Siskiyou

New California Bill Aims to Protect Klamath River Salmon with Extended Water Flow Regulations

Water Rights Holders in Scott, Shasta Basins Voice Concerns Over AB 263’s Impact on Agriculture

SISKIYOU COUNTY, CA — Agricultural stakeholders in California’s Scott and Shasta River watersheds are raising concerns about Assembly Bill 263 (AB 263), introduced by Assemblymember Chris Rogers (D-Santa Rosa), which seeks to extend emergency water flow regulations designed to protect salmon habitats. While the bill is championed by environmental and tribal groups, water rights holders argue it could undermine local farming and ranching operations.

AB 263, introduced on January 16, awaits committee assignment after its first reading.

Background on AB 263
The bill aims to maintain minimum instream flow requirements in the Scott and Shasta Rivers, initially enacted as emergency drought measures by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in 2021. These regulations, set to expire in early 2026, would remain in place under AB 263 until permanent rules are adopted. Supporters, including the Karuk and Yurok Tribes and the California Coastkeeper Alliance, say the flows are critical to restoring salmon populations, which are vital to tribal cultures and coastal economies.

Local agricultural groups, however, contend that locking emergency drought-era rules into law could jeopardize water access during non-drought years. While the SWRCB developed the original regulations with input from ranchers and farmers, water rights holders argue the emergency thresholds were never intended as permanent solutions.

Representatives from Siskiyou County emphasize that the Scott and Shasta River basins support livestock, hay, and crop operations reliant on predictable water allocations. They warn that inflexible flow mandates could force reductions in irrigated acreage, threatening the region’s agricultural economy.

Water users acknowledge the need to protect salmon but stress that long-term flow rules should account for both ecological and agricultural needs. Many point to existing partnerships with state agencies and tribes on habitat restoration projects, such as modernizing irrigation systems and improving fish passage, as evidence of their commitment to conservation.

Critics of AB 263 argue the bill bypasses opportunities for stakeholder collaboration in favor of a legislative mandate. They urge lawmakers to prioritize a science-based, adaptive approach to flow management that adjusts to annual water availability rather than codifying emergency drought measures.

Tribal leaders, meanwhile, describe the bill as essential to addressing decades of ecological decline. Karuk Chairman Russell ‘Buster’ Attebery stated in a press release: “With mainstream dams removed, we must now focus on the critical spawning and rearing habitat in the Scott and Shasta Rivers. It’s time to restore balance.”

Assemblymember Rogers has framed AB 263 as a bridge to permanent regulations, asserting it provides “certainty” for ecosystems and agriculture alike. His office highlighted the SWRCB’s ongoing efforts to develop long-term flow standards through a public process.

This bill is an important step for the health of the imperiled salmon populations. In a press release, Assemblymember Rogers stated,  “We have made tremendous strides to restore the salmon runs in the Klamath River but more must be done further upstream to ensure salmon populations can grow and flourish. This legislation will protect some of the most critical salmon habitat in California and will complement the restoration efforts associated with Klamath dam removal.”

Next Steps
AB 263 is awaiting committee referral after its first reading in the Assembly. Agricultural coalitions, including the California Farm Bureau, plan to engage in the legislative process to advocate for amendments that address water users’ concerns.

This story will be updated as AB 263 progresses through the legislature. Source materials include public statements from Assemblymember Rogers’ office, the Karuk Tribe, California Coast Keeper Alliance, and SWRCB documents.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*