day. FERC also commenced a nationwide monitoring program to ensure that all hydro projects were in compliance with their fish flow requirements as well as other conditions in their licenses.

There are over 2,000 federally licensed hydroelectric dams in the United States, affecting fisheries from Washington to Florida.

CSPA's foes have been many and varied. Actions have been filed against the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, California Department of Fish & Game, Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern Pacific Railroad, and the East Bay Municipal Utility District, among others.

Some have simply ignored mandatory fish flows, some have tried to evade responsibility for damages to watersheds, and some have argued that people need water more than fish. Regardless of the violator or the intent, however, fish belong to the people, and CSPA, like many others, is there to fight for the rights of fish AND the people.

There have also been partnerships with other sportfishing groups over the years. CSPA joined the lawsuit with United Anglers, Friends of the River, and several other groups against Southern Pacific Railroad when the 1991 Upper Sacramento River spill first occurred (the suit was later subsumed by the State of California and has been settled). It has also worked closely with California Trout on regulatory issues. After all, no single organization has the resources to combat the years of drought and decades of politics that have decimated California's prize fisheries.

The Northern California Council is proud of its support of CSPA and of this "mighty midge's" success. "I don't believe in our lifetimes that we'll see another organization with the administrative standing and credibility CSPA has on rivers and streams in California," notes Bob Baiocchi. " In fact, I look back and wonder, how in the hell did we do it? We may not win all of the issues, but the other side has to deal with CSPA on a daily basis."

The mailing address for the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance

P.O. Box 357, Quincy, CA 95971.

Your interest and support are welcome!