Shawn Garvey shook his head in disgust as a large chinook salmon slammed into
the face of Daguerra Dam.Citizens panel says spawning fish need help, but local interests disagree
Glen Martin / SF Chronicle 24nov00
Shawn Garvey shook his head in disgust as a large chinook salmon slammed into
the face of Daguerra Dam.
Another quickly followed, twisting as it slid down the rough concrete incline on a glittering flank. Fish finned in the water all along the foot of the structure, unable to jump the spillway to the river above.
Although the Yuba's salmon run is fairly robust, it's only about half of what it could be, thanks to two dams. A federal-state commission calls for modifying or removing the dams, but local resistance has stalled the process.
The fight pits two conflicting views on the Yuba's most valuable natural resource -- cheap, abundant water or a fish cherished for food, recreation and its simple existence in a functioning wild ecosystem. Neither vision has yet prevailed.
Garvey, executive director of the South Yuba River Citizen's League, a group devoted to improving the river's fisheries and wildlife habitat, called the scene at Daguerra Dam "pretty sickening."
He pointed to small fish ladders on each side of the dam.
"Those are supposed to service the entire run on this river," said Garvey. "Look at them -- they're totally inadequate. The fish have an incredibly hard time finding them."
Built in 1906 and reconstructed after the dam was demolished in a 1963 flood, Daguerra long has been a valued asset to local farmers. Several irrigators siphon water from the small reservoir behind the dam.
But the dam also kills fish, said Garvey -- up to one-third of the 13,000 to 15,000 spawning chinook that make it up the Yuba each year.
And these aren't just any salmon, Garvey said. Unlike most of California's other salmon-supporting rivers, the Yuba harbors a totally wild strain of fish--there are no hatcheries on its banks.
Wild salmon have greater genetic diversity than hatchery salmon and are generally considered wilier and hardier than artificially propagated fish.
"This is one of the most valuable natural resources in the state," said Garvey, "and we're endangering it with excessive water diversions and antiquated dams."
In general terms, the Yuba County Water Agency is opposed to taking down dams on the river. The agency provides water to local farmers, and also sells surpluses at a tidy profit.
From 1989 through 1997, said Tib Belza, an agency director and a former Yuba County supervisor, the agency sold 619,208 acre-feet of water to out-of- county customers for between $45 and $125 an acre-foot.
An acre-foot is 326,000 gallons of water, which means one acre of ground covered by a foot of water.
Water transfers are good for Yuba County, which can use all the economic help it can get, Belza said.
"We're hurting," he said. "In the middle of a statewide boom, our unemployment rate is 13 percent. About 10 percent of the county's economy is based on agriculture. We need our water."
Besides, said Belza, there are plenty of salmon in the Yuba.
"California Department of Fish and Game statistics show there are more salmon now than when New Bullards Bar reservoir went in," he said. "Our activities have obviously not harmed the fishery. And we've been proactive to make sure that what we do doesn't hurt them. We maintain sufficient flows at all times for the salmon."
Some salmon do manage to spawn below the dam, said Garvey, but the habitat is poor and the water excessively warm. Survivability of the spawn and fry is low.
Garvey's comments illustrate the threats to the Yuba River's unique fish, but they also hint at other questions: Can a run of wild salmon comfortably survive if only two-thirds of returning adults reach prime spawning habitat? And is such a high mortality figure offset by the economic benefits of water diversions?
Some relief for the fish may be coming. Daguerra is targeted for either removal or remediation under a plan by Cal Fed, the joint state and federal commission that is attempting to reach a consensus solution to California's long-running water wars.
"Cal Fed calls for complete fish passage past Daguerra, by whatever means are necessary," said Garvey.
That, however, doesn't address two other barriers on the Yuba: Englebright Dam, located about eight miles upstream from Daguerra, and New Bullards Bar Dam, situated on the North Fork of the Yuba River above Englebright.
Englebright backs up only a small reservoir; nevertheless, it utterly stops all spawning salmon. Fish cannot pass beyond it, meaning that miles of prime spawning grounds above the reservoir never see an egg.
Taking down or modifying Englebright, said Garvey, could open up about 200 miles of spawning habitat on the main stem and forks of the Yuba, in all likelihood boosting salmon populations enormously.
The dam and reservoir, Garvey said, produce only minimal electrical power, provide mediocre recreational opportunities and have virtually no flood control capability.
"Cal Fed wants to construct offstream reservoirs to service water needs, but Cal Fed is also about balance, so if something big goes in, something big has to come out," said Garvey. "This could be it."
Garvey said it would cost about $1 billion to remove or modify the dam, remove mercury-laden sediments from the reservoir and compensate hydropower operators and local property owners.
New Bullards Bar Reservoir, owned by the Yuba County Water Agency, is less of an issue. Because it is far up the watershed of the North Fork of the Yuba, removing it would not result in a huge net gain of spawning habitat.
And because the reservoir stores an enormous amount of valuable water, provides significant flood control capacity and produces lots of electricity, it has an enormous vested constituency, one that has the power and the will to quickly stifle any talk of dam removal.
Garvey cited two California Department of Fish and Game reports that stated spawning salmon goals for the river following construction of New Bullards Bar Reservoir were 38,000 fish.
"We haven't even reached half that," Garvey said. "Obviously, the current levels are unacceptable."
"The California Water Resources Control Board chided (the agency) for saying runs are higher now than before New Bullards Bar because the increase is only a few hundred fish at best," he said.
"Also, data collected on the runs during the 1950s and 1960s are widely acknowledged as inadequate -- we have no reliable records on the number of fish the river historically supported. To say the runs are better now after hundreds of miles of spawning habitat have been removed is absurd on the face of it."
The Water Resources Control Board seems to be siding with Garvey.
In a draft decision issued earlier this month, the board called for tripling the flows down the Yuba by increasing downstream releases from New Bullards Bar reservoir. The higher flows, the board concluded, would benefit salmon spawning and survivability.
The board is expected to finalize the decision in a meeting on Dec. 4.
Garvey called the draft decision "comprehensive," and said it reflected the reality of things as they stand on the Yuba River.
But Belza said the decision does not take equity into account.
"We divert about 300,000 acre-feet a year," he said. "Upstream diverters such as PG&E, the Nevada County Irrigation District and the Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District account for 690,000 acre-feet. So why are we the only ones hit? Because the board says we're the 'junior appropriators.' We don't have the seniority."
If the board finalizes its decision in December, Belza said, his agency will sue.
"We'd have no choice," he said. "If that decision is adopted, it will devastate our economy."
| If you have come to this page from an outside location click here to get back to mindfully.org |