South Yuba Wild & Scenic
Rivers Bill Clears Another Legislative Hurdle
SB 496, the bill that would add 39 miles of the South Yuba River to the California Wild
& Scenic Rivers System cleared its second legislative hurdle today. The bill was
approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee on a party line 7-5 vote.
Introduced by Senator Byron Sher (D-Palo Alto), SB 496 would prohibit state approval or
support for any new dams on the South Yuba, a popular recreation river located entirely in
Nevada County. Supporters of the bill, including the Nevada County Board of
Supervisors, successfully convinced a majority of the committee that dams proposed by the
Yuba County Water Agency are not needed on the river to provide downstream flood
protection for Yuba County. Yuba County currently has a $26.6 million levee
improvement bill before Congress. Improving levees on the Feather River and Yuba River was
chosen by the Corps of Engineers and California Reclamation Board as the most technically,
economically, and environmentally feasible flood control solution for Yuba County.
According to the Corps, the cost of new dams on the Yuba River is far more than the
benefits provided by such facilities.
SB 496 now goes to the Senate floor for a full vote. The bill must clear the Senate and go
to the Assembly before June 4.
What You Can Do:
If you havenıt already done so, write a letter to your State Senator TODAY, urging him or
her to support SB 496 the South Yuba Wild & Scenic River bill. Address your letter
to Senator ________ , State Capitol, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Be sure to mention the following points in your letter:
… SB 496 would protect the outstanding scenic, recreation, and historic value of the
South Yuba
River. Recreation at State Parks on the river contributes more than $25 million to Nevada
Countyıs
economy.
… The Yuba County Water Agencyıs proposed dams on the South Yuba would drown a State
Park, the historic Bridgeport Covered Bridge, thousands of acres of public recreation
land, and hundreds of acres of private property, including much of the historic Gold Rush
mining town of Washington.
… According to the Corps of Engineers, building new dams on the Yuba River is not
economically and environmental feasible. Improving downstream levees is the preferred
flood control solution. Levee improvements is the focus of a $26.6 million funding bill
currently before Congress.
For more information, contact Steve Evans at Friends of the River, (916) 442-3155, Ext.
221 or by email:
sevans@friendsoftheriver.org.
The
Union
Environment
By Tim Omarzu - Tue, Apr 20, 1999
A bill that would give state wild-and-scenic status to 39 miles of the South Yuba River
and prohibit new state-funded dams cleared its second hurdle Monday. The Senate
Appropriations Committee approved Senate Bill 496 by a 7-4 margin, with unanimous support
from the panel's Democrats.
The bill passed in spite of strong objections from Nevada County's state senator, Tim
Leslie, R-Lake Tahoe, and witnesses who argued the designation could lead to continued
flooding in Yuba and Sutter counties, which Leslie also represents.
"We have issues relating to flood control that are paramount," said Leslie, vice
chairman of the
Appropriations Committee. The wild-and-scenic bill was sponsored by the Nevada County
Board of Supervisors by a 4-1 vote - "a sad thing," Leslie said. "I do not
have the luxury of the Nevada County Board of Supervisors of taking a very narrow, selfish
viewpoint," he said. Leslie also charged that SB 496 could hurt the Calfed
process, the joint state and federal effort to clean up the Bay Delta, by eliminating
possible new reservoirs. Potentially, the bill could be the "opening salvo of
starting the water wars that have been so well avoided by being able to sit down in the
Calfed process and ... negotiate," Leslie said.
Leslie's comments followed testimony from Larry Combs, administrator of Sutter County.
"The Yuba River does, in fact, threaten Sutter County," Combs said. "We are
asking this committee not to eliminate options for flood control." Added Curt
Aikens, assistant administrator for the Yuba County Water Agency, "The 1997 flood
cost $2 billion. You either pay up front or you pay after the fact in terms of (damage)
and lost lives." The YCWA is considering several possible new dams, including one at
Edwards Crossing on the South Yuba near Nevada City, as part of a flood control study.
Aikens testified that more than half of the total flood flow going past Sacramento comes
from the Yuba and Feather River system.
"Does it make any sense ... to declare this a wild-and-scenic river and thereby
eliminate options for flood control?" asked Leslie.
Senator Byron Sher, D-Palo Alt, who sponsored the bill at the request of the Nevada County
supervisors, dismissed concerns that wild-and-scenic designation would increase the risk
of downstream flooding.
"This bill doesn't threaten Yuba and Sutter counties," Sher told the committee,
saying that a 1998 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study found that levee modifications, not
new dams, were the only feasible flood-control alternative on the Yuba and Feather Rivers.
Sher also took issue with Leslie's comments about Calfed, saying Calfed had identified 14
potential dam sites, none of which include the Yuba.
A report by the Appropriations Committee staff found that the fiscal impacts of the bill
would produce "minor, if any costs."
Roger Hicks of the South Yuba River Citizens League testified that SYRCL seeks grant
funding for a study of non-dam flood control options called "Yuba Tools."
Leslie told Appropriations Committee members that he took "extreme offense" at
an outside legislator introducing a bill in his district.
"Please, give me the courtesy of letting me handle the legislation from the First
Senate District," Leslie asked the committee.
"I consider this free-flowing river an asset for all the people of California,"
Sher responded.
Senate Bill 496 now will go to the full Senate for a vote, which must take place by June 4
for the bill to survive. If it passes the Senate, which has a 25-to-15 Democratic
majority, the bill will go to the state Assembly.
So far, in two Senate committee hearings, only Democrats have supported the bill, while
Republicans have opposed it.