When storms skipped us in December and January following two dry years, we were in for a world of hurt.
By The Bay Institute
Published: May, 2014
When storms skipped us in December and January following two dry years, we were in for a world of hurt. Everyone was going to suffer—including cities, farmers and even fish. When we finally did get some rain, we thought that everyone’s sacrifices would be eased just a bit. Turns out, we were wrong.
In recent months, federal and state agencies that are supposed to be protecting our environment, its endangered species and our clean water have caved to political pressures from elected officials in order to provide more water to a small group of wealthy farmers, while sacrificing protections for humans and the environment. The damage to our fish and wildlife, including six endangered species that rely on freshwater flow into and through our San Francisco Bay Estuary, could be catastrophic.
Here’s the problem… the first one.
At the beginning of February, water supply conditions were grim. The state’s largest reservoir—its Sierra Nevada snowpack—was close to its worst level ever recorded and many of the man-made reservoirs were at extremely low levels. The drought was on.
What are some of the consequences of the drought?
The effects of the drought are widespread in California, but are particularly severe in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Here, the rivers meet to flow out to the San Francisco Bay. They’re also pumped for export to cities around the Bay Area and Southern California, as well as to farms in the San Joaquin Valley. The drought was curbing water deliveries for human use as well as environmental flows benefitting commercial and sport fisheries (Chinook salmon and steelhead), and imperiled aquatic species found nowhere else in the world (Delta smelt).
In response to California’s low water levels, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) asked the State Water Board to relax water-quality standards in the Delta designed to protect environmental and human uses of the water. DWR proposed to store water in upstream reservoirs for potential human needs and to maintain cold-water resources that might allow successful spawning and incubation of the endangered winter-run Chinook salmon.
Unfortunately, the effects of this decision would lead to dismal results for the current offspring of Chinook salmon and steelhead that spawned last year and that rely on fresh water flows through the Delta to migrate downstream, potentially leading to the loss of an entire year of salmon. At the time, however, this initial relaxation seemed well-reasoned, prudent and probably necessary to manage limited supplies during a lethal drought.
Then, starting in mid-February, Mother Nature showed us some love and sent some rain. Even though this rain wasn’t enough to boost us out of our drought status, it should have been good news for all. The rivers would get more water just in time for the threatened juvenile fish to migrate downriver, and there would be more water for human use as well. These rains should have benefited everyone.
Instead, they are only benefiting a small few.
Here’s the second problem.
As the rains began, DWR and USBR asked the State Water Board to weaken water quality protections in the Delta for a second time. Furthermore, they asked the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to waive protections that are specifically designed to keep California’s endangered salmon from going extinct in critically dry years like this one.
So why did they continue to ask for weaker water quality standards?
Those who will benefit from the relaxation of water quality and environmental standards actually have a lot to gain. A small group of industrial farm operations in the San Joaquin River Valley, dubbed the "San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors," have senior rights, meaning they get all their water supply from the federal government before anybody else, including other farmers and cities who also get water from the Delta. The Exchange Contractors and other senior right holders pay virtually nothing for their water (about $7 per acre-foot) but are able to turn around and sell some of their additional water to the farmers who have no water, for exorbitant prices (over $1,000 per acre-foot).
Using a drought as an excuse, and despite protests from the Bay Institute and others, federal and state agencies gave in to political pressure and unnecessarily eliminated environmental protections.
What’s next?
The rains should have made things better for California’s farmers, fish and wildlife, and those who depend on a healthy environment for their livelihood. Instead, a small group has managed to take the benefit for themselves. Only time will tell what damage has been done to steelhead and winter-run, spring-run, and fall-run Chinook salmon. The entire Bay-Delta estuary ecosystem may have been damaged in ways that we cannot now predict.
You can learn more about the effects of the drought and what environmental organizations such as the Bay Institute are doing about this at www.bay.org.
