Our Children's Earth Foundation & Ecological Rights Foundation vs. Leland Stanford Junior University
The San Francisquito Creek provides some of the best remaining habitat in the Bay Area for wild steelhead because it connects to the San Francisco Bay and it has remained relatively natural (i.e. it hasn't been lined with cement or channelized) despite more than a century of development in surrounding areas. Unfortunately, it was also named the 5th most endangered waterway in the nation in 2014, and native steelhead trout [o.mykiss] have been listed and protected by the Endangered Species Act since 1997.
5/17/2005: A formal "Biological Opinion" from NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) describes requirements for Stanford's so-called Steelhead Habitat Enhancement Project, which Stanford actually used to increase water diversions from local streams. Subsequent analysis of Stanford's diversion records revealed that the university diverted even more water than was allowed, regularly violating the minimum bypass flow requirements NMFS outlined. Minimum bypass flows are intended to protect steelhead habitat from becoming dangerously dewatered downstream of Stanford's diversion point.
12/6-7/2010: Report of conversations between Stanford and NMFS, December 2010; Stanford refused to provide basic information to regulatory agencies, even though the information was available, because Stanford officials didn't want environmental groups or members of the public to get access to the facts. In these conversations, NMFS and Stanford acknowledged the university's "take" of steelhead downstream of Searsville Dam. Key excerpts:
[Stanford] asked what would happen if NMFS found out that [Searsville Dam] is producing impacts to the downstream reach and effecting steelhead and habitat? [...] [What NMFS] normally do[es] in those situations is request that the applicant modify their diversion in a way that minimizes those effects. Stanford wants to avoid [modifying Searsville Dam to minimize effects to steelhead downstream] because [Stanford is] afraid it will take a long time to work out a new diversion scheme and they don’t want to do that.
Stanford said the data [spill data, reservoir elevation, diversion rates] is available, but [Stanford is] not ready to disclose it to NMFS because it then becomes publicly available information. [NMFS] explained that third parties may have grounds to sue, particularly related to: no bypass measures at the dam, dredging operations, and diversion rates.
Stanford said they understand the threat of a lawsuit is real due to their continued take at the dam, but they are willing to take the risk. Stanford was concerned with what would happen to their pre-1914 water right if they had to alter their diversion scheme [at Searsville Dam] to minimize effects to fish.
12/7/2012: NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service opens investigation into the habitat impacts of Searsville Dam after more than 5 years of receiving complaints from individual watershed residents and from environmental groups. NMFS found probable habitat impacts of the Searsville Dam and good cause to investigate further, but the investigation was closed in May 2013 before complete due to the agency's failure to allocate necessary resources.
1/29/2013 [Amended 5/20/2013]: Legal complaint filed against Stanford University
12/11/2013: Testimony of Stanford's Conservation Program Manager Alan Launer shows that he knows very little about steelhead and steelhead habitat needs
12/20/2013: Testimony of Stanford's Associate Director of Water Services and Civil Infrastructure Tom Zigterman
6/3/2014: Re-initiation of work for Stanford Clean Water Act permit: formal letter from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers explaining next steps after Stanford failed to restore creek banks and surrounding areas as the university had agreed to, and as was required by Stanford's permit.
1/16/2015: Court order to proceed with process to remove Lagunita Diversion Dam: after more than 15 years of pressure from local environmental groups, watershed residents, and regulatory agencies, Stanford finally agreed to take the next steps toward removing the defunct and long-abandoned Lagunita Dam.