Switchboard, from NRDC › Monty Schmitt's Blog

It is Time to Restore Salmon to the San Joaquin River

2012-02-09T01:32:10Z

Monty Schmitt, Senior Scientist, San Joaquin River Project Manager, San Francisco

Last year marked the fifth year of the San Joaquin River Restoration Program and the two year anniversary of renewed river flows - the first since the 1940s when the operation of Friant Dam dried up the river and ended the historic salmon runs. Thanks to years of hard work on the part of state and federal agencies, farmers, conservation groups, water districts and other stakeholders, the San Joaquin River once again flows all the way to the sea.

The Restoration Program is now ready to achieve its most important objective: the reintroduction of salmon in 2012.

In preparation for reintroducing salmon, the Restoration Program successfully achieved many key milestones this year, including renewed flow releases, water supply benefits, successful salmon experiments, environmental plans and permits, and improved flood management.

Renewed Flow Releases - Now in the third year of renewed water flows in the river, the information the river releases provide continues to inform the development of water supply, habitat restoration and flood protection projects. The releases also enrich wildlife habitat along over 150 miles of river and improve water quality downstream.
Water Supply Benefits – The Restoration Program has succeeded in providing substantial water supply benefits to Friant farmers as promised in the San Joaquin River Restoration settlement agreement. Since river releases began two years ago, almost 100,000 acre-feet of water has been recaptured downstream, recirculated back into the water supply system, and returned to Friant farmers. In 2011, flood releases from Friant Dam were creatively used to meet virtually all flow requirements. The wet year conditions also allowed the Restoration Program to provide an additional 350,000 acre-feet of water – bringing the total amount of water the Restoration Program has provided to Friant water districts to 450,000 acre-feet. By contrast, in the first two years of renewed flows 358,000 acre-feet of water was released to meet requirements to restore a living river. The Restoration Program has actually increased local water supplies by almost 100,000 acre feet.
Successful Salmon Experiments - As part of an experiment leading up to full reintroduction of salmon, 1,200 juvenile fall run Chinook salmon were released in late April of last year. This was the first time salmon have been released in the river. Over 40% of these fish successfully migrated 150 miles downstream past the confluence with the Merced River – a comparable survival rate to those seen on the Sacramento River and in San Joaquin River tributaries. Moreover, these fish successfully migrated down both the river channel prior to the construction of planned restoration projects as well as down the Chowchilla Flood Bypass system. Along with other studies, this experimental release provides important information to support achieving the long term goal of restoring an average of 30,000 salmon per year to the San Joaquin River.
Environmental Plans and Permits - In April, the Restoration Program released the draft programmatic environmental document that will guide implementation going forward. Five years in the making, the document includes plans for over a dozen restoration and water supply projects as well as a wealth of information about fish restoration and water management. Scheduled for completion this spring, the document is the basis for other permits that are necessary to begin constructing habitat, as well as flood and water management projects to achieve the Restoration Program’s goals of restoring flows and salmon while minimizing water supply impacts.
Improved Flood Protection - The restoration project area on the San Joaquin River has never had the level of flood protection of cities downstream like Stockton and Sacramento. Bordered by mostly agricultural lands, these converted wetlands have a long history of high groundwater tables that are sensitive to water seeping away from the river channel during flood control releases. Last year, the Restoration Program and local landowners completed a three-year effort to develop a seepage management plan to avoid significant impacts from restoration flows. A foundation for the plan is an impressive network of over 130 groundwater monitoring wells along the river (often at the request of local landowners), that allow landowners and the Restoration Program to monitor groundwater seepage and manage flows.

Salmon reintroduction can be achieved this year as well.

Reintroduction of salmon is not a single event – it’s a process that will begin slowly. A wealth of information will be gleaned in the first years of initial releases and returns that will help inform the construction of restoration projects currently in development. The numbers of fish released this year may be small, and they will face less than ideal conditions, but the Restoration Program can begin reintroducing salmon this year.

There will always be opponents. It took eighteen years for farmers, the federal government and conservation groups to agree that it was better to work together than to fight in court. Unfortunately, there is still a vocal minority who continue to try to block reintroduction of salmon and overturn the court-approved negotiated restoration agreement. Valley congressmen Devin Nunes and Jeff Denham, along with downstream land owners and water districts who have benefited from a dry river, have attempted to delay reintroduction of salmon, defund the Restoration Program and overturn the broadly supported settlement agreement. So far, these attempts have been unsuccessful. Unfortunately these political attacks may continue, with restoration opponents seeking to delay the required reintroduction of salmon in 2012. Opponents overlook the many accomplishments of the Restoration Program and the data showing that the river can support salmon. Delay is their only hope of keeping California’s second largest river dry and lifeless.

Restoring the San Joaquin River was never envisioned to be a simple task. But from the outset, the Restoration Program has been developing solutions to the challenges we face. The accomplishments thus far show that we can overcome six decades of neglect and degradation. The Restoration Program was intentionally designed to achieve the long term goals in phases and to improve conditions in the river over time while reintroducing salmon by the end of 2012. Despite the size and scope of this effort, there is no challenge ahead that cannot be overcome.

When the first major milestone of restoring flows to the river was achieved in 2009, opponents tried hard to block the release, claiming there would be widespread flooding and water supply impacts. Instead, the flows provided information needed to improve flood management and enabled the implementation of water supply projects that not only achieved the intended goal of reducing impacts but actually resulted in water supply benefits for farmers. Change is never easy, but after 60 years the time has come to put salmon back in the San Joaquin River.

Building Rivers: The Yolo Bypass - Hiding in Plain Sight

2011-09-23T18:20:42Z

Monty Schmitt, Senior Scientist, San Joaquin River Project Manager, San Francisco

Building Rivers Blog Series

A New Era of California Water Solutions

Santa Monica and Other Cities Increase Water Self-Reliance

The Yolo Bypass - Hiding in Plain Sight

A Million Toilets Can't Be Wrong

This post is part of an ongoing series about creative, on the ground water solutions in California. When it comes to building restored natural rivers, or building “rivers” of new water supply, the Golden State is a laboratory for innovative water management.

The Yolo Bypass is one of those seemingly rare, beautiful cases where agricultural, environmental and urban interests work together. Although there’s nothing new about the Bypass (the Sacramento River flood management project was approved by Congress in 1917), its elegant simplicity can serve as a model for smart, economical flood management well into the future.

If you have ever driven over I-80 between Davis and Sacramento, you’ve passed over the Yolo Bypass.

Yolo Causeway, passing over the Yolo Bypass circa 1920

You may not have even noticed it, unless you were driving over during a wet year like this one. Although it may look like a patchwork of farmland and wetlands, the Bypass, which is managed by the Sacramento River Flood Control Project, has the primary function of protecting the Delta’s cities from seasonal floods, serving as a “relief-valve” for the Sacramento River. During wet years, water flows over the Fremont Weir into the bypass, temporarily inundating seasonal farmland and moving water safely past flood-vulnerable neighborhoods in Sacramento (including the State Capitol.)

The Bypass is a surprisingly large resource, comprising 59,000 acres. It floods in over half of water years. When fully inundated, the floodplain approximately doubles the wetted area of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and is one-third the size of the San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. From a flood management standpoint the project is a real success story. The Yolo Bypass is capable of conveying up to 80% of the flow of the Sacramento River Basin in high flood events, and the design capacity has never been exceeded. The Bypass has succeeded in proving not only that flood management, environmental and agricultural interests can co-exist, but that they can be complimentary.

Unlike traditional levee-based flood management systems that narrowly confine and isolate rivers from adjacent floodplains, the Yolo Bypass allows the Sacramento River system to reap the floodplain’s ecological benefits. The floodplain habitat created during inundation provides prime real estate for fish, fowl and other wildlife. Migratory birds including swans, ibis, geese and ducks use the Bypass as a place to rest and refuel during their long journeys. Other users of the Yolo Bypass are the millions of young salmon migrating from their natal streams in the mountains down to the sea and other native fish. This seasonal floodplain provides critical, high-quality habitat for over 40 fish species, including the listed Delta smelt, steelhead trout, and spring-run and winter-run Chinook salmon. Research has shown that salmon growth rates and habitat and fish diversity in the Yolo Bypass are substantially higher than in the adjacent Sacramento River, indicating that the Bypass provides better habitat than the mainstem.

When dry, the Bypass’s rich soils provide fertile cropland for tomatoes, safflower, sugar beets, rice, corn, and other grains. Approximately 2/3 of the land in the Bypass serves as seasonal, privately owned farmland. The State Reclamation Board owns flood easements that allow private farmland in the Bypass to be flooded when necessary.

The Bypass is also home to the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area - a 16,000 acre area that is managed for wildlife benefits through restored grasslands, seasonal and permanent wetlands, riparian woodland and carefully managed agriculture. Along with environmental benefits, the Wildlife Area provides educational and recreational opportunities for surrounding communities.

The Bypass offers us multiple lessons today. With our fisheries in a state of collapse, many biologists, environmentalists and water leaders are exploring opportunities to further increase fish habitat in the Bypass – providing more environmental benefits in more years. We are also working with the South Delta Water Agency and others to develop a plan for a similar, smaller bypass in the South Delta. Like the Yolo Bypass, the creation of a South Delta Bypass would provide flood protection while benefiting local fish species – particularly young salmon. And finally, the state’s FloodSAFE California program provides an opportunity to apply the lessons learned in the Yolo Bypass to provide improved flood protection and environmental benefits throughout the Central Valley and the Delta.

Innovative water solutions don’t always have to be new. Sometimes innovation lies in rediscovering proven, century-old infrastructure that is hiding in plain sight.

Oil Shale Development and Western Water Supply: A House of Cards...

2011-08-18T23:31:59Z

Monty Schmitt, Senior Scientist, San Joaquin River Project Manager, San Francisco

At a time when management of the Colorado River Basin water supply is facing unprecedented challenges due to over allocation and climate change, energy companies are proposing to move forward with oil shale development - a water intensive, inefficient source of energy that could become a major producer of greenhouse gas pollution. NRDC’s new report Between a Rock and a Dry Place explores the potential impacts of oil shale development on water supplies in the Basin and on the region’s agricultural economy, water quality, protected species and natural environment.

Oil shale is an immature rock source that, when heated and processed (using an average of almost 5 barrels of water per one barrel of oil), becomes a kind of liquid petroleum. Although there are many small deposits of oil shale in Wyoming, the states of Colorado and Utah contain more than 60 percent of the world’s known oil shale deposits.

For decades, energy companies have sought to exploit these deposits as a new source of energy but significant constraints, including the high water and energy requirements as well as impacts to the environment, have prevented development on a large scale. However, as the price of oil rises, so does interest in oil shale development.

Mid-range estimates by the Government Accountability Office and a report by Western Resources Advocates find that oil shale development in Colorado could consume about 360,000 acre-feet of water – one and half times as much as the city of Denver.

A potentially significant new source of greenhouse gas pollution, oil shale development is more bad news for Basin water users. With warming already occurring, the West is ground zero for climate change. In fact, as the graphic below shows, the Colorado River Basin is warming faster than the rest of the country. And in the West hotter means drier. Recent studies have shown that Colorado River Basin runoff could be reduced by as much as 25% by 2050 if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced.

This new report focuses primarily on potential water supply related impacts from the large amount of water that oil shale production would consume. If this energy source moves forward in the Colorado River Basin, it could impact 30 million people from Wyoming to Southern California, including farmers who grow 15 percent of the nation’s crops, who depend on the Colorado River as a major source of water supply.

Key findings of this report include:

The Colorado River Basin is over subscribed. When the Colorado Compact was signed in 1922, the average yield from the Basin was estimated to be 17.5 million acre-feet (maf). Recent Studies by the Bureau of Reclamation have indicated that the long-term average natural flow at Lee Ferry may be closer to 14.7 maf. For the past decade, water use in the Basin has exceeded available supply. The average annual use in the Basin has averaged 15.3 maf since 2000.
Agriculture in Colorado would be hit hard. Energy companies have already obtained senior water rights which they have not yet exercised; if they do so and if subsequent analysis concludes that there is limited or no undeveloped water in the Upper Basin, most of that water is expected to come from agricultural water users.
Scenic natural lands, fish, and wildlife would be impacted by oil shale development. Oil shale deposits occur in areas of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming that are known for their natural beauty. Large-scale oil shale development would not only mar the landscape with industrial infrastructure, but also impact threatened species in the region. Increased water supply demands could impact tributary rivers like the Green River and make it more difficult to restore four listed species efforts on the Colorado River.
Climate change will reduce Colorado River Basin water supplies. Many studies have concluded that the Colorado River Basin is ground zero for the water management impacts of climate change. An already arid climate will become even warmer, reducing snow pack, increasing evaporation, and causing other changes. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program has predicted runoff decreases of 10 to 25 percent by 2050—roughly 5 to 12 times Denver’s water use. The Bureau of Reclamation has concluded that flows will decrease by 9 percent over the coming 50 years.
Oil shale production and refining results in significantly higher greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil fuels. Well-to-wheel greenhouse gas emission estimates for oil shale show it to have 23 percent to 73 percent (1.2 to 1.7 times) greater emissions in comparison to diesel.

The Colorado Basin States are at a crossroads. The water management practices and uses of the past cannot continue. This report makes key recommendations to chart a course toward a more sustainable water management future that maximizes efficient use of Colorado River Basin supplies. (My colleague Ed Osann has more to say about water efficiency here.) The report includes the following recommendations:

Do Not Pursue Oil Shale Development. Based on current information about the wide range of environmental impacts and existing technologies, oil shale development should not be pursued. The costs are too high, and the benefits of increased energy are too small and easily made unnecessary with energy-efficiency measures. Further studies of oil shale must do more than merely overcome the technological challenges that have stopped the development of a full-scale industry. The significant environmental impacts of such development must be prevented. Such an industry must be investigated in the context of a climate that is already warming and will be made worse by oil shale development.
Develop new comprehensive state water management strategies. The Basin states individually and as a whole, in collaboration with the Bureau of Reclamation, should undertake analyses of the range of actions that are available to reduce water consumption basin- and state-wide by 10 to 25 percent from current levels. This analysis should investigate options for limiting new consumptive uses (such as oil shale) and the potential for urban, agricultural, and industrial conservation.
Protect sensitive or protected lands from oil shale leasing. The oil shale regions in the upper Colorado River Basin are home to some of the most spectacular landscapes in the nation, as well as to wildlife that is currently listed under the Endangered Species Act. Oil shale development should not include lands occupied by or designated as critical habitat for threatened or endangered species, designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, or lands where oil shale development would permanently impair the productivity of the land or the quality of the environment.
Implement regional greenhouse gas reduction efforts. The Basin states should work together to reduce the future risk of climate change by implementing state-level legislation, and use existing legal authorities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Basin states should explore the potential for creating an enforceable state-level cap on carbon pollution, similar to California’s AB 32.
Prioritize energy efficiency. Basin states can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by modernizing building codes to reduce energy consumption related to buildings.
Promote cleanest forms of energy. Promote low or nongreenhouse gas-emitting and water-efficient sources of energy such as wind, solar, and geothermal sources that provide water supply, climate change, and energy-efficiency benefits.

If oil shale development moves forward, it will compete with farms and cities in the West for limited water supplies that will become scarcer because of climate change. The time is now for the Bureau of Reclamation and Colorado River Basin states to tackle this challenge head on, through effective planning, water smart energy policies and dramatic investments in water use efficiency – the reliable water supply of the future.

H.R.1837 (Nunes): A waste of time and money that undermines real progress

2011-06-01T18:54:10Z

Monty Schmitt, Senior Scientist, San Joaquin River Project Manager, San Francisco

At a time when water resource conflicts are common throughout the West, the San Joaquin River Restoration Program is a rare example of farmers, water districts, state and federal agencies and environmentalists working together to implement real solutions to problems facing the region. Just as rare is the bi-partisan support that enabled the federal legislation for the restoration program that included the Bush Administration, the Schwarzenegger Administration, Senators Feinstein and Boxer and Congressmen Radanovich, Cardoza, and George Miller. The largest water agencies in the San Joaquin Valley, including the Friant, Westlands, Kern and Exchange Contractor water districts, also pledged their support along with over a dozen fishing and environmental groups. Few efforts in recent history have brought together such a diverse set of interests in support of restoring a river. Given this level of support, the focus should be on how to achieve the highest level of success for all stakeholders and not wasting time trying to argue again whether to restore the river.

However, on June 2 the House of Representatives Water and Power Subcommittee will hold a hearing on H.R. 1837, introduced by Congressman Nunes (R, Visalia), that seeks to undermine this broadly supported effort by overturning the historic 2006 consensus agreement that transformed an 18 year legal battle into one of the largest river restoration and water management projects in the nation. H.R. 1837 would likely force all parties back into court, resulting in a massive waste of time and money. The bill will only delay much- needed and broadly supported improvements in water supply and flood management in the San Joaquin Valley and the restoration of California’s second largest river.

Working together, the Restoration Program has made significant progress toward achieving its intended restoration and water supply management goals in five short years – all of which H.R.1837 would throw away in exchange for more years of legal battles. To date, the Restoration Program’s achievements include:

Restoration and Water Supply Projects – The Restoration Program has completed a draft programmatic environmental document that reflects years of planning and designing to build over $500 million in water supply, habitat restoration and flood management projects.

Interim Flow Releases – In October 2009, for the first time in over a half century, interim flows for fish and wildlife were released from Friant Dam. Because the river had been largely dry for 60 years, achieving this major milestone has provided important information regarding fish habitat conditions, flood management, and opportunities to recirculate flows and improve water supply management.

Water Management – A plan for a program to recirculate and reuse restoration flows is nearly complete and in 2010, almost 50,000 acre-feet of interim flow releases were recirculated back to Friant water districts to reduce water supply impacts. A draft feasibility study to provide $35 million in improvements to water supply canals is being finalized. In collaboration with local water agencies, the Restoration Program is also completing designs for a $20 million fish screen that it will construct to protect water supply diversions.

Fish Restoration Plan – The Restoration Program has created a comprehensive plan that addresses key aspects of restoring salmon to the San Joaquin River including reintroduction strategies, genetics management and habitat monitoring. In April, a test release of juvenile salmon was conducted and the preliminary data indicates unexpectedly high survival in the study area.

Flood Management – Absent the restoration effort, lands along the San Joaquin experience high groundwater that can impact crops during wet years like this, when flood control releases put water in the river. However, working with landowners and other interested parties, the Restoration Program has created a seepage management plan that includes a comprehensive monitoring network of over 130 wells to help study and address high groundwater impacts to downstream lands related to interim flows. Data being collected will also help in the development of the California Department of Water Resources’ FloodSAFE comprehensive flood management plan for the entire Central Valley.

This is the kind of real progress toward solving the environmental, flood management and water supply problems that the San Joaquin Valley needs. One of the ironic effects of this bill is that it would shut down water management programs that are designed to improve water supply for farmers in the Friant area. It’s not a surprise that the Friant Water Authority has opposed this provision.

These accomplishments are evidence that the Restoration Program is succeeding and diverse interests can work together to improve habitat, water supply management and flood protection. However, real challenges lay ahead. Achieving the successful restoration of the San Joaquin River will require many things, including working with local water districts and landowners to understand and address concerns and find solutions that support the continued water management and agricultural practices in the region while also enabling the restoration of a living river for all to enjoy. Concerns regarding the successful implementation of the restoration program are shared by all who are working to make this effort succeed, and it has been through working together that the program has achieved so much in the last five years. As such, what is needed is continued cooperation and constructive dialog between all parties to develop real solutions around which we can unite in a request to state and federal elected representatives for their support, not legislation like H.R.1837 that is intended to increase conflict and return this effort to court. It is in the interest of all stakeholders not to let efforts like H.R.1837 distract us from the important work that is underway nor undermine the growing cooperation between interested parties that will surely lead to the best possible outcome.

The Great Flood of 2011 (and 1993, 1965, 1951, 1927): Time to Put Lessons Learned into Action

2011-05-24T00:17:44Z

Monty Schmitt, Senior Scientist, San Joaquin River Project Manager, San Francisco

With millions acres of land already flooded in Missouri, Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Arkansas, Tennessee and Mississippi -- and Louisiana still bracing for the worst -- this flood will surely be remembered by many as the Great Flood of 2011. While it will be months before we know the full extent of the damage, it’s clear the cost will be measured in the billions and the impact to the lives of many will be immeasurable. Our thoughts and prayers are with the people struggling in the face of rising waters on the lower Mississippi.

And even as efforts are still underway to protect against the worst, people are already beginning to ask what can be done to prevent such devastation in the future. Unfortunately, it is an inescapable fact that there will be major floods events in the future just as there have been in the past century on the Mississippi in 1993, 1965, 1951 and 1927. But fortunately, we have learned some ways to better protect our communities.

In the wake of the 1993 flood, which devastated the Midwest, the federal government released a report, commonly known as the “Galloway Report,” on how to improve our preparedness for future disasters. Among other things, it emphasized a need for integrated planning and shared responsibility for flood management at all levels of government and to recognize flooding as a natural function of rivers. The report was particularly ground-breaking because it focused not just on traditional measures like building more levees, but on the need for non-structural measures to improve flood management such as setting levees back to increase the ability to convey floodwaters, and using building codes to require raised foundations when there is still a risk of flooding.

In the years since the Galloway report there has been progress toward implementing the recommendations, but change has been slow. That’s particularly because political will to make changes often diminishes within a year or two of a disaster and real improvements in flood management are complex, requiring a lot of effort. But the cost of inaction – as we’re seeing all too clearly – is far too costly to continue this way. We must learn from this disastrous event and ensure better protection from future disasters by implementing flood management policies that include the following elements to improve public safety and provide other benefits to communities:

Increase managed floodplain corridors. Floodplains are those lands adjacent to rivers where flood waters naturally spread outside of the main channel periodically. Floodplains act as a form of short-term storage for flood waters, sometimes for just a few hours and other times up to several days. Allowing for temporary storage of flood waters in this space can reduce the peak height of a flood event and related damages. Unfortunately, traditional flood control has largely relied on building levees right along rivers – disconnecting the main channel from its floodplains. This has greatly exacerbated flooding in recent years. However, there is a growing awareness of the need to reconnect rivers with their floodplains in appropriate places in designated places, called flood corridors. As a matter of fact, this month the US Army Corps of Engineers has used the intentional inundation of floodplains in an attempt to protect communities downstream. To do this safely, these floodplain areas need to be kept free of infrastructure and have only flood compatible land uses such as open space or recreational areas. Where feasible, floodplain corridors should be expanded and incorporated into regional flood management systems.

Increase level of flood protection. Most communities use a 100-year event standard when planning for flood protection. Often misunderstood, this means that in any year there is a 1 percent chance of flooding. That means, for a standard 30-year mortgage on a house, there is almost a 1 in 3 chance that the property will be flooded over the course of the loan. Risking these kinds of odds simply does not make sense given the high cost of flooding and associated risks to public safety. We need a higher planning requirement to bring into balance the costs and risks associated with floods. In the Netherlands, a country with vast low lying areas, they employ much higher standards protecting against up to a 10,000-year event out of recognition of the risks and impacts of flooding. In recent years, the US Army Corps of engineers has collaborated with the Netherlands in an effort to improve our nations approach to flood management. Federal, state and local flood management agencies should increase the minimum flood protection requirement in urbanized areas, to 200-year level or greater.

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) reform. While initially created to discourage high-risk development in floodplains, the NFIP has inadvertently done the opposite and actually managed to facilitate floodplain development. All property owners within the 100-year floodplain who are using federally insured loans are required to purchase flood insurance. Ironically, the NFIP is often the only source of flood insurance available, as private companies generally avoid providing it because of the high risk and costs. Therefore, the NFIP enables development in floodplains where it might otherwise not be possible due to the inability to get insurance. NFIP reform needs to address this unintentional result and encourage better practices through requiring such things as greater levels of flood protection, updated building standards and other measures to improve public safety.

Using more green infrastructure: smarter practices on land to decrease flooding. The urban environment plays an important role in determining flood impacts. Impervious surfaces like roads and concrete prevent rainfall from infiltrating into the ground, instead turning it into runoff that makes its way directly into rivers. This results in storms producing bigger flood events than would occur otherwise in undeveloped areas. By using smarter, greener development practices like green roofs, roadside plantings, parks and porous pavement (collectively called green infrastructure) -- we can stop rain where it falls and either store it or allow it to soak back into the ground. This can not only reduce runoff and flood events, but also recharges groundwater aquifers for water supplies, and reduces the amount of pollution reaching our streams.

As the damage from the Mississippi River flooding continues to unfold, we’ll be looking to the government to first and foremost protect those in harm’s way. And as the waters recede – we’re counting on them to put these lessons learned into practice, so the next big flood will cause less harm.

House Bill Attempts to Kill the San Joaquin River - Again

2011-02-15T21:10:07Z

Monty Schmitt, Senior Scientist, San Joaquin River Project Manager, San Francisco

The House Continuing Resolution (CR) released on February 11 contains dangerous and misguided provisions that gut protections for the environment, undermine public health programs and hurt the economy. A perfect example of the wrong-headed thinking in this legislation is the provision authored by Fresno Republican, Congressman Devin Nunes. His idea for helping America in these tough times is to undermine a landmark agreement between farmers, environmentalists, fishermen and the federal government to restore California’s second largest river, the San Joaquin. This provision to defund restoration and dry up the river would have broad negative impacts on the people of California.

Threatening agricultural water supplies. Defunding the Restoration Program would eliminate water supply programs and projects designed to benefit farmers in the region.
Wasting money. The funding for the restoration program is largely derived from fees paid by water users and existing California State bond funds specifically tied to San Joaquin River restoration. Defunding restoration would not only fail to create savings, it would waste millions of dollars that are already available - funds that would create water supply projects, channel improvements – and jobs.
Harming water quality for two thirds of Californians. Flows from the San Joaquin River will improve water quality in the Delta, a source of drinking water for over 23 million people and farms. Improved flows on the San Joaquin will also help restore the damaged Bay-Delta estuary, improving the reliability of water supplies for the water users who depend on the Delta.
Causing unnecessary conflict. The CR language would destabilize the San Joaquin River restoration agreement that was negotiated by the federal government, farmers and environmental groups to end 18 years of litigation. This agreement was supported by all of the major interests in the Central Valley, including farmers and irrigations districts. It was also supported by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. .
Undermining successful bipartisan efforts. The restoration agreement was supported by the Bush administration and California’s Republican governor. The federal authorizing legislation was initially co-sponsored in the House by Congressman Pombo and Senator Feinstein in the Senate.

After eighteen years of litigation, the parties decided that finding agreement was more productive than continued conflict. In the four years since the agreement was reached, flows have brought the river back to life, thousands of acre-feet of water have been recirculated back to farmers, and soon salmon will be reintroduced to the river to help revive California’s commercial salmon fishing industry. San Joaquin River restoration is a successful example of the bipartisan cooperation we need more of, not the kind that should be defunded.

The San Joaquin River Restoration Suggests Path Forward for the Delta and Salmon

2010-04-09T23:22:06Z

Monty Schmitt, Senior Scientist, San Joaquin River Project Manager, San Francisco

Something unexpected lies buried in the conflict over our collapsing salmon fisheries and water exports: a solution.

Some parties in this dispute have presented it as a zero sum game, claiming it’s a matter of “jobs vs. fish.” This is a canard for two reasons. First, fish represent jobs just as much as agriculture – good jobs, jobs that generate employment and revenues well beyond the commercial fishing sector. Seafood processors and purveyors, restaurants, hotels, boatyards and chandlers, tackle, boat and fuel retailers – these are all part of the salmon fishing industry.

Second, we don’t have to choose between fish and agriculture; we can have both. We know this because a recent precedent in California demonstrates that both fishermen and farmers can reach an agreement on how to manage limited water supplies while safeguarding their livelihoods. In this case, however, the two sides had to overcome their long-established positions and reach out to each other. They had to compromise.

The San Joaquin River drains the southern portion of California’s Central Valley, and conjoins with the Sacramento River at their shared delta near Stockton. At one time, the San Joaquin supported huge salmon runs, second only to those of the Sacramento. But massive water diversions for San Joaquin Valley agriculture dried up the river and destroyed the fishery. Indeed, for most of the past six decades, parts of the river ran dry – even in winter. The efforts of fishery advocates to restore the river were met with fierce resistance by farmers equally determined to maintain control over their water sources.

The fight over the San Joaquin was heated – easily as fierce as the current battle over the Delta and the Sacramento River’s salmon fisheries. Decades of litigation culminated in a lawsuit over the restoration of flows and the proposed creation of fish habitat below Friant Dam near Fresno; this case alone lasted 18 years. But though its provenance was rooted in contention, it ultimately resulted in a settlement – one based on mutual interests, shared resources and – yes – compromise.

The San Joaquin settlement established two primary goals: restoring robust, self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish below Friant Dam and programs to minimize water supply impacts that could result from the restoration.

Under the terms of the agreement, restoration of wildlife habitat will proceed along the course of the river. Water releases will be keyed to the specific needs of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon, with the amount varying depending on how wet or dry conditions are in the region. One aspect of the agreement is particularly dramatic, and serves as a metaphor for the entire settlement process: when full implementation is achieved by 2016, the 153-mile length of the San Joaquin River will have year-round, fish-sustaining flows for the first time in 60 years. Earlier this year, a milestone in the settlement was achieved when initial flows were released from Friant Dam, linking the river with the Delta, San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean.

This restoration program will require on average about 18 percent of the San Joaquin water historically delivered to Friant’s long-term contractors. Impacts to farmers will be reduced through projects to improve the recharging of groundwater reservoirs during periods of water surplus, water transfers and exchanges, and water recapture and recirculation programs.

Ultimately, we expect the San Joaquin to regain its status as one of the West’s great living rivers. Thousands of salmon will again spawn here, and lush riparian forests, sustained by the year-round flows, will line the river’s banks, providing food and shelter to birds and other wildlife. The river will become a focal point of recreation and relaxation for all Californians – a place to fish, boat, bird watch, or simply watch the water go by.

No single interest group “prevailed” on the San Joaquin; nobody got it all. But everybody and everything – including the salmon – got what they needed. And if we can do it on the San Joaquin, we can do it with the Delta. The good snowpack that recently has accumulated in the Sierra has given us a little – very little – breathing room in regard to settling the salmon and water crises. We’d prefer to use that time negotiating instead of litigating.

The San Joaquin River Reconnects to the Delta and the Sea

2010-03-16T23:47:05Z

Monty Schmitt, Senior Scientist, San Joaquin River Project Manager, San Francisco

On March 12th, the San Joaquin River was reconnected to the Bay-Delta and the Pacific Ocean for the first time in 60 years using natural river flows. Part of the San Joaquin River Settlement in 2006, the flows being released from Friant Dam this spring, combined with storm runoff from a few small tributary creeks, were enough to re-wet 150 miles of river, join with the Merced River and continue on downstream to the Bay. The goal of these releases in advance of reintroducing salmon in 2012 is to collect data to improve our understanding of the river and begin the process of healing the San Joaquin. For salmon fishermen, these flows represent a rare piece of good news during a time when salmon populations have crashed throughout the state, leading to the closure of the commercial salmon fishery for the past two years. But really all Californians have reason to be excited. The San Joaquin is one of our state’s great rivers and a vital public resource to be enjoyed by all. But perhaps even more importantly, restoring the San Joaquin can serve as an example for resolving other water resource conflicts in the state. Environmentalists, farmers, fishermen and resource agencies can work together to balance water needs so as to sustain agriculture, support a healthy environment and improve water quality for millions of Californians.

Life-giving flows resume on the San Joaquin River

2010-02-02T01:22:44Z

Monty Schmitt, Senior Scientist, San Joaquin River Project Manager, San Francisco

This week, flow releases out of Friant Dam resumed as part of the effort to restore the San Joaquin River that resulted from the historic settlement agreement between NRDC, the Friant Water Users Authority and the federal government. Last fall, from October 1st to November 20th, flows were released to the San Joaquin River for the first time in over 60 years. Those initial flows were covered extensively in the media, from the local Fresno paper to the New York Times.

The 2006 settlement agreement set in motion one of the largest river restoration efforts in the nation by requiring flows and salmon to be restored to the San Joaquin River, which was dried up and lost its salmon runs in the 1940’s. The restoration flows being released in these initial years – called Interim Flows - are intermittent in nature and are less than the full flows that will go down the river once the river channel is restored and barriers to salmon migration are fixed.

The flows that began on February 1st will continue until December 1st of this year and will provide a wealth of information critical to the restoration effort. The releases this spring will be the largest yet – up to about 1600 cubic feet per second –enough water to fill an Olympic sized swimming pool in about 53 seconds. Given that the river has been dry for most of the last 60 years, releasing flows several years before salmon are reintroduced in 2012 will help refine our knowledge about the river and how best to manage the limited water provided under the Settlement (about 18% of the historic flows) in ways that maximize the benefits to fish and wildlife. Over the next few months data will be collected regarding water temperatures and other habitat characteristics of the river. Information will also be collected about the river’s ability to convey flows in order to identify places where the channel may need to be modified to safely carry higher releases of water. Additionally, these flow releases will help improve water supply management by providing opportunities to recirculate and reuse restoration flows for agricultural purposes once the water has provided the intended environmental benefit.

The resumption of restoration flow releases down the San Joaquin River, even at a fraction of its once mighty flows, is a monumental event. Aside from being a major step forward in restoring California’s second longest river, it will also provide flows to the struggling San Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystem, a source of water for 23 million residents, and help revive the ailing salmon runs that are the life blood of California’s commercial fishing industry. But perhaps even more importantly, these flows and the restoration effort are an example of how farmers, fishermen, environmentalists, and state and federal agencies can work together to implement real solutions to California’s conflicts over water resources.

The Signing of the Omnibus Lands Bill and the Restoration of the San Joaquin River

2009-03-31T17:33:59Z

Monty Schmitt, Senior Scientist, San Joaquin River Project Manager, San Francisco

When President Obama signed into law the Omnibus Public Lands Bill yesterday many wonderful things happened, not the least of which was legislation completing a settlement that ended one of the West's longest water battles. The San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act gave federal agencies the authority and funding to carry out one of the largest salmon and river restoration programs in the history of the United States. After 18 years in court and two years of planning and preparation, the first natural flows in over a half century will once again create a living river sustaining fish and wildlife. Under the Settlement, salmon will be reintroduced in 2012 - nearly sixty two years since the last fish died out in the face of a dry river bed - with the goal of nearly 30,000 spring run Chinook returning to spawn each year. Once again, the San Joaquin River will earn the distinction of being the second longest living river in California.

But the Settlement is about much more than just fish and wildlife. Future generations will be able to swim in cool clean waters fresh from the Sierra and fishermen will be able to cast their lines along its bank. And the Settlement is also about protecting agriculture. While some water (around 18% on average) will now remain in the river instead of being diverted for agricultural uses, the Settlement provides certainty for farmers about what their future water supplies will be, as well as provisions to help mitigate water supply and other impacts.

The restoration of the San Joaquin River has been made possible by many. From George Warner, an early fish and game employee who in 1950 held in his hands one of the last salmon he tried for years to save, to Hal Candee, who filed the original suit in 1988 and worked for 21 years to restore flows and fish. There are legislators, particularly Senator Feinstein and their staff as well as staff from over a dozen fishing and conservation groups that have worked hard for many years in the belief that the river would be restored. And there are representatives of the Friant farmers who in the end saw what needed to be done and worked to find a path forward -outside the court room. It was not easy and surely not popular with everyone, but they had the strength and wisdom to seek to gain a better outcome by working together rather than sustaining an unmitigated court ordered judgment.

But here is not where the story ends, but rather begins. Hard work lies ahead for all of us who now must implement the Settlement and legislation to create a living river. There will undoubtedly be many challenges ahead, as we try to modify a landscape that has grown up around a dry river bed and will now have to adjust to the river being wet once again. There will be a need to look at ways to offset water supply impacts without harming the environment. But just as with the settlement, only by working together can the best possible outcome be achieved and benefits realized by everyone. Restoring the San Joaquin to its once massive flows and wide-spread floodplains is not possible - and it's not the goal of the Settlement. Instead, the goal will have to be a river, scaled down in size but living none the less, so salmon and other native fish will have sufficient water and habitat to be self sustaining without the need for permanent hatcheries. Restored flows will create riffles for salmon spawning and sand bars to support willow and cottonwood trees that will benefit migratory birds and other wildlife. And all Californians, now and for generations to come, will once again have a living river to enjoy.