Dear Friends:

Some of you will have already received notice from the Stanislaus National Forest that a Decision Memo has been approved for the Fahey Water Transmission Permit that allows applicant Scott Fahey to divert 20 gallons per minute from each of two unnamed springs (referred to as Marco and Polo) in the Hull Creek watershed of the Stanislaus National Forest.

A spring in the Stanislaus Forest, not far from the approved Marco and Polo Springs.

Our Center led the charge to oppose Mr. Fahey getting "water rights" approval from the State Water Board that allows him to divert this national forest springwater, to send it through a pipeline across the national forest, and to then fill tanker trucks that take the springwater to bottling plants. For an individual to make a huge profit from taking public water appears to be a highly negative outcome.

The State Water Board appeared to ignore almost all of the concerns raised by CSERC and numerous other interests who submitted letters to the Water Board. The Board eventually approved Mr. Fahey's water rights, which left only a USFS permit as a necessary step for Mr. Fahey.

At that point, CSERC and at least 40 other individuals submitted letters of concern to the Stanislaus National Forest. We pointed out that the water diversion would take public water out of a Critical Aquatic Refuge (the Clavey River watershed). We noted that the minimum flow was so low (at 5 gallons per minute) that Mr. Fahey would be allowed to take up to 80% of the water from each spring. We provided numerous other specific concerns about impacts to riparian habitat, amphibians, etc..

In response, Forest Supervisor Susan Skalski in coordination with various other USFS staff, determined that approving the Fahey project at Marco and Polo springs was consistent with various national forest policies and existing laws. She approved a Decision Memo authorizing Mr. Fahey to proceed with his water diversion project. Most of the specific concerns (such as water being taken from a Critical Aquatic Refuge) were either not responded to in the Decision Memo that approved the project, or the document determined that "no adverse effects" were likely to occur from allowing Mr. Fahey to divert the water.

However, although Supervisor Skalski approved the diversion of spring water at both Marco and Polo springs, one very important change was required. Instead of just requiring a minimum flow of 5 gallons per minute (gpm) at each of the two springs, Skalski's Decision Memo determined that to maintain riparian vegetation and habitat, a minimum of 10 gpm must be maintained at each of the springs. This doubles the minimum flow that was originally suggested by the Forest Service, and the higher minimum flow requirement responds to CSERC's strong request for a minimum of 10 gpm at each spring.

This is a significant improvement, especially for the summer season when the extra 5 gallons per minute will constantly be replenishing the small streams that flow downslope from each of the springs.

In addition, there is the new requirement for monitoring for any new invasive weeds (other than bull thistle and wooly mullein) for at least two years following construction of the project. This was another concern that our Center and some of you raised in your letters.

And finally, additional photo points and wetland monitoring are required to establish the baseline condition and to restrict water diversions by Mr. Fahey if there is any visible loss of riparian vegetation at the project diversion sites. If the riparian habitat shrinks, Mr. Fahey's approval to divert water also shrinks.

So, it continues to be a frustrating disappointment that an individual can see a spring on national forest lands, apply to appropriate the water from that spring, and then end up gaining approval to make large profits by sending that public forest spring water to a private water bottling company. But given the fact that the State Water Board and U.S. Forest Service see commercial bottling of public forest water as consistent with agency policies, it is positive that at least the Forest Service mitigation requirements include the much higher minimum flows as well as better monitoring of the riparian vegetation.

Thanks to all of you who wrote, who encouraged others to submit comments, or who communicated orally your concerns to the Forest Service.

Be aware that the Forest Service permit does NOT authorize any increase in water tanker truck traffic going through the town of Tuolumne. That matter is under the jurisdiction of Tuolumne County. If anyone sees an increase in the number of trucks, please take photos of the water trucks and contact our Center for support. We will gladly pursue enforcement action from the County.

Thanks again for all of you who took the time to communicate to the Forest Service. Together our comments and voices of concern helped push the minimum flow to 10 instead of only 5 gallons per minute at each site.

John Buckley
CSERC
johnb@cserc.org

Back to the Top

RETURN TO CSERC HOMEPAGE