THE PONDS PROJECT - Sustainable Conservation

Diverters’ concerns about cumulative environmental impacts from water withdrawals led
to questions about how these impacts should be addressed. Should an existing diverter
who voluntarily participates in a restoration effort have to pay the price (in terms of
environmental restrictions and study requirements) for the cumulative effects of other
diverters? More specifically, is there a difference between applying for a new water right
versus continuing to use an existing right?
For example, if an existing, senior diverter decided to build an off-stream storage pond to
reduce a summer diversion by 50 percent, should this diverter be obliged to pay for
studies to assess the cumulative impacts of all existing summer diversions in the
watershed? 10 In addition, if it was determined that existing summer flows were not
sufficient to protect fish populations, who would bear the burden of reducing diversions,
and would restrictions be based on water right seniority? In other words, is being “first”
to restore streamflows a benefit or a liability?
Without answers to these questions, it became very difficult for the project to make
progress toward completing a voluntary permitting framework that would improve
conditions both for fish and farmers.
Are There Better Approaches to Streamflow Restoration?
The strength of the Ponds Project was to be a cooperative up-front permitting framework
that provided prospective participants with a certain outcome. Designing this framework
would require overcoming the challenge of tailoring the program to address a range of
potential watershed and stream conditions. Overcoming this challenge would require: (1)
the resolution of questions surrounding the environmental baseline; (2) ensuring
regulatory certainty for future agricultural water supplies; and (3) establishing a
mechanism and protocol for addressing minimum flow requirements for fisheries if their
populations continue to decline.
One option for moving forward would be to limit the scope of the project to a single
watershed. A more limited scope would reduce the range of conditions that need
addressing, and it would make the development of a permitting framework more
straightforward. However, a more limited scope would also reduce the usefulness of the
programmatic permit process, and such an outcome might not be worth the investment.
Still, programmatic permitting for one watershed could provide a model for use in other
watersheds, and provide the basis for a larger, regional approach. Both CDFG and
NMFS have successfully used a programmatic approach in at least one watershed to
address conflicts over natural resources 11 .
A second option for moving forward would be to investigate the potential for creating an
“experimental program area” in coastal areas of San Mateo and Northern Santa Cruz
counties to test new regulatory models for voluntary restoration of streamflows.
10 Please see Appendix E for additional guidance on study requirements.
11 Pine Gulch, a tributary to Bolinas Lagoon
28