My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUB00022
CWCB
>
Publications
>
Backfile
>
PUB00022
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2011 11:10:44 AM
Creation date
9/30/2006 10:04:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Publications
Year
2000
Title
Layperson's Guide to California Water
CWCB Section
Interstate & Federal
Author
California Water Education Foundation
Description
Layperson's Guide to California Water
Publications - Doc Type
Other
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />The CVP's benefits touch the lives of every Ameri- <br />can who buys grapes, lettuce, canned tomatoes or <br />a cotton shirt made from Central Valley crops. The <br />major redistribution of such a critical resource, <br />however, has not occurred without controversy. <br />Conflicts have long festered over the project's public <br />costs and private benefits. Critics contend that by <br />encouraging agriculture on a grand scale, the CVP <br />has contributed to the depletion of <br />anadromous fish and the build up of salt <br />and selenium in San Joaquin Valley <br />soils. More recently, urban water-users <br />and environmental advocates have <br />coveted the CVP's hold on 20 percent <br />of the state's developed water. <br /> <br /> <br />/n 1962, President Jolm F. <br />Kennedy and Ca/~fomia <br />Gm'. Pat Brmrll triggered <br />the detonatio11 of explosives <br />/0 break ground 011 the <br />joillf federal-slate San <br />Luis Dam and Resen'oir <br />project near Los Banos. <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />In 1992. the changing views and <br />conflicting values came to a head in the <br />form of the landmark federal legislation, <br />the CVP Improvement Act (CVPIA). <br />The act brought fundamental change <br />to CVP operations and water allocation, <br />elevating fish and wildlife protection and <br />restoration to a primary project <br />purpose. CVPIA reallocated 800,000 <br />acre-feet of CVP yield annually <br />(600,000 acre feet in dry years) for the restoration of <br />valley fisheries and wildlife and established a S50 <br />million environmental restoration fund. It also allowed <br />CVP water rights holders to sell their water to <br />outsiders. CVPIA pleased environmentalists and <br />municipalities. but many CVP farmers contended the <br />act goes too far. <br /> <br />In 1997, farmers from the westslde of the Jan Joaquin <br />Valley and environmentalists filed suit against the <br />Bureau over its plan to improve water quality for <br />endangered fish using a portion of the CVPIA water. <br />Both sides said that the federal government had to <br />include an accounting method for keeping track of <br />how much water would be needed for the fish and in <br />1999, a federal judge agreed. The Bureau developed <br />a new plan in 1999 and a federal court ruling in March <br />2000 ended the three-year suit after deciding the <br />federal plan legally used and accounted for the <br />environmental CVPIA water. <br /> <br />Additional key sections of CVPIA have not yet been <br />implemented because of ongoing disputes over <br />interpretation and implementation. One of these <br />provisions, the Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan, <br />is intended to double the number of anadromous fish. <br />including chinook salmon. The plan has remained in <br />a "revised draft" status since 1997 and will not be <br />finalized until a record of decision is issued on the <br />programmatic EIS of the CVPIA. <br /> <br />Since the late 1980s, populations of chinook salmon <br />in the Sacramento. Klamath and San Joaquin river <br />basins have declined, with many runs at or near <br />record lows. While mitigation plans and facilities have <br />been a part of the CVP since the early 1940s, fish <br />protection efforts had little impact on project <br />operations until 1989, when one of four Sacramento <br />River chinook salmon - the winter-run - was listed <br />under the state and federal Endangered Species <br />Acts (ESA). In 1998. spring-run chinook were listed <br />as well. <br /> <br />The prevailing effort to save the winter~run, especially <br />during the drought years. brought fundamental <br />change to CVP facilities and operations. New, state- <br />of-the-art fish screens were installed at Red Bluff <br />Diversion Dam on the Sacramento River. The dam's <br />gates are now raised for eight months a year to allow <br />salmon free passage. In the Delta. gates at the Delta <br />Cross Channel also are closed lor several months <br />to reduce fish entrainment at the export pumps. <br />Spawning gravel was replaced along miles of river <br />and a captive winter-run breeding program is <br />underway. <br /> <br />One of the biggest fish protection projects is the <br />S80 million temperature control device at Shasta <br />Dam installed in mid-1997. The structure. which <br />was funded by the CVP Improvement Act (CVPIA), <br />allows dam operators to forego cold water releases <br />from the outlets to improve spawning conditions <br />for the endangered winter-run salmon. <br /> <br />The Bureau also modernized the Coleman and <br />Nimbus fish hatcheries that help sustain the <br />commercial ocean salmon catch. Unfortunately, <br />hatcheries cannot replace the wild salmon stocks <br />biologists consider essential for the survival of a <br />species - in part because of the stocks' limited gene <br />pool. <br /> <br />Other ecosystem restoration projects intended <br />to boost salmon runs under CVP1A include <br />those along Battle Creek, a Sacramento River <br />tributary in northern California. Battle Creek, <br />considered one of the best salmon producing <br />streams in the Central Valley, is one of the few <br />that gives passage to chinook salmon and steelhead <br />runs. II also has been a target for hydropower facilities <br />over the years. To help restore native fish popula- <br />tions, a major S50 million restoration effort is taking <br />place on the creek to increase in-stream flows and <br />regulate water temperature by optimally operating <br />hydropower facilities, improving fish ladders and <br />decommissioning five diversion dams deemed <br />unnecessary. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.