Another big hitter in California rivers has waded into the ongoing Kern River legal battle.
California Trout, a conservation group dedicated to healthy rivers, filed a brief with the 5th District Court of Appeal asking justices to reinstate an injunction that had required enough water be kept in the river for fish to survive.
CalTrout has been watching the Kern River case closely, said attorney Walter Collins.
“First, the Kern is a really important river in California,” Collins said. “And our interest in this case surrounds (California) Fish and Game Code 5937. It is a central pillar of protection in California for rivers and species. Any time it’s under threat, CalTrout will be there to protect its legacy.”
Fish and Game Code 5937 states dam owners must put enough water downstream to keep fish in good condition. It was the linchpin in restoring other rivers, including the San Joaquin in Fresno County and was the underpinning of the injunction on the Kern River.
The Kern River case also attracted the attention of the Morrison Foerster law firm, which joined the Bring Back the Kern coalition last month in its lawsuit against the City of Bakersfield over Kern River operations.
As that lawsuit progressed, the plaintiffs won an injunction last October ordering the city to keep enough water in the river for fish. Agricultural water districts with water rights on the river appealed the injunction, which was stayed in May.
The river has since dried up leading to a massive fish die off.
Calls to two of the ag water districts weren’t returned on Tuesday.
CalTrout filed what’s known as an “amicus,” or friend-of-the-court, brief in the ag districts’ appeal. In its brief, CalTrout disputes how the ag districts describe one of CalTrout’s most well-known legal wins, two cases in 1989 and 1990 that helped restore flows in four Eastern Sierra streams that feed Mono Lake.
In their appeal, the ag districts argue the CalTrout cases don’t apply to the Kern River case. Further, they argue Kern County Superior Court Judge Gregory Pulskamp misinterpreted the cases when he used them, and 5937, to support his injunction last year.
CalTrout’s amicus brief disagrees.
“We strongly felt we needed to clarify our view of those cases,” Collins said, calling the ag districts’ interpretation of the CalTrout cases a “confusing mix of arguments.”
The amicus brief states Pulskamp was correct in how he interpreted the CalTrout cases and that 5937 does apply to the Kern River.
Collins said the outcome of this appeal could have far-ranging impacts to river conservation efforts throughout the state.
The 5th District announced that the Kern River case has been fully briefed, which means interested parties can now file amicus briefs and justices may set a hearing in the near future.
