“The Court has carefully considered all pending claims, and if any claims were not specifically addressed in this order, the Court did not find them persuasive. Accordingly, as discussed in this order, petitioners’ claims are all denied.”
The Sacramento Superior Court has ruled in favor of the State Water Board’s 2018 Bay Delta Plan update, denying all 116 claims by petitioners.
In December 2018, the State Water Resources Control Plan adopted revised flow objectives for the San Joaquin River and its three major tributaries, the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced rivers. The new flow objectives provide for increased flows on the three tributaries to help revive and protect native fall-run migratory fish populations. The Board also adopted a revised south Delta salinity objectives, increasing the level of salinity allowed from April to August
Several petitions were filed in several counties challenging the Board’s action. Most hold water rights on the tributaries or represent those reliant on water from the tributaries for ag or municipal uses. A few petitioners represented environmental interests.
The claims were brought under the Porter Cologne Act, CEQA, the public trust doctrine, and article X, section 2 of the California Constitution. Most petitioners challenged the flow objectives, with some saying the Board’s objectives required too much water to be released while others argued the new flow objectives did not require enough water to be released. A few challenged the revised southern Delta salinity objective, saying it would degrade water quality and harm crops.
Collectively, there were 116 claims and administrative record totalling over 770,000 pages.
The Court denied all claims, stating in its conclusion:
“The Court has endeavored to address all of petitioner’s pending 116 claims. But given the volume of claims, and the nuanced points many of them present, it is possible that not all claims have been addressed to the satisfaction of all parties. It is also possible that certain claims were not specifically addressed. The Court, however, has carefully considered all pending claims, and if any claims were not specifically addressed in this order, the Court did not find them persuasive. Accordingly, as discussed in this order, petitioners’ claims are all denied.”
2024-03-15 State Water Board cases decision
