In the heart of rural America, a contentious battle over water rights is unfolding in the Scott River watershed. The recent notice from the State Water Resources Control Board, while seemingly well-intentioned, raises serious questions about the efficacy and fairness of current water management practices, especially when viewed through the lens of historical data.
The Board’s decision to temporarily suspend curtailments hinges on a critical threshold: a flow rate of 35 cubic feet per second (cfs) at the USGS Fort Jones gage. However, this benchmark appears to be more of a mirage than an attainable goal. As of the notice’s release, the flow rate stood at a mere 28.7 cfs, climbing to only 30.8 cfs after a night of rain. With scorching 90-degree temperatures looming on the horizon, the likelihood of reaching and maintaining the 35 cfs threshold seems slim at best.
What makes this situation even more perplexing is the historical context. Based on 82 years of data for August 24, the median flow rate is 38 cfs, with the 25th percentile at 11 cfs and the 75th percentile at 62 cfs. The current flow rate, hovering around 30 cfs, falls below the historical median but well above the 25th percentile. This raises a critical question: Is the Board’s 35 cfs threshold an arbitrary number that fails to account for the natural variability of the river?
Consider that in 1994, the river’s flow on this date was a mere 4.50 cfs, while in 1983, it surged to 233 cfs. These extremes illustrate the dynamic nature of the Scott River’s flow, which the current policy seems to ignore. By setting a rigid threshold of 35 cfs, the Board may be failing to adapt to the river’s natural fluctuations and the realities of climate variability.
This scenario begs the question: Is the Board setting unattainable goals, effectively dangling false hope in front of the region’s hardworking ranchers and farmers? The economic lifeblood of this rural community hangs in the balance, with livelihoods threatened by what appears to be an arbitrary benchmark that doesn’t align with historical patterns.
Moreover, the timing of this decision raises eyebrows. The species meant to be protected by these measures isn’t even present in the river at this time of year, typically arriving with the fall rains. This brief weather event, coinciding with the opening of hunting season, hardly qualifies as the onset of autumn precipitation.
The broader implications of this situation are deeply troubling. We find ourselves at the mercy of unelected officials, their decisions rippling through our community with profound consequences. The Board’s approach seems to prioritize theoretical environmental benefits over the tangible, immediate needs of the people who have long been stewards of this land, all while potentially misinterpreting the river’s natural flow patterns.
As we navigate these choppy waters, it’s crucial to question whether our current water management strategies truly serve the best interests of both the environment and the community. Are we striking the right balance, or are we sacrificing the livelihoods of rural Americans on the altar of potentially misguided environmental policies that don’t account for the river’s historical behavior?
It’s time for a robust, transparent dialogue between all stakeholders. We need solutions that protect our natural resources without decimating the economic foundation of rural communities, solutions that are grounded in a thorough understanding of the river’s historical flow patterns. The current approach, as evidenced by this recent notice and the historical data, falls woefully short of this goal.
As the mercury rises and the Scott River continues to flow below the arbitrary 35 cfs mark, one thing becomes clear: change is needed. Our water policies must be rooted in reality, taking into account the complex interplay of environmental needs, economic sustainability, the rich agricultural heritage of our region, and the natural variability of our water resources. Anything less is a disservice to both the land we seek to protect and the people who call it home.
United States Geological Survey (USGS) Fort Jones gage
Addendum 1 – Temporary and Conditional Suspension to Scott River Curtailments Orders
temporary suspension of all curtailments in the Scott River watershed through 11:59 pm on Friday, August 30, 2024, as long as the following conditions are met:
- Flows are greater than 35 cubic feet per second (cfs) at the USGS Fort Jones gage;
- Flows remain greater than 35 cfs at the USGS Fort Jones gages;
- If diversions are initiated under the first two bullets, all diversions shall cease when the flow at the UGSS Fort Jones gage decreases to or falls below 35 cfs; and
- Upon commencing diversions under this addendum, surface water diverters shall report their diversions to the State Water Board via email (Email to: [email protected]), including the amount of water being diverted and associated water right. Changes to the initial diversion amount shall be reported at least daily throughout the term of this addendum.
This is Addendum 1 to: Order WR 2024-0024-DWR and Order WR 2024-0025-DWR (Curtailment Orders). These Curtailment Orders are issued to support maintaining the minimum instream flow requirements established in the emergency regulation. Flows at the USGS Fort Jones gage have been below the 30 cfs minimum flow requirement since August 6, 2024. Based on the current flow at the Fort Jones gage and other available information (i.e., flow response to recent precipitation, precipitation forecast for rain this weekend, flow forecast, potential water demand, and past flow responses to rain events in similar water years), the State Water Board is issuing a temporary suspension of curtailments in the Scott River through August 30, 2024. This addendum is limited to one week due to the dynamic nature of the Scott River flows, uncertainty in flow response from forecasted precipitation, uncertainty in the amount of diverters turning on and total demand, the increased flow requirement of 33 cfs at the Fort Jones gage starting on September 1, and risk of not maintaining the minimum instream flow requirement.
The State Water Board will continue to monitor flows, flow forecasts, and watershed conditions regularly to determine if further adjustments to curtailments are appropriate and if the suspension can be extended.
contact State Water Resources Control Board staff by email at:
[email protected] or leave a message at our dedicated Scott River and Shasta River Drought phone line at: (916) 327-3113.
- Drug Bust on I-5 Yields 25 Pounds of Methamphetamine
- Siskiyou County Deputy Injured in Head-On Collision
- Growing News Coverage Across California’s Northern Giant: A Journey Through Siskiyou County
- Vacancy on the Happy Camp Community Services District
- Vacancy on the Happy Camp Fire Protection District
Glad you’re raising these points, Jay! Community leaders have been questioning the relevance of the State Water Board’s flow minimums since they were proposed in Spring 2021, but to no effect, sadly. Actually, their required flow for August is 30 cfs and for September 33 cfs, as their adopted regulations state. Where this new 35 cfs expectation after 9/1 came from is a surprise.
The current situation is an odd one, with flows bottoming out at 15.8 cfs on August 17th and then rapidly increasing to over 30 cfs by 8/24. This steep increase in August contrasts with the average decline, even with some rain. Flow at the tailings reach above Fay Lane is apparently reconnected, which is also unusual for this time of year. While this unexpected flow increase is appreciated, we need to look at multiple factors that could help us understand why this has happened this year and not other years. Some may argue it’s because of the 3,000 acre-feet of artificial groundwater recharge that occurred this past winter by Scott Valley Irrigation District on the eastside fields, which could seep into the river months later. Others may assert that it was caused by the State Water Board’s curtailment orders last month and its reduced groundwater pumping regulation. Is it increased supply and/or reduced demand?
It would sure help if an objective assessment could be done sooner than later, as Scott Valley’s farming is on the cutting edge of the State’s approach to groundwater management, with field-by-field regulation of water use that is not being applied anywhere else in California. Farming and ranching families and Siskiyou County all say it’s hurting our local economy. We should all be demanding some trust-worthy answers.
What can citizens of Siskiyou County do? Is there a petition to sign? Email our representative and senators?