And while the idea is an interesting one, actual implementation faces a lot of hurdles – not the least of which is the 602′ high Shasta Dam. In fact, transporting fish over the dam and then back down (of the two, back down might be harder) could relegate this project to has-been status – except that the fisheries people don’t see many alternatives.

Underground Fave water journalist Matt Weiser wrote this article about the project, where he notes the issues, but also pens several telling passages (both key passages bolded below):

Restoring fisheries above Folsom, Shasta dams faces high hurdles | Sacramento Bee

The Sacramento was the only river in western North America with four salmon runs. They numbered in the millions – so numerous that American Indians and settlers could catch a salmon dinner with their bare hands. Now one run is gone, and two are endangered. The fourth could join them soon.

Restoring a fragment of that spectacle to the Central Valley is the goal of rules proposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The service wants, among other things, restoration of winter- and spring-run salmon above Shasta Dam on the Sacramento River, and steelhead above Folsom Dam on the American River.

Combined, the fish transit order is considered the biggest of its kind in U.S. history.

…

“It’s pretty substantial, the amount of work that’s required,” said Mike Chotkowski, regional environmental officer at the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which operates the dams. “We still haven’t even determined whether it’s feasible.”

The fisheries service says that without restoring access upstream, it’s likely the three fish species will go extinct. Climate change means it will be harder to maintain cold-water habitat below the dams, so they must have access to better habitat.

“The fish are at that jeopardy point where it’s important for us to take immediate steps,” said Howard Brown, Sacramento River basin chief for the fisheries service.

Wow. Frankly, this is an idea I hadn’t even heard proposed before, and now some consider it essential. Is it a desperate throw of the dice, or simply a recognition that the hatchery mitigation model has totally let us down, and that habitat destruction in the central valley is largely irreversible?

Some have already suggested it’s far most cost-effective to simply restore small creeks below the dams:

Rabe said 600 small creeks between Modesto and Redding also could be restored – at far less cost than fixing the big dams.

“Don’t
waste time and money on the dams. Spend it on the creeks,” he said.
“That would open literally thousands of miles of spawning, which would
make a huge, huge difference.”

Still – as we learned from the destruction-by-irrigator of Singlebarbed’s home waters – most of the Central Valley’s waterways are tied up by the West’s arcane water laws, and restoring cool, clean, sustainable flows to them might be even more involved than figuring out how to move fish around big dams.

In other words, it appears we’ve pumped all our easy options into oblivion, and all that’s left are the hard choices that nobody wants to make (so they probably won’t get made). 

See you on the dam, Tom Chandler.

salmon restoration, california salmon, california water wars, sacramento river salmon, shasta dam, matt weiser, upper sacramento river

Last year, a federal judge dealt the final blow to “business as usual” by limiting the amount of water that could be pumped from the Delta, citing damage to the fast-shrinking Delta Smelt population.

Fueled by unchecked population growth (and a growing demand for water), a drought, and the specter of global warming, Judge Wanger’s decision ignited what had been brewing for years.

The moment Wanger issued his order, California’s modern water wars began.

Will California’s water wither in the face of population growth?

Hyper Gridlock

The real result of California’s water wars has been a kind of hyper-gridlock, with advocates for irrigators and SoCal residential users desperately trying to stave off reductions in deliveries while fisheries and environmental groups demand water be used to protect endangered/commercially compromised fish populations.

With proposals predictably spanning the spectrum (“More storage” says the farm lobby, “Use less” say the fish folks), little, if anything, has been accomplished.

Now a widely anticipated report from an independent study group says that the peripheral canal – a project whose very name brings epithets to the lips of Northern Californians unwilling to see any more water shipped south – is the best, most cost-effective strategy for ensuring California’s water supply and for saving the California Delta.

What They’re Saying

The only real constant in all this has been the wide-ranging coverage provided by the Aquafornia blog, which quickly threw together a post summarizing reactions to the report’s announcement.

They followed that with two cautionary pieces, one suggesting the problem isn’t conveyance, it’s that water’s going where it shouldn’t, and yet another SF Chronicle opinion piece cautiously endorsing the idea of the Peripheral Canal provided more than lip service is paid to salmon recovery efforts:

Any proposals for new infrastructure, whether a Peripheral Canal or new water storage, must go beyond lip service about restoring salmon, and actually do it. There must be a complete package that ensures sustainable restoration of the delta’s valuable fisheries. We need to provide the water that fish need when and where they need it. There must be money available to ensure that key restoration projects are not merely planned, but executed. We need to create financial incentives that will encourage everyone to do a far better job of conserving water. Most critically, we need guarantees that our water  anagers will be held accountable to ensure that promises are kept.

For those not familiar with it, the Peripheral Canal would divert Sacramento River water before it even reaches the California Delta, reasoning that it’s far less environmentally damaging than using massive pumps to remove from the south end of the Delta.

Most experts agree in theory, but the environmental and fisheries communities – groups with little faith in those running the Central Water Project – can’t see past the potential for massive diversions of water around the Delta, which – combined with even limited pumping – would lead to the complete collapse of the ecosystem.

In essence, the Peripheral Canal issue could come down to trust – something the state’s water users haven’t exactly earned.

Can We Trust the Water Project?

Enviros – most of whom can’t forget the nightmare of the Trinity River, where a pair of dams – which were “guaranteed” to be operated so as not to damage the Trinity’s robust fishery – immediately began robbing the river of as much as 90% of its water.

(The majority of that water was shipped to Westlands Water District – the same politically-connected water district who now want to flood miles of trout streams by raising the Shasta Dam.)

After literally decades of litigation, groups like the Friends of the Trinity got a little water returned to the Trinity River, and the result has been steelhead fishing so good that fishermen can’t find places to park on weekends.

More recently, the water project’s massive pumping from the Delta and apparent disregard for the health of the Delta (and the state’s commercially viable fisheries) has pretty much soured the milk as far as enviros are concerned.

Yet Another Water Grab?

Where some see a Peripheral Canal as a solution to the state’s water woes, many environmentalists see yet another water grab, and sadly, history (see above) suggests they might be right.

Dan Bacher – well known writer and fisheries activist, said:

In spite of the hypocritical rhetoric that Feinstein and Schwarzenegger and the Public Policy Institute’s authors spin about “ecosystem restoration,” the only purpose of the peripheral canal is to create the capacity to export more water from the Delta. We need increased conservation of water so that we can restore Central Valley salmon, delta smelt, longfin smelt and other fish to historical levels, not increased water exports.

Even those who believe the Peripheral Canal could be helpful fear its potential for shunting massive amounts of Sacramento River water south (that trust thing again).

Others – as quoted in this largely negative Stockton Record story about the Peripheral Canal – are even less interested in seeing it built:

One of the canal’s most outspoken opponents, Stockton attorney Dante Nomellini, had this to say: “The basic thrust of their effort is to try and maintain exports from the Delta and turn the Delta into a saltwater bay.”

Given the history and the potential for overwhelming political pressure to move water south, there’s not much faith that – should water supplies tighten even more – water interests would resist the intense pressure to “keep it flowing.

Interestingly, a Sacramento Bee writer (Dan Walters) wrote an opinion piece stating it’s time for everyone to abandon their agenda and get the peripheral canal built, and actually accused environmental groups of sacrificing the delta for their own causes, a startling statement given that environmentalists have not been pumping record amounts of water from the Delta the last five years:

While shedding public tears over the Delta’s plight, they have been, in effect, willing to sacrifice its environmental health for their other agenda.

Even more interestingly, a majority of the normally conservative SacBee commenters (on the SacBee Web site) weren’t in favor of the canal, a signal to proponents that they’ve got an uphill battle in front of them.

That’s fine with some environmental groups, who feel that rather than look for better ways to move more water south, California needs to seek real solutions to its problems, including residential conservation programs, taking marginal farmland (and the accompanying water rights) out of production, offering farmers incentives to grow less water-intensive crops, etc.

They too face an uphill battle; a water-hungry southern half of the state wants water, not sanctimony, and in several Southern California communities, calls for voluntary reductions in water use actually resulted in net increases in water use (fearing mandatory conservation, people used more water so a compulsory 20% reduction would hurt less).

What’s Next?

Just yesterday (Friday, 7/19),Federal Judge Wanger ruled that pumping water from the Delta almost certainly imperils endnagered salmon populations, and though he hasn’t yet outlined a plan of action, he’s certainly set the stage for even more restrictions on water removal.

For the state’s water projects, this is yet another shove forward into the abyss.

Meanwhile, Governor Schwarzenegger and Senator Diane Feinstein have jointly floated legislation for a $9.3 Billion water bond, and opponents were quick to note the state has yet to spend all the money from a previous bond issue.

The plan includes some money for fisheries restoration efforts, but most will be directed at increased storage and infrastructure spending projects, so the bond carries the support of irrigators and the business community.

It’s tempting to look at the bond issues as long-overdue spending on badly needed infrastructure, but in truth, prospects for a solution that will make everyone happy are slim.

The Prognosis? Not that Good, Really.

To those looking to preserve and restore what’s left of California’s native fisheries, the problems are clear. Too many people are using too much water, and until now, nobody – save fish – has been asked to do without.

Yet the state’s political apparatus runs on money, and the money in CA lies in Southern California and with agri-businesses (often corporate farms) rather than in fisheries restoration.

That kind of pure political clout isn’t likely to result in limits to growth, radical conservation measures, or farmland retirement.

It’s easy to suggest that farming water-intensive crops in arid regions – and building cities in virtual deserts without their own water supply – is a bad idea.

Yet turning back that clock – and instituting draconian water use restrictions seems unlikely. The state hasn’t instituted much in the way of water usage restrictions for new construction, and even cities in dry regions are only now getting around to it.

Some cities still don’t even meter their water – not exactly a prod to conservation.

In other words, the political will to do the right thing – before we do the Peripheral Canal Thing – is apparently wholly lacking.

Some even point to desalinization of seawater as an answer to many of Southern California’s woes, but solutions like these are tightly linked to energy costs, which are not exactly falling.

It’s possible desalinization could make a dent in the water supply, but only if nuclear plants were built (nuclear power typically runs at a minimum of $.30/kwh) or large scale alternative energy sources were developed (like putting photovoltaic solar panels on the roofs of California’s typically sun-drenched houses).

Actually building the Peripheral Canal could solve some problems, but given the conclusions offered by the report’s authors, it seems clear that Delta recovery isn’t really part of the agenda.

In fact, much of the report was concerned with the danger posed to the state’s water supply by fragile levees in the Delta, and “restoring” the Delta was largely ruled out.

That larger reality can’t help but force us to ask some troubling questions about California’s problems with its hugely over-promised water supply.

Are we willing to compromise every last shred of what’s natural in the name of money and convenience – especially in light of looming challenges like global warming?

Stay tuned. The wars have really just begun.

See you in the water, Tom Chandler.

This grim:

The grim reality of a collapsing salmon fishery will hit home over the next week as fishing interests, tribal representatives and conservation groups from three Western states hash out plans to protect the fish and, if possible, save their livelihoods.

“Could it possibly be worse?” asked Chuck Tracy, a member of the management council. “Not much.”

That grim.

Last year’s Fall run of Chinook to the Sacramento River watershed was the second lowest on record (88,000), and naturally, everyone’s trotting out their own theory.

Sportsmen point to water diversions in the delta while scientests think unusual ocean conditions had something to do with it. The normal salmon season runs April to November, and we’re hearing about the potential for a near-total closure.

Rather than wait, California politicos are already labeling the upcoming season a disaster, and asking for Federal aid.

(UPDATE: Damn — somehow edited the next paragraph out in the original post. My bad) 

Complicating matters are two simple facts.

• With only 2,000 jack salmon returning (young salmon returning early; counts have never been below 10,000), next year’s run will likely be even worse
• The Chinook are the only salmon run in California not listed under the ESA. They’ve long been the healthy, “workhorse” salmon run on the West Coast

Yeah. That grim. See you NOT fishing for salmon, Tom Chandler.

From the LA Times:

SACRAMENTO — – Faced with an “unprecedented collapse” of California’s Central Valley salmon population, federal regulators warned Tuesday that the West Coast fishing industry is on course toward steep restrictions this year.

The number of chinook salmon returning to the Sacramento River plummeted to near historic lows last year, and fishery experts are predicting similarly light returns this year.

Donald McIsaac, director of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, said the reason for the decline remains unclear.

There’s been a lot of speculation about the non-availability of food for juvenile salmon due to ocean conditions (which many scientists are linking to climate change issues), yet one group remains convinced the problem is at least partially due to Delta water diversions:

The Sacramento River’s “missing salmon” were juveniles migrating to sea in spring 2005, when state and federal water managers “set records for pumping delta water south,” said Mike Sherwood, an attorney with Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental legal group that has been jousting with water managers over water exports.

The Environmental News Service is carrying a slightly more detailed article than the LA Times, but you don’t really have to read the fine print to guess what comes next.

Fishing closures (both sport and commercial), the inevitable government payouts, and yes — the finger pointing.

There are a lot of people hoping this is a one-time event, but the low number of returning “jack” salmon (two year-old fish) suggests poor returns in 2008.

Is this an artifact of global climate change? Are the ghosts of all those delta water diversions and habitat compromises finally coming back to haunt us?

See you buying tofu, Tom Chandler.

UPDATES: Singlebarbed weighed in last night. Now the Eugene, Oregon Register Guard considers the economic consequences to Oregon’s coastal fishing communities — already pummeled by Klamath-related closures and this year’s disastrously low catches:

Earlier this year, the Oregon Salmon Commission released figures that depict one of the worst salmon seasons on record. The fleet landed 463,500 pounds, about 20,000 pounds less than in 2006 — a more restricted season. Between 1979 and 2007, chinook landings have averaged more than 2 million pounds. In only two of those years have landings dropped below 500,000 pounds.

The fleet earned $2.6 million in 2007, slightly less than what trollers brought in the year before, despite the highest price per pound fishermen have fetched since 1981: $5.64.

Technorati Tags: salmon,chinook salmon,central valley salmon,endangered salmon,sacramento river salmon,unprecedented collapse,salmon recovery