Reviving
a River
By
Abbie Dutche
Record Staff Writer
Published Sunday, November 7, 2004
FRESNO --
On a recent day when a fierce storm left rainwater flowing in
rivulets off roadways and pooling in fields, stretches of the
upper San Joaquin River near Fresno remained dry.
Nor did the
turbulent skies dampen the lobbying that has already begun over
how to resuscitate the fractured and ailing river, which local
water officials say is partly to blame for chronic water-quality
problems in Stockton and San Joaquin County.
In January,
attorneys for the state, environmental groups and south San Joaquin
Valley farmers will be back in court to argue over how the river
should be restored. That federal court hearing is a key step in
ending a 16-year-old lawsuit that accused the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
of using Friant Dam to illegally choke the river dry.
In court papers
filed last month, each side gives its view of how to move forward
now that U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton has ruled that more
water needs to flow from the dam, a 319-foot concrete barrier
built in the 1940s just 16 miles northeast of Fresno. More than
90 percent of the river upstream from the dam is siphoned off
for irrigation and urban uses in the southern Valley. The water
is spread from Chowchilla to farms this side of the Tehachapi
Mountains.
Environmentalists,
led by the Natural Resources Defense Council, say releasing more
water from Friant Dam could bring back a thriving salmon fishery.
In court papers, NRDC argues that more water should be released
as soon as possible.
East San Joaquin
Valley farmers and water agencies say the river water is their
lifeblood. Letting some of it flow to the sea could harm local
economies, farmers say.
The Friant
Water Users Authority, which represents 28 cities and irrigation
districts on the east side of the Valley, wants more studies before
any water is released. Friant officials last month led representatives
from local, state and federal water and governmental agencies
on a daylong tour of the river, in part to build support for their
legal positions.
"Studies
show that it is not economically feasible to restore salmon on
the main stem of the San Joaquin River," said Mario Santoyo,
water and environmental resources manager with the Friant agency.
More scientific
work, some of which is already under way, will be needed to determine
how much water can and should be released from the dam to boost
the fish population, and what the effect would be on region's
economy, Friant officials said.
Jared Huffman,
senior attorney for the NRDC, said there have been plenty of studies
done already, outlining a variety of potential strategies for
restoring the river. He said it's time to end the delays and move
forward.
"Our
vision is quite practical and pragmatic. We know it's going to
take some time. But we also know that the San Joaquin River has
been studied to death. Studying it for more years while it remains
bone dry doesn't make sense," he said.
Before the
dam was built, the river supported one of the most important salmon
fisheries on the Pacific Coast, the NRDC's Huffman said. Now,
two sections of the river, totaling 70 miles, run completely dry.
One 24-mile
strip of river dotted with a series of canals is arid most of
the year and has little or no vegetation. Another 46-mile section
downstream is clogged with vegetation and may get some irrigation
and storm runoff, but is dry for much of the time.
Friant officials
claim that even before Friant Dam, parts of the river often would
dry up and the salmon didn't always thrive. The channel is flat
and narrow in some places and may have to be widened to accommodate
any additional flows, they said.
"The
National Resources Defense Council would have you believe that
if you open up the gates to Friant Dam, you will have salmon rushing
up the river. As you can see, that just isn't going to happen,"
said Kole Upton, who farms near Chowchilla and Merced and is chairman
of the Friant Water Users Authority. ::: Advertisement :::
Friant officials
say releasing more water might restore salmon runs along the river,
but farmers and cities with longstanding rights to that water
would be hurt in the process.
NRDC'S Huffman
said he's heard that argument before.
"Every
one of these constraints can be overcome," he said.
It's not only
fish that could benefit by more water from Friant Dam. Eventually,
the additional water would trickle to San Joaquin County, where
it could mean cleaner, more reliable irrigation water for farmers,
better drinking water for thirsty cities and improved water quality
in the Delta and the county.
"This
river, in my view, is a national disgrace," said Dante Nomellini,
head of the Stockton-based Central Delta Water Agency.
There wasn't
a lot of sensitivity to the environment and fish when the dam
was built 60 years ago, he said. Both south-Valley farmers and
environmentalists may need to compromise, Nomellini said.
"Having
a salmon run 100 percent of the year may be unreasonable. But
having no salmon is also unreasonable. ... Having no restoration
of the fish and no flows coming through the Delta is unacceptable,"
he said.
Farmers in
the Delta were largely were left out of the lawsuit-settlement
talks on how to restore the river. Last summer, Delta farmers
filed papers with the court to point out that the river's meager
flow hurts their businesses, too.
"If it
was decided just by Friant and the NRDC, we would be left out
in the cold," said Manteca-area farmer Alex Hildebrand of
the South Delta Water Agency.
In good years,
the Friant Water Users Authority might be able to dole out more
than 2 million acre-feet of water. That's roughly enough to serve
the annual needs of 10 million people. In dry years, the authority
has only a quarter of that.
Under one
restoration scenario, as much as 1.3 million acre-feet of water
would be needed to restore the fall and spring salmon runs, Friant
officials said. The problem? That's about what Friant Dam supplies
in a single year. If all of that were allotted to fish, there
would be nothing for farms and cities.
Friant water
users are not against river restoration, said Ronald Jacobsma,
general manager of the agency. Whatever final plan is adopted,
"we want it based on sound science," he said.
That means
more studies, he said.
Bob Granberg,
deputy director of water resources for Stockton, said he sympathizes
with the agency's dilemma.
"I tend
to agree with them that it needs to be studied more. Just turning
on the tap I don't know what that's going to do," said Granberg,
who went on the Friant tour.
One scientific
analysis on how much water is actually needed to improve the fishery
was never completed, the NRDC's Huffman said. But some studies
have suggested it would take just 200,000-acre feet of water releases
to benefit the fish and river, said the attorney, who accused
the Friant officials of using scare tactics.
"This
doom and gloom scenario, that's been their strategy for years,"
Huffman said. "But there are many different strategies to
develop water to keep those farmers in business."
Friant officials
have suggested that a bigger dam or another reservoir on the San
Joaquin could help store more water that could be gradually released
for fish. Federal and state water officials are exploring the
possibility of a new dam, but those studies won't be done until
2008.
Improving
the channel and building a larger reservoir may have its benefits,
but it could take years and would be expensive, possibly costing
hundreds of millions of dollars.
"I don't
think society wants to spend that kind of money to restore a few
fish," Upton said.
NRDC argues
no new dams are needed. Huffman suggests that water officials
put an end to so-called water banking -- when surplus river water
is stored in the groundwater reservoir. Often, that water is sold
to Los Angeles-area towns.
"The
idea that every drop of water is going to farmers is abso-lute
nonsense," Huffman said.
Hildebrand
said it has taken decades for the river to deteriorate and there
are no quick fixes. Just taking water from Friant water users
won't solve the problems. "We have to look at how to optimize
the use of the water that's available in the interests of all
parties, not just the NRDC," he said.
Ultimately,
it will be up to Judge Karlton to decide how to proceed with river
restoration.
His decision
could come within months.
That final
ruling will almost certainly be controversial.
"At the
end of the day, I think there is going to be a solution that is
going to make everyone partially happy and partially unhappy,"
Santoyo said. "Science doesn't seem to show an easy path
out of this."
Courtesy
of the Stockton Record
Pennies
on the dollar for fishing rods, reels, baits, lures, and more?
You be the judge!
