News

Stanford must allow access for endangered species inspection

Environmental groups sought access to Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve during drought

A federal judge has ruled that despite drought conditions -- or perhaps because of them -- Stanford University must allow two environmental groups to inspect fragile endangered species habitat at the Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve. That inspection will place today, Feb. 28, starting at 8 a.m.

Our Children's Earth and Ecological Rights Foundation filed a lawsuit against the university in January 2013, claiming Stanford is harming endangered steelhead trout. The university is in violation of the Endangered Species Act by maintaining Searsville Dam and diverting millions of gallons of water from the San Francisquito Creek watershed for irrigation purposes, the lawsuit claims.

As part of an agreement for the "discovery" portion of the case, both sides agreed to three seasonal inspections of Searsville Dam and related areas by the plaintiffs' expert. The first inspection took place at the end of August 2013 during the dry season. The second inspection was to take place during the rainy season around the time of the first significant storm. The purpose was to observe wet season conditions in the San Francisquito Creek watershed. But this year's extreme drought sparked a controversy over the definition of seasonal inspection.

Our Children's Earth claimed it should be allowed to view the habitat during the fall, winter and spring seasons to observe all seasonal conditions, even if there is no rain. Stanford maintained the drought forestalls inspection, and it should not take place until there is a significant rain event.

Our Children's Earth expected the winter habitat inspection would coincide with changing creek flow and rainfall. But this winter has shaped up to be a historically dry one, perhaps the worst drought in the state's 163-year history.

The drought is precisely why Our Children's Earth should be allowed to inspect the habitat. Inspecting the areas under existing conditions would provide useful information concerning hoe the habitat is faring, and whether it can provide for the life cycles of endangered creatures despite the combined stresses of drought and Stanford's operations, the plaintiffs' attorneys said.

"We disagree that Stanford can unilaterally announce that plaintiffs will not be able to observe all ecologically relevant conditions -- which vary with seasons," lawyers for the ecological group wrote in an email to Stanford, according to court records.

Stanford maintained in its reply brief that it has never disputed about whether the inspections can take place. But the plaintiffs' request for a drought inspection rather than a wet-weather inspection violated the agreement, Stanford said. Sticking to the strict letter of the agreement, the university said Our Children's Earth agreed to one dry weather inspection and two wet-weather inspections.

Stanford told the court it would not object to the second inspection going forward soon, despite the less favorable conditions, provided the plaintiffs did not claim later that they did not see the migration conditions they needed to observe and demand another inspection.

U.S. District Court Judge Judith Laporte sided with Our Children's Earth in part, compelling Stanford to give up to four persons access to view inspection areas from the roads and trails. An expert, accompanied by the plaintiffs' attorney, may enter the San Francisquito Creek streambed at designated points to take samples and measurements. The permitted inspection areas include walking up to the confluence of Corte Madera and Bear creeks; up Corte Madera Creek to the base of Searsville Dam; and down the creek as far as is passable to a disputed area, the Jasper Ridge Road Crossing, a concrete road crossing that is downstream from Searsville Dam.

Our Children's Earth claims that Stanford's construction of the Jasper Ridge Road Crossing and some supports for the water pipeline violate the Clean Water Act by discharging sediment and pollutants from the booster pump into San Francisquito Creek. The university is also allegedly discharging sediment and pollutants from a pipeline valve at the base of the dam into Corte Madera Creek. But Stanford argued those allegations were not part of the original complaint, and therefore had nothing to do with the original discovery agreement.

Laporte ruled against a request by Our Children's Earth to extend its inspection to Bear Creek above Searsville Dam and Reservoir. But the order prohibits the university from introducing any evidence based on observations of those areas in order to show that they are not potential habitat for the Central California Coast steelhead trout.

Christopher Sproul, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said he disagreed that Bear Creek and the booster pump are not related to the lawsuit.

"We tried to explain that it is all about Searsville Reservoir and the water being drained from the watershed. We think it's related," he said.

Stanford spokeswoman Jean McCown said that Stanford's resistance stemmed from concerns over Jasper Ridge's ecologically sensitive areas. The university also wanted a clear picture of the type of equipment and testing that would take place to ensure sensitive areas were not disturbed. The plaintiffs did not initially make that information available to Stanford, she said. The scope and methods of testing were later laid out in court and mandated by the judge.

The rains this week, however, would make the dry-inspection issue moot, she said. She conceded that Mother Nature had thrown a curve into the situation.

"The idea was to look at summer/fall during the dry season and in winter and spring during the big flows. But that really hasn't happened, This is not a normal season," she said.

Staff Writer Sue Dremann can be emailed at sdremann@paweekly.com.

Comments

Posted by Matt Stoecker, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 28, 2014 at 4:27 pm

Thank you Sue for your ongoing coverage of our creek and the critically important issue of Searsville Dam. While our Beyond Searsville Dam coalition is not a part of this lawsuit, and we are actively engaged in Stanford's Searsville Dam Advisory Group process, it is good to see that many of these issues are being discussed publicly. Unnecessary fish passage barriers, unneeded diversions, and sediment discharges into the creek are all degrading our watershed and quality of life. We continue to work with Stanford and all stakeholders to eliminate and minimize these negative impacts. It is in the best interest of everyone to phase out many of these outdated and century old facilities and replace them with readily available and low impact alternatives; such as free-span bridges, using existing damless diversions and wells, and storing water more efficiently as groundwater and in existing off-stream reservoirs.
We hope that Stanford rises to the occasion and upgrades its water supply system to one that restores our creek and provides them a reliable water future. These goals are compatible!


Posted by Craig Laughton, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 28, 2014 at 4:59 pm

San Francisquito Creek has, for historical reasons, been obstructed. Searsville Dam is the most obvious barrier. It is time to let SF Creek to run free, as long as there are diversion channels to prevent downstream flooding during storm periods. Stanford should provide reservoir potentials, on their upstream lands for flood control. In return, Stanford would get good will, and the use of any stored waters, including pumping. Felt Lake come to mind?


Posted by Former employee, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 3, 2014 at 9:16 am

Stanford does not think that they have to follow any law they don't like, so they don't. Huge fines don't put any dent in their bank accounts, and they have all the best lawyers on retainer. They could care less how long these lawsuits drag on. If they lose, they just appeal, and let that drag on.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Touring the Southern California “Ivies:” Pomona and Cal Tech
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 5 comments | 2,326 views

Chai Brisket
By Laura Stec | 3 comments | 1,645 views

Sometimes "I'm Sorry" Doesn't Cut It
By Cheryl Bac | 4 comments | 882 views

Couples: Parallel Play or Interactive Play?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 652 views

SJSU Center for Steinbeck Studies to Honor Author Khaled Hosseini on Weds Sept 10
By Nick Taylor | 0 comments | 534 views