|
|
|
|
|
On March 1, 2001, The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted a final decision on Yuba River water rights. More than a decade in the making, the decision is intended to ensure adequate flows and temperatures for the protection of the Yuba River's threatened salmon and steelhead runs. Although a step in the right direction, the SWRCB decision is considerably weaker than the recommendations made by state and federal fishery experts. To make matters worse, the SWRCB delayed implementation of the decision for five years in order to provide "flexibility" during the current power crisis.
In 1991, the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) prepared a fisheries management plan for the Yuba River. The DFG plan proposed minimum flows and maximum temperatures to protect Yuba River salmon and steelhead. The SWRCB held 14 days of hearings in 1992 to consider the DFG proposal, but never made a decision. After years of inaction, the South Yuba River Citizens League (SYRCL) threatened legal action against the SWRCB if they did not make a decision on the Yuba. SWRCB held an additional 13 days of hearings in the spring of 2000. In the intervening years, spring-run Chinook salmon were listed as a threatened species by the California and federal governments, and steelhead were added to the federal list of threatened species.
The SWRCB issued a draft decision in November of 2000. The draft decision did not adopt the flows and temperatures recommended by DFG, which were also supported by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and environmental organizations. Nevertheless, the state and federal agencies and environmentalists supported adoption of the draft decision because it represented a balanced approach to the competing interests on the Yuba, and because it was a good first step towards protecting the fishery resources.
Opposition to the draft decision, orchestrated by the Yuba County Water Agency, was intense. At two public hearings, the SWRCB heard criticism from Yuba County farmers, legislators, and water users throughout the state. The opponents claimed that the decision would: end farming in Yuba County; prevent flood control; reduce electric generation; and kill the CALFED environmental water account program. They further argued that the SWRCB had no authority to "take" YCWA's water for fishery enhancement.
While none of the arguments against the draft decision were based on facts, they apparently impressed the SWRCB. At their March 1, 2001, meeting, the SWRCB adopted a revised decision that was substantially weaker than the draft. The revised draft lowered the minimum flows even further from those recommended by the experts and provides no temperature criteria whatsoever. Further, the decision delays implementation of the flow criteria for five years in order to provide "flexibility" during the energy crisis. The decision also allows flow fluctuations that will result in drying out of salmon and steelhead nests after the fish have spawned. Finally, the decision allows YCWA to seek a waiver of the minimum flows in dry years when water deficiencies are predicted. All in all, the SWRCB decision was a great disappointment.
As mentioned above, the environmental community supported the draft decision in spite of its deficiencies. We did not like the draft, but we felt it was supported by science and would probably benefit the Yuba fishery. The unfortunate lesson is that science and facts mean nothing in the face of loud opposition. Likewise, it is clear that hysteria over the energy crisis had a greater impact on the SWRCB than the facts about power generation on the Yuba River.
The battle to protect the Yuba salmon and steelhead is not over. In June of 2001, SYRCL, Friends of the River, Trout Unlimited, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, and others filed suit to challenge the inadequacies of the SWRCB decision. Likewise, YCWA and several irrigation districts also filed a legal challenge to the decision. While the case has been slowly winding its way through the courts, all the interested parties—environmentalists, fishermen, irrigators, government agencies—have been meeting regularly in the hopes of reaching a settlement. As long as the threatened salmon and steelhead remain, the fight will continue.
|
|
|
|
