Mr. Luann Erickson, Engineering Associate August 5, 1991
Hearing Unit
Division of Water Rights
P.O. Box 2000
Sacramento, CA 95812-2000
Re: Petition for Extension of Time; City of Crescent City, Petitioner; Smith River; Protest by California Sportfishing Protection Alliance; Further Comments by CSPA.
Dear Ms. Erickson:
On March 25, 1991, the CSPA filed a protest with the State Water Board against the extension of time on Permit No. 11475 by the City of Crescent City. On April 23, 1991, the CSPA protest was accepted by the Division of Water Rights. On May 8, 1991, the petitioner answers the protest by the CSPA. On August 1, 1991, Ms. Luann Erickson of the Division stated that as yet, our response to the City of Crescent City answer has not been received, and that if the Division does not hear from the CSPA within 20 days from the date of this letter, the Division will assume the petitioner's answer has satisfied the CSPA concerns and the CSPA protest will be dismissed.
Please do not assume anything, and please do not dismiss any of the CSPA protest(s) until either we dismiss the protest on our own part or request a hearing. In the event you have problems in contacting me, please contact Jim Crenshaw, President, CSPA, at 916-338-2444 or Michael Jackson, Counsel, CSPA, at 916-283-1007. Thank you.
The reason why the CSPA filed a protest on said petition is because the State Water Board failed to include fish and wildlife protection measures in WR permits issued many years ago. There are appropriately 18,000 WR permits, of which many do not have terms and condition which protect the public trust fish and wildlife assets of the state. Also, during the period when the WR permit was issued to the petitioner, CEQA did not exist. Consequently, the impacts to the environment at the point of diversion and at the points and places of use were never evaluated and mitigated by the State Water Board. This should advise you and the City why the protest was filed by the CSPA.
The City of Crescent City WR permit was issued in 1958, approximately 33 years ago. To date, and 33 years after the permit was issued by the State Water Board, the City has not put the water [7,260 acre-feet of water] to full beneficial use. As we recall, in the event a water right is not put to full beneficial use after five (5) years, the amount of water not put to beneficial use by the permittee reverts back to the public.
The City claims a right for 9.8 cfs daily from January 1 to December 31 annually from the Smith River. This equates to approximately 7,260 acre-feet of water. The maximum amount of annual use by the City in the Division's petition notice is 2,600 acre-feet. Consequently, the City is requesting an extension of time to put to full beneficial use approximately 4, 660 acre-feet of water.
The City is claiming they have a growth problem and are in the mist of a period of unusual growth due to the construction of the Pelican Bay Prison. The City stated that they do not project that their needs for water will exceed the amount permitted, however it will exceed the amount currently used. The City further stated that if the City is limited to the amount of water currently put to beneficial use, growth of the area will be severely limited. However, no site specific information and data based on studies was submitted to the CSPA in the City's answer to support their allegations.
The City claims that a fish screen and mandatory minimum bypass flow requirements on the diversion works as recommended by the CSPA should not be necessary because no portion of their facility is in the river. We disagree. The City is diverting the underflow of the river and surface flow is normally affected by underflow diversions. Also, attraction flows for anadromous fish species may be potentially impacted by the diversion of the underflow. The City did not provide any information and data based on the results of studies to determine the effects to attraction flows and anadromous fish species in the river during the migration period. Also outmigration flows for juvenile anadromous fish species could also be impacts from the diversion of the underflow.
In the CSPA protest we requested the State Water Board to amend the City's permit and limit it to the amount of water put to beneficial use annually. Considering that after 33 years the City has not put approximately 4,460 acre-feet of water to full beneficial use, we are requesting the State Water Board to amend the permit to limit the annually diversion to 2,600 acre-feet of water, and allow the 4,460 acre-feet of water to revert to the public. We are also requesting the State Water Board to require the preparation of a CEQA document to determine the impacts to the environment, and also to determine growth inducing impacts from putting the additional 4,660 acre-feet of water to beneficial use, in the event the State Water Board does not amend and limit the diversion as a result of this protest.
If there are any further questions, I can be reached at my office at 916-283-3767. Thank you.
Respectfully Submitted
_________________________________________
Robert J. Baiocchi, Executive Director, CSPA
P.O. Box 357
Quincy, CA 95971
cc: Mr. Jim Crenshaw, President, CSPA
Mr. Bill Jennings, Chairman, CSPA
Mr. Michael Jackson, Counsel, CSPA
Mr. Gary Widman, CSPA Board
Attorney at Law
Mr.David L. Gustafson, Director of Public Works
City of Crescent City
343 G Street
Crescent City, CA 95531
Interested Parties
attachments