Lower Yuba River Accord from Controversy to Consensus the Yuba River

The Lower Yuba River Accord From Controversy To Consensus The Yuba River

2 • The Lower Yuba River Accord Contents

Introduction 4 Background 5

From Controversy to Consensus 10 The Lower Yuba River Accord: From Controversy To Consensus The Fisheries Agreement 13 was prepared and published by the Water Education Foundation The Water Purchase Agreement 17 as a public information tool. The Conjunctive Use Agreements 22 Summary 23

Credits

President: William R. Mills Executive Director: Rita Schmidt Sudman Authors: Susan Lauer and Sue McClurg The mission of the Water Education Editorial Assistance: Robin Richie Foundation, an impartial, nonprofit Design: Curtis Leipold organization, is to create a better Photography: Kathy Bishop understanding of water issues and Peter Grigsby, Office of the Governor help resolve water resource problems Jones and Stokes through educational programs. Dale Kolke, California Department of Water Resources MWH Gary W. Rose ISBN: 1-893246-88-4 Thomas Taylor Three Rivers Levee Improvement U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Published 2009 Yuba County Library Yuba County Water Agency ©Water Education Foundation

Graphics: Courtesy of Yuba County Water Agency

The Lower Yuba River Accord • 3 Introduction Cutting through the Sierra Nevada had reached a unique agreement on throughout the state. And on an Gold Rush countryside, the Yuba River managing the river. The State Water annual basis, 60,000 acre-feet will be has played a vital role in the state’s Resources Control Board (State Water dedicated to environmental flows for history. How its water should be used Board) adopted the Lower Yuba River the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. has been a focal point of controversy. Accord (Yuba Accord) in 2008. The Yuba The seven Conjunctive Use In the last 20 years, the river was the Accord agreements will be in effect at Agreements establish a new compre- epicenter of a classic water struggle as least through 2016, possibly longer. hensive groundwater program in Yuba environmentalists and fish organiza- The Yuba Accord comprises three County to improve overall water supply tions fought to gain more water for important agreements governing the reliability for local farmers. threatened fish, such as spring-run stretch of the lower Yuba River below In a state such as California where Chinook salmon and steelhead, and Englebright Dam to its confluence with stakeholders often live up to the saying the Yuba County Water Agency (YCWA) the Feather River near Marysville. With attributed to Mark Twain – “whiskey is fought to preserve its rights to oper- no hatcheries on the Yuba River, this for drinking; water is for fighting over” ate New Bullards Bar Dam, part of its section of the river is home to some of – the Yuba Accord is an example of Yuba River Development Project (Yuba the Central Valley’s last wild Chinook how a collaborative process can yield Project). The Yuba Project provides salmon and steelhead runs. real water management solutions. hydropower and irrigation water, helps The Fisheries Agreement estab- “The Accord should serve as a control floods, maintains recreation lishes new variable instream flow levels model for building unique alliances to areas and fisheries habitat, andsupplies to benefit wild salmon and steelhead find and implement integrated solu- water for transfer to other areas of on the lower Yuba River, increasing fish tions to California’s water challenges. California. flows by as much as 170,000 acre-feet The most short-sighted definition of Conflicts over all these water uses annually. success in California’s water wars is led to a series of lawsuits over the The Water Purchase Agreement ‘beating the other side,’” said Chuck course of nearly two decades before creates a new long-term water trans- Bonham, director of Trout Unlimited, a these legal disputes ultimately moved fer program under which Yuba River signatory of the Accord. “The operative from the courtroom to the negotiating water will be transferred to other users spirit of the Yuba Accord is collective table. Three years later, a diverse group in California. In 2009, about 180,000 problem-solving by unlikely partners; of 18 agencies and nongovernmental acre-feet of water will be transferred the result is a lasting outcome.” organizations announced that they to drought-stricken farms and cities

The Yuba River

4 • The Lower Yuba River Accord Background The Yuba River begins as three stream to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Daguerre Point Dam, built in 1906 separate forks – the north, south Delta located south of Sacramento. by the California Debris Commission. and middle – in the Sierra Nevada In the Delta, water flows out to San Another debris dam, Englebright Dam, Mountains northeast of Sacramento. Francisco Bay, is diverted for use on was built in 1941 by the U.S. Army The Yuba River is an important water local Delta farms or is exported by the Corps of Engineers (Corps). supply far beyond local cities and farms State Water Project or federal Central But downstream levees were not because the Yuba is a major tributary Valley Project. enough to stop the flooding and in the to the Feather River, which, in turn is Twenty percent of the Yuba River’s 1960s, New Bullards Bar Dam was built the major tributary to the Sacramento water is diverted out of the upper Yuba on the North Yuba to provide upstream River – a vital source of water for the River watershed to other watersheds flood protection. The dam is part of Bay Area, Central Valley and Southern for water supply and hydropower YCWA’s Yuba Project and it also gener- California. The Yuba River also provides production. Sixteen percent is diverted ates hydropower and provides water valuable habitat and water for three by YCWA and other local districts for for local farmers. runs of Chinook salmon, steelhead irrigation. Primary crops raised in Yuba Some water from the Yuba Project trout, other fish species, birds and County include rice, peaches and also is transferred to cities and farms mammals. plums. throughout California, generating During an average year, the annual But runoff into the Yuba River can revenue that YCWA has used to finance snow and water runoff to the Yuba be substantially higher – reaching a regional flood protection projects such River is about 2.4 million acre-feet. record high 4.9 million acre-feet in as strengthening levees. Since the late That’s enough water to meet the annual 1982. Compounding these high flows is 1980s, YCWA has sold water to various indoor and outdoor water needs of a Gold Rush legacy – millions of cubic Northern California cities, the California 2.4 million to 4.8 million people. (One yards of dirt and rocks washed into the Department of Water Resources (DWR), acre-foot equals about 326,000 gallons, Yuba River from hydraulic mining. This the Environmental Water Account or enough water to cover an acre of debris raised some stretches of the (EWA) program, other water districts, land – about the size of a football field Yuba’s riverbed by as much as 30 feet. and multiple state-managed drought – one foot deep. The typical California To protect themselves from floods, water banks and dry-year purchase household uses one-half to one acre- settlers in the valley began building programs. foot of water each year.) levees in the late 1800s. Upstream, “Reducing our flood risk is a priority About 64 percent of the runoff debris dams were constructed to for YCWA, and it’s why the Yuba Accord stays in the Yuba River and flows down- capture mining debris; including is so important,” said Mary Jane Griego,

Rice is Yuba County’s No. 1 crop

The Lower Yuba River Accord • 5 With so many diverse interests depending on water from this river, the balancing act to serve all the stake holders through the years frequently erupted into controversy and lawsuits prior to the interest-based negotiations that led to the Yuba Accord. The Yuba Accord’s three interconnected agreements offer a cumulative benefit for the Yuba watershed and other areas of California. The Yuba Accord also provides for a $6 million long-term lower Yuba River fisheries monitoring, Chinook salmon studies and enhancement program and required no federal or state legislation. a Yuba County supervisor and YCWA water to spawn. Historically these fish “The Yuba Accord is a precedent- director. “The Yuba Accord allows YCWA spawned high up in the Yuba water- setting solution to the imperative of to improve fishery conditions and raise shed but the construction of federal improving environmental flows in hard revenue for our desperately needed Englebright Dam, which does not working rivers of the Central Valley in a flood control measures.” have fish ladders, cut off their passage. manner that also sustains – indeed, The Yuba River hosts a number of Although New Bullards Bar Dam is enhances – water supplies,” said Gregory fish species, but the focus of the Yuba located upstream of Englebright, state Thomas, president of the Natural Heri- Accord is on anadromous salmonids fishery managers and environmental- tage Institute (NHI). “It was also a pro- – Chinook salmon and steelhead ists always sought more water for the cess model in its collaborative, consen- that migrate from the ocean to fresh benefit of fish. sus-building, science-based approach.”

History of the Yuba River

Long before California gained and flumes – to sluice out the elusive mined 100,000 tons of gravel per day statehood in 1850, the Yuba watershed shining metal. In the 1850s, water and used 16 billion gallons (32,000 supported a number of Native American was harnessed and blasted into acre-feet) of water each year. By the tribes. In 1820, Spanish Captain Luis hillsides to dislodge gold in a prac- mid-1880s, an estimated 11 million Arguello explored the upper parts of the tice called hydraulic mining. When ounces of gold (worth approximately Sacramento River and Feather River up Malakoff Diggins Mine, located near $9.7 billion at early 2009 prices) had to the Yuba River and beyond. Arguello North Bloomfield on the South Yuba been recovered by hydraulic mining named the Yuba River Rio de las Uva River, was in full operation in 1876 it operations. (the Spanish word for grapes) because of the abundance of wild grapes grow- Hydraulic mining washed tons of soil into the Yuba River. ing along the banks of the river. “Yuba” was a variant spelling of Uva. Although gold was first discovered on the American River, prospec- tor Jonas Spect put the Yuba River watershed on the mining map when he discovered gold in a ravine just downstream from today’s Englebright Reservoir near the town of Smartsville – setting off a new gold rush. These fortune seekers built the state’s first hydraulic works –reservoirs and more than 4,000 miles of ditches

6 • The Lower Yuba River Accord Co. made its way to the United States District Court in San Francisco where Judge Lorenzo Sawyer decided in 1884 in favor of the farmers, declaring hydraulic mining “a public and private nuisance” that violated the rights of individuals downstream by destroying the landscape and damaging the watershed. The judge noted that hydraulic mining was legal; however, discharging the debris into local rivers was not. The Sawyer Decision was among the first environmental laws introduced in the United States, and it effectively Marysville’s D Street in the 1870s shut down hydraulic mining operations, which couldn’t make a profit While generating millions of replaced a tent city. Four years later, under the new restrictions. dollars in tax revenues for California and Marysville was one of the state’s big- In 1906, the California Debris communities in the Yuba watershed, gest cities with a population of 10,000. Commission constructed Daguerre hydraulic mining had a devastating More than $10 million in gold was Point Dam on the lower Yuba River to effect on the region as the gravel and shipped from local banks to the U.S. stabilize the mining debris and reduce debris (called slickens) were dumped Mint in San Francisco. the flood risk. The dam retained the into streams and waterways. On the But the boom wasn’t to last. debris but made it nearly impossible Yuba River, upwards of 685 million cubic Facing chronic flooding and loss for spawning fish to migrate upstream. feet of debris – three times the volume of livelihood, farmers sued the miners. In 1924, fish ladders were installed, of earth excavated for the Panama Canal The landmark case of Edwards Woodruff but were washed out during winter – was deposited in the river. v. North Bloomfield Mining and Gravel storms in 1927-28. The dam was rebuilt “The Yuba River, which drained the most active hydraulic mining region, carried an especially heavy load of mud, sand and gravel flowing downstream either in suspension or along on its bed,” wrote Robert Kelley in his well-known book on Sacramento Valley floodingBattling the Inland Sea. The debris clogged the river, damaged salmon and steelhead spawning beds, killed the fish and led to flooding in nearby communities. Rich farmland disappeared under rising loads of mining muck. And even with levees, the Yuba River continued to jump its banks in years of high flow. Located at the confluence of the Yuba and Feather rivers, Marysville arguably bore the largest brunt of the mining debris effects. Incorporated in 1851, Marysville prospered during the Gold Rush and many people cam- paigned for it to become California’s Daguerre Point Dam capital. By 1853, brick buildings had

The Lower Yuba River Accord • 7 in 1964 with new fish ladders. To date, approximately 4 million cubic yards of debris has collected behind Daguerre Point Dam. Another sediment dam was built by the Corps in 1941. Located in the steep Yuba River gorge known as the Narrows, Englebright Dam has captured over 40 million cubic yards of mining debris that would have otherwise choked downstream waterways. Englebright Dam also provides water storage and generates hydropower. But the dam does not have fish ladders, which is why the waterway below this dam is the focus of the Yuba Accord’s fishery flows. Although these debris dams helped to hold back the mining sediment, the Yuba’s shallow riverbed combined with periodic heavy rain- storms continued to cause flooding in Marysville and elsewhere in the Sacra- mento Valley. In 1950, the Yuba River broke through its banks at Hammon- ton and caused millions of dollars in damage. The devastating 1955 flood killed 40 people and forced nearly 30,000 people to evacuate. In January 1959, Yuba County went to the state Legislature with a bill to create a local water agency. In June, the Legislature passed a law creating the YCWA to finance and build a flood control and water supply project. A decade later, the Yuba Project on the North Yuba River was complete. In addition to New Bullards Bar Dam, it consists of two smaller dams, diversion tunnels and hydroelectric facilities. New Bullards Bar reservoir – which has a capacity of 1 million acre-feet The fish ladders at Daguerre Point Dam were rebuilt in the 1960s. – is a popular recreational site. The hydroelectric facility produces nearly 1997 when the Yuba and Feather rivers Since 1997, YCWA has been 400 megawatts of power, or enough tore through their levees, forcing the working with the Corps, DWR and electricity to power 200,000 California evacuation of thousands of people and local agencies on measures to im- households annually. inundating tens of thousands of acres prove flood control in Yuba County. Despite the project’s flood con- of land – destroying businesses, farms Strengthening the county’s levee trol capacity and an extensive system and houses. Those floods devastated systems has been of high priority of downstream levees, the region is other parts of the Sacramento and and the Yuba Accord will provide still ravaged by periodic floods. The San Joaquin valleys as well; a total of 22 money to help finance construction most-recent occurred in 1986 and people were killed in the two floods. projects.

8 • The Lower Yuba River Accord The Journey of Water Down the Yuba River The Yuba River has three forks – the the 1.2-mile long Camptonville Tun- Two tunnels leading from the reservoir north, middle and south – and drains nel that carries it to New Bullards Bar move water to the Narrows 1 Power- 1,357 square miles of watershed in the Reservoir. house, owned by the Pacific, Gas and western Sierra Nevada. At New Bullards Bar Dam water is Electric Co. (PG&E) and the Narrows 2 The North Yuba originates at released into a seven-mile long tunnel Powerhouse, owned by YCWA. Yuba Pass (elevation 6,701 feet) near that carries it to gigantic turbines that Below Englebright Dam on the State Highway 49 in Sierra County and generate electricity at New Colgate lower Yuba River is Daguerre Point parallels the state highway as far as Powerhouse. The larger of YCWA’s two Dam. In addition to trapping debris, Downieville, where the river flows west powerhouses, New Colgate produces the dam is the primary diversion point to New Bullards Bar Reservoir. enough electricity for 200,000 house- for irrigation district canals north and The Middle Yuba begins above holds annually. south of the river. Daguerre Point Dam Jackson Meadows Reservoir in Sierra The South Yuba originates at 9,000 was rebuilt in 1964 following damage County and flows to the 75-foot-high feet elevation in Placer County near from floods. Our House Dam, located southwest of Castle Peak and Donner Lake and flows Eleven miles downstream from Camptonville near the Sierra/Nevada down to Englebright Reservoir and the Daguerre Point Dam, the Yuba River County line. It then continues to the main Yuba River. A 39-mile stretch of flows past Marysville and joins the confluence with the North Yuba. Just the South Yuba – from Lang Crossing Feather River. upstream from Our House Dam, some to its confluence with Kentucky Creek water is diverted into a 3.8-mile long below Bridgeport – is designated a tunnel that carries it to Oregon Creek California Wild and Scenic River. At near Camptonville. In Oregon Creek Englebright, the South Yuba joins the water flows a short distance to the North Yuba and Middle Yuba rivers. 55-foot high Log Cabin Dam. Just upstream from the dam, some of the river’s water supplies are diverted into

The Lower Yuba River Accord • 9 From Controversy to Consensus The Yuba Accord resolves a nearly participants in the multi-year negotia- ment Plan,” which proposed increas- 20-year legal, political and public fight tions was also an essential factor in ing these instream flow requirements over water rights and fisheries flows. reaching the agreements. to improve lower Yuba River fisheries Most of the litigants embroiled in the At the crux of the controversy was habitat. The proposed plan called for controversy through the years – the establishing instream flow schedules to significantly higher flows – requiring YCWA, California Department of Fish provide sufficient flows to support the up to 500,000 acre-feet per year from and Game (DFG), and environmental fish in the river and also allow YCWA New Bullards Bar Reservoir. and fishing groups – are the entities to operate New Bullards Bar Dam and YCWA officials were concerned that participated in the interest-based Reservoir to meet local water needs these proposed flow requirements negotiations that led to the three and continue to transfer water to other could lead to delivery shortfalls in dry agreements. These entities either users. years, and would preclude transfer- signed one or more of the agreements Because the dam generates ring water to other entities. YCWA had or continue to support them. hydroelectric power, it operates under used these water transfers to generate “The Yuba Accord was a way to provisions of a Federal Energy Regula- revenue for local flood control project leap over some very longstanding tory Commission (FERC) license issued improvements. “There was a willing- conflicts between YCWA and environ- in 1963. In a 1965 agreement between ness to provide higher flows on the mentalists and fish organizations,” said YCWA and DFG (later adopted by the Yuba River as part of a comprehensive Gary Bobker, program director at The State Water Board) instream fishery program that would include water Bay Institute. flow requirements were established for transfers so that YCWA would get Paul Bartkiewicz, attorney with total annual flow volumes ranging from credit for some of the increased flows,” Bartkiewicz, Kronick & Shanahan, who 165,859 acre-feet to 176,320 acre-feet Bartkiewicz said. “Remember, Yuba is general legal counsel for YCWA, said per year. The 1965 agreement between County needed a source of revenues the fact that the groups put aside their YCWA and DFG was incorporated into for flood control.” positions to focus on the needs of the an amended 1966 FERC license. But environmentalists and fish- fish was a key factor to reaching the In the early 1990s, DFG released a ing groups said the 1965 agreement agreements. Building trust among the “Lower Yuba River Fisheries Manage- approved by the State Water Board was based on claims that Marysville would grow as fast as San Jose. That growth never occurred and the groups said New Bullards Bar Dam was built in the 1960s

10 • The Lower Yuba River Accord YCWA was holding a surplus of water Yuba County water purveyors and YCWA and the water purveyors far beyond Yuba County’s needs in several environmental groups filed took an opposing view. They argued order to profit by water sales to other five separate challenges to the deci- that some flow requirements were users. As a result, they said, not enough sion in Yuba County Superior Court. unsupported and excessive. “The water was being released to support The lawsuits were consolidated under long-term D-1644 flow requirements the river’s salmon runs and steelhead. Yuba County Water Agency v. State Water combined wet, above-normal and YCWA maintained that its opera- Resources Control Board and assigned to below-normal water years into one tions were legal because it had the the San Joaquin County Superior Court. mandated flow release schedule,” said authority to store extra water in order The interim mandated instream Paul Bratovich, a fisheries biologist who to generate power through its hydro- flow requirements ranged from works as a consultant for YCWA. “As a electric operations. 212,651 acre-feet in a dry year to consequence one required instream The battle continued through the 400,066 acre-feet in a wet year. After flow schedule would be applied during 1990s. In 2001, the State Water Board the five-year stay, the long-term the vast majority of the years, irrespec- adopted new instream flow require- instream flow requirements were tive of hydrologic variation.” ments for the lower Yuba River, known scheduled to increase and range from Litigation costs were adding up as Water Right Decision 1644 (D-1644). 272,906 acre-feet to 400,066 acre-feet for all parties involved, and it seemed Flow requirements – greater than those a year. By comparison, the 1965 flow the legal challenges would continue. allocated in the 1965 DFG agreement requirements ranged from 165,859 “Neither YCWA nor any of the parties – were established based on the State acre-feet to 176,320 acre-feet a year. was happy,” Bartkiewicz said. Water Board’s determination of the The environmental groups con- Baggett said at the time of the minimum daily average flow needed tended that the decision, and particu- State Water Board’s D-1644 decision: to protect public trust resources and larly the interim flows, provided insuf- “We told the parties if they could come beneficial uses, and to support fisheries ficient protection for fish. “We waited up with a solution – a new flow regime habitat in the lower Yuba River. many years for the state to act on what – we would consider it. We strongly Yet D-1644 did not satisfy DFG, were very weak protections for the encouraged that.” the environmental groups or YCWA, Yuba River,” Bobker said. “And the en- Weary of the lawsuits but deter- and legal challenges continued. In vironmental community did not want mined to find an agreeable flow regime, 2003, under court order, the State to see a diminution of the amount of the litigants came together and began Water Board issued a revised version water dedicated under D-1644.” to develop the comprehensive proposal of D-1644, which established higher long-term flows. But at the time, California was experiencing power Flow Volumes on the Yuba River supply shortages. The Yuba Project was an important producer of hydropower, The Yuba Accord includes which was desperately needed to meet higher instream flows for energy demands. Would a new flow salmon and steelhead regime disrupt the creation of energy? “The State Water Board took an unusual step,” said Board Member Art Baggett, who was serving as hearing officer at the time. “We adopted the [revised] D-1644 order, and delayed the higher flow requirements for five years based on the potential negative impact on hydropower.” Baggett said the stay of requirements was supported by balancing public trust interests. In this case, the State Water Board determined it was protecting the public’s interest regarding energy supply. Following the order’s adoption, controversy continued as YCWA, other Courtesy Yuba County Water Agency

The Lower Yuba River Accord • 11 additional measures to free up and re- The Yuba Accord established a team of biologists to monitor fish health. focus water releases for multiple uses. After three years of negotiations to work out what flows and timing were needed to support fisheries and meet water transfer obligations, a preliminary framework agreement was announced in 2005. As state and federal environmental documents were developed, one-year Yuba Accord pilot programs were implemented in 2006 and 2007. The success of the pilot programs, the scientific information and the collaboration behind the Yuba Accord’s development led the State Water Board to approve it in 2008. “In trying to design flow requirements for the Yuba River, we finally came up with a durable solution: YCWA would support increased flows – a more protective flow regime – but in a way to preserve their ability contained in the Yuba Accord Fisheries benefitting fisheries, consumptive to transport water to support their Agreement. Participants in the multi- users or downstream transfers. Thus, priority financing commitments,” interest negotiations included YCWA, in addition to the different flow Bobker said. “This is a positive out- the South Yuba River Citizens League schedules, they devised a number of come.” (SYRCL), Trout Unlimited, The Bay Insti- tute, Friends of the River, and a con- Englebright Dam tingency of state and federal agencies – DFG, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fish- eries Service (NMFS). A technical team of biologists spent two years considering the life cycles and habitat requirements of Chinook salmon and steelhead. Numerous studies had been con- ducted through the years, and the technical team was able to compile 20 to 30 years of information to reach consensus on the best instream flow requirements for the lower Yuba River’s fisheries. (The technical team comprised diverse experts from YCWA, NMFS, USFWS, DFG and DWR, as well as advocacy and environmental organizations such as Trout Unlimited, SYRCL, Friends of the River and The Bay Institute.) Technical team members realized that water left in the reservoir was not

12 • The Lower Yuba River Accord The Fisheries Agreement Providing the proper amount of Trout Unlimited representative As anadromous fish, Chinook salmon water for Chinook salmon and steel- Bonham said, “It’s a dramatic increase mature in the ocean for up to four head has been the central issue of for fish. Protecting the lower Yuba River years, and then adults migrate up- Yuba River litigation for the past 20 fisheries is important because this is stream in freshwater rivers to spawn years. So when the Yuba Accord began one of the last wild salmon runs in and die. Eggs are deposited in the to come together, the Fisheries Agree- California’s entire Central Valley.” streambed and incubate in the gravel. ment needed to be the cornerstone of The team focused on the various After the eggs hatch, some fry immedi- the pact. life stages of fall-run Chinook salmon, ately move downstream, some juve- Currently, downstream of Engle spring-run Chinook and steelhead. niles remain and grow in the river for bright Dam, the Yuba River provides spawning and rearing habitat for Englebright Dam, built to catch mining Chinook salmon, including fall-run and debris, does not have fish ladders. spring-run – with recent reports of late fall-run Chinook salmon – as well as steelhead. That means fish are present in the river basically year-round with varying needs depending on their life stage. Historic and biological data suggest that the anadromous fish once migrated about 125 miles up the Yuba River to spawn. That access was blocked when the Corps built Englebright Dam in 1941. Thus the technical team – and the resulting Fisheries Agreement – focused on the 24-mile stretch in the lower Yuba River below this dam. In the end, team members recommended minimum instream flow schedules requiring 262,000 acre-feet in an extremely dry year to over 574,000 acre-feet in a wet year. In most dry years, minimum fish flows will be 330,000 acre-feet – a significantly higher instream flow than under previous state and federal requirements. “The Yuba Accord will produce significantly higher instream flows on the lower Yuba River for federally listed salmon and steelhead, including the fall Chinook salmon run, one of the last wild runs in California’s Central Valley,” NHI’s Thomas said. With the Yuba Accord in operation, YCWA is meeting instream flow requirements for salmon, steelhead and other fish and wildlife that exceeds all previous state and federal requirements by an average of 25,000 acre- feet in a dry year to more than 170,000 acre-feet in a wet year.

The Lower Yuba River Accord • 13 several months, and some rear in the river for a year or more prior to migrat- ing to the ocean. The team went through each life cycle month by month to consider the needs of the different species and runs to establish what would be the best Chinook salmon flow regime on a monthly basis. “It was a stringent and well-defined process. We were not constrained by infrastruc- meets the needs of the fish – lower ture, flow release capabilities or other spring flows and higher summer flows. These higher water temperatures kinds of operations of the Yuba Project. The D-1644 schedule more closely coincide with the end of the outmigra- We considered the aquatic resources mimicked the natural hydrograph, in tion period for some fish and also the and fish species and their biologic which snowmelt provides higher spring period that juveniles are staying put needs first,” Bratovich said. flows. However, scientists involved in to grow for the outmigration. Warm In comparison with D-1644, the negotiating the Yuba Accord identified water also can impact the adult spring- Yuba Accord shifts from a flow regime high summer temperatures as a key run Chinook salmon that stay in the with higher spring flows and lower limiting factor for fishery health in the river from spring until spawning in the summer flows to one that more closely lower Yuba River. early fall.

Fish in the Yuba

The lower Yuba River supports in the Yuba River in 2007 and 3,600 in “The collapse of the Sacramento- populations of steelhead trout and 2008, compared to an estimated aver- San Joaquin Delta has had an enor- fall-run and spring-run Chinook salmon age of about 15,000 fish a year over mous impact on Central Valley salmon – with recent reports and observations the 30 years prior. Altered and reduced populations and the problem may only of late fall-run Chinook salmon. Spring- habitat, climate change and changing be exacerbated by ocean conditions,” run Chinook salmon and steelhead are ocean conditions are all considered said Gary Bobker, program director at both listed as “threatened” under the possible factors in the recent declines The Bay Institute. federal Endangered Species Act, and in the salmon populations. fall/late fall-run Chinook salmon are a federal “species of concern.” Since the Yuba River does not have a hatchery, it is important in the recovery of listed Chinook salmon because wild salmon are more genetically diverse. Hatchery salmon also compete with wild stocks for habitat and food. The lower Yuba River’s flows and water temperatures under the Yuba Accord, the absence of a hatchery and the ongoing habitat restoration could all help wild salmon survive. Throughout the Central Valley, including the lower Yuba River, the number of Chinook salmon returning in the fall to spawn has declined in recent years. The Department of Fish and Game estimated that approximately 2,600 fall-run Chinook salmon spawned

14 • The Lower Yuba River Accord Developing Flow Schedules to Maximize Benefits for Fish

Developing month-to-month Schedule 6 represents the “survival ing summer and fall to provide more flow schedules was a complex task, flow” during an extreme drought or beneficial habitat conditions in the according to Bratovich. “With six critical water shortage year. During lower Yuba River,” Bratovich said. fisheries biologists in a room, you will such years, YCWA also will provide an While the technical team devel- get at least seven different opinions additional 30,000 acre-feet of water for oped the flow schedules based on on instream flow requirements. As fishery flows by operating a ground the fisheries needs, hydrologists and the technical team developed these water substitution program through engineers working on the Yuba Accord schedules there wasn’t always full the Conjunctive Use Agreements. began an assessment of the ability to agreement, but eventually we achieved The technical team considered operate the Yuba Project to provide consensus.” unimpaired hydrology in the develop- flows for fish, local water supply and Six flow schedules were devel- ment of the Yuba Accord flow sched- water transfers. oped for the Yuba Accord. Schedule ules. In order to mimic the unimpaired “We did an assessment. How could 1 represents “unfettered optimal flow hydrologic pattern of the lower Yuba we operate the project to provide conditions,” meaning that those flow River, the technical team included nu- flows optimized for fish? For example, requirements would provide the best ances in the timing of peak flows that real-life flows in the spring may provide habitat conditions throughout the year. occur in spring based on the hydrologi- a benefit but a potential detriment Schedule 2 also reflects “unfettered cal year, a detail not reflected in earlier would be the unavailability of colder optimal flow conditions” yet reflects flow schedules, such as in D-1644. water in the fall. So how do you balance lower flow requirements based on the “The Yuba Accord flow schedules the available water supplies and still technical team’s difference of opinion were designed to provide the best of have favorable conditions for the fish? about what an optimal flow was during both worlds – a general mimicking of That’s the exercise we went through in some months. The remaining sched- the pattern of unimpaired hydrology collaboration with other stakeholders ules vary according to the dryness of a during winter and spring, with ad- – and how it was different from a lot of given hydrological year. ditional releases from storage dur- other processes,” Bartkiewicz said.

The Yuba River

The Lower Yuba River Accord • 15 Even with the new flow schedules be a flow increase from 1,200 to 2,000 And untimely flow fluctuations do detailed in the Fisheries Agreement, cubic feet per second, and then in late occur. It’s something to watch,” Reedy Gary Reedy, a SYRCL fish biologist, August there can be a significant drop said. “But the Accord does establish a noted that operational flow changes in releases. set of flows that do a better job and could still affect the fish life cycles. For “The migration of juvenile fish is potentially enhance in comparison to example, depending on downstream timed with river flows. Unnatural flows past management.” requirements, in early July there can could change species distribution.

Follow-up and Monitoring

The Fisheries Agreement also es- “In the past, follow-up studies the number of juvenile fish that annu- tablished long-term funding for a River have been scarce in the Central Valley ally out-migrate to the ocean. Studies Management Team (RMT) to monitor because of funding issues,” Bratovich also include evaluation of aquatic and evaluate the fisheries and the said. “By far the largest shortcoming of habitat availability and utilization by effectiveness of the Yuba Accord. The anadromous salmonids management fish. In addition to studies, the RMT RMT comprises representatives from in California’s Central Valley has been will guide implementation of specific the state and federal water and fishery the lack of sufficiently funded, com- habitat restoration pilot projects. agencies, YCWA, PG&E, and nongovern prehensive, and sustained monitoring The Yuba Accord’s pilot programs mental organizations such as Trout programs. The state of knowledge of in 2006 and 2007 tested the new flow Unlimited, Friends of the River, SYRCL our resources is deficient due to the schedules with success. Still, “it will take and The Bay Institute. lack of such sustained monitoring years to monitor and evaluate,” Reedy Using revenues generated by the programs.” said. “We cannot expect to see a dra- water transfer program, YCWA will To answer the questions “Is the matic immediate increase. We do hope provide $6 million – about $550,000 Accord working?” and “How will the to see a confirmation that the [Yuba] annually – to conduct studies designed fish populations respond?” the RMT is Accord’s flow and schedules that were to evaluate the condition of the aquatic conducting a suite of fish population established by consensus are protec- resources, relationships between the data collection activities, ranging from tive and good for fish.” Yuba Accord flows and water tempera- estimating the number of adults that tures, and fish populations. return to spawn each year to tracking

The Fisheries Agreement provides funds for ongoing fish monitoring.

16 • The Lower Yuba River Accord The Water Purchase Agreement The idea that water could be sold past 20 years such water transfers have variety of fish and wildlife has created a as a commodity emerged in the late become more common. delicate balancing act. 1970s and came to the forefront in But the practice has been scruti- Since 1987, YCWA has transferred 1991 during a severe drought when nized because of the unique nature of about 2 million acre-feet of water from individual water agencies – YCWA water, the interdependence of many New Bullards Bar Reservoir to benefit included – arranged many short-term users and the traditional use of the downstream communities stretching water transfers. In addition, DWR resource. For example, how can it be from Sacramento and San Francisco became a water broker through its guaranteed that a given amount of to Bakersfield, Los Angeles and San Drought Water Bank. According to a water sold and released from Point A Diego. With any transfer, the goal is to report prepared by the Rand Corpora- reaches Point B given all of the other mitigate in order to reduce impacts. tion and other experts, “A Retrospec- diversions and evaporation? For example, early in its transfer history, tive on California’s 1991 Emergency In addition, water transfers can YCWA implemented a groundwater Drought Water Bank,” the 1991 Drought affect fish and wildlife and their habitat monitoring program to avoid impacts Water Bank generated nearly $100 by altering the timing and volume of to groundwater supply in addition to million in overall economic benefits. instream flows critical to many fisher- a 24-hour rapid response in the event (Drought water banks also were ies. And much of the transferred water that domestic wells were impacted. created in 1992, 1994 and 2009.) must pass through the Reallocating available water on a Delta – the heart of voluntary supply-and-demand basis the state water supply Cities and farms throughout through market-based water transfers system and the largest California have received is viewed by proponents as one of estuary on the West water supplies from the the best financial, political and envi- Coast. The Delta’s dual Yuba River through transfers ronmental means of accommodating roles as the hub of the from YCWA to other increased needs for water and moving state’s water supply sys- water agencies. water to those areas of the state. In the tem and home to a wide

New Bullards Bar Dam

The Lower Yuba River Accord • 17 The Yuba Accord’s Water Purchase Agreement was developed by DWR, state and federal contractors and YCWA. It allows YCWA to continue its successful water transfer program and also meet new, increased instream flow requirements, which biologists, hydrologists and engineers established under the Fisheries Agreement. (The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation helped negotiate the Water Purchase Agree- ment but was not a final signatory to the Yuba Accord.) The amount of water transferred is based on the annual flow schedule Providing Water for Delta Fish being used under the Fisheries Agree- ment, as well as conditions in the Delta, In 2000, CALFED – a consortium annual EWA (or its successor program) groundwater availability and antici- of California and federal water and allocation will depend on hydrology, pated delivery allocations through the fishery agencies – established the Delta conditions, water year type, SWP and CVP. Environmental Water Account (EWA) groundwater conditions, and appli- YCWA water transfers include sur- to benefit endangered and threat- cable flow schedules as specified in the face water releases from New Bullards ened fisheries, including salmon and Fisheries Agreement. The per-acre-foot Bar Reservoir and groundwater Delta smelt. The Yuba Accord is the prices and overall revenue that the substitution, which is made available first major long-term acquisition of Department of Water Resources (DWR) on a voluntary basis by YCWA’s mem- water for this program. will pay for these additional surface ber water districts. “The Yuba Accord “The Yuba Accord attests to how water transfers will vary depending on creates a new operational program to structure water transfers so as not hydrological conditions – for example, for our facilities that enables us to to transfer the problem somewhere $75 per acre-foot in a below-normal increase instream flows for salmon and else, such as the Delta,” said Gary year, $100 per acre-foot in a dry year steelhead, but in a way that preserves Bobker, program director at The Bay and $125 in a critically dry year. In our ability to transfer water,” said Curt Institute. “That is an important part 2009, DWR paid $100 an acre-foot for Aikens, general manager of YCWA. of it. We’re hopefully creating better Yuba River surface water transfers and In return, revenues generated by conditions on the Yuba and not $250 per acre-foot for groundwater the water transfers are financing other piling it on in the Delta which is in substitution transfers. provisions in the Yuba Accord, such such a fragile state.” Bond funds from Proposition 50 as the fish monitoring and evaluation The amount of other Yuba have paid for the annual 60,000 acre- program and strengthening of flood River or YCWA transfers beyond the feet of water for the EWA. control levees in Yuba County. The Water Purchase Agreement Today, stability is really valuable,” strategic water initiatives. ”Metropoli- provides a transfer of 60,000 acre-feet Aikens said. tan is pleased to be a partner in the per year for the EWA (or a successor Water suppliers that depend on Yuba Accord, a unique cross-regional program) to benefit fish in the Delta the SWP for their primary supply, such agreement that provides both water and up to another 140,000 acre-feet as the Metropolitan Water District of supply and environmental benefits.” to 22 participating state and federal Southern California (MWD), agree. The Yuba Accord established four water project contractors in dry years. “The statewide challenges presented different water transfer components As part of those dry year transfers, the by three consecutive below-average that set price and availability of water Yuba Accord will allow groundwater precipitation years and the mounting based on hydrologic conditions. The substitution of up to 90,000 acre-feet problems in the Delta highlight the range of water volumes made available per year. value of the [Yuba] Accord in transfer- under the Water Purchase Agreement “Because these are annual ring water to areas in need such as are segregated into four components amounts, the people who rely on these Metropolitan,” said Roger Patterson, reflecting variation in pricing, purpose projects will have more water certainty. MWD’s assistant general manager for of use and delivery timing.

18 • The Lower Yuba River Accord Water Transfer History YCWA has been at the forefront of without a single no vote in the Assem- acted as a broker between sellers and California water transfers as a way to bly and Senate.” buyers. generate revenue beginning in the late The new laws established one-year The Drought Water Bank was a 1980s, according to Bartkiewicz. “Early transfer rules – a key component for success, but because of some contro- on, it was clear that state laws were not short-term, drought-related transfers versy over water rights, Bartkiewicz set up for quick water transfers. The – that are exempt them from CEQA; said YCWA helped draft additional laws didn’t accommodate the process- although it is still required that the legislation in 1992 to address these ing of transfers over a very short period State Water Board prove the transfer points: “that transfers aren’t evidence of time,” he said. will not adversely affect fish, wildlife, of non-use and they can’t cause a Under existing laws for water or other instream beneficial uses or ad- forfeiture of water rights. If I transfer transfers in the late 1980s it would take versely affect other legal users of water. water to you, it’s considered a benefi- at least 12 months to get a transfer “That really changed the dynamic. cial use of water by me so it’s protective approved because of compliance with Now you could process transfers within of my water rights. That really helped the California Environmental Quality 60 days. You would still do the analysis facilitate the 1991 water bank, but Act (CEQA), which would likely include on impacts to fisheries but avoid the beyond that YCWA was a leader in the development of an Environmental procedural requirements of an EIR,” Sacramento Valley encouraging partici- Impact Report (EIR). Bartkiewicz said. pation in the drought water bank. “YCWA helped rewrite the laws The new laws were timely because “Since the 1991 Drought Water and put in new transfer sections in the in 1991 the state was in the grips of Bank,” Bartkiewicz continued, “YCWA Water Code that expedited the water a severe drought and the governor successfully completed several one- transfer process while assuring the called for the state’s first emergency year transfers during dry years; get- protection of environmental resources Drought Water Bank under which ting credit for transferring water while and other water rights,” Bartkiewicz water districts and private parties establishing higher fisheries flows was said. “This legislation passed in 1988 could sell water to the state. DWR a key element of the Yuba Accord.”

California suffered a severe drought in the late 1980s to early 1990s.

The Lower Yuba River Accord • 19 Investing in Flood Protection The Marysville-Yuba City area, damaged about 3,000 homes. Years determined that the state accepted located at the confluence of the later, a court ruling on liability for the Linda Levee as built, “without any Feather and Yuba rivers, relies on levees this levee collapse determined that measures to ensure it met design stan- for much of its flood protection. New the state of California was liable for dards.” The court ruling involved some Bullards Bar Reservoir, the only Yuba potentially hundreds River Basin reservoir with dedicated of millions of dollars. flood control storage, regulates less Among other things, than half the river’s runoff. Major flood- the court found that ing has occurred on the Yuba River “when a public en- numerous times since the 1850s. tity operates a flood In the past 23 years, two major control system built floods have struck Yuba County. by someone else, it According to the American Red Cross, accepts liability as if it the 1997 flood resulted in one of the had planned and built largest evacuations of people in state the system itself.” history, with over 100,000 fleeing the The lawsuit region. Some 40,000 acres of land against the state of were inundated. California first went to Money generated through water transfers has allowed The risk of floods not only stirs trial in 1991, resulted Yuba County to invest in levee improvements. dread among residents living in the in an appeal, then a shadow of the Yuba River, it also has second trial in 2001. great financial implications. The 1986 Then in 2003, the Paterno v. State of 3,000 plaintiffs and found the state Linda Levee collapse in Yuba County California ruling by the Sacramento- liable. The state by 2007 had paid $464 killed two people and destroyed or based Third Appellate District Court million in the case, according to DWR.

1997 flood in Yuba County

20 • The Lower Yuba River Accord Feather River Setback Levee With a revenue source in place meander while providing flood protec- acres for fish and wildlife habitat and because of the Yuba Accord’s Water tion for adjacent communities. The agricultural uses. Purchase Agreement, YCWA was able comprehensive Feather River setback With completion of the Feather to secure an innovative bond financing levee project will include widening the River setback levee in 2009, and several program for the Feather River setback riverbed, building cutoff walls to create smaller levee strengthening projects, levee. underground barriers against under- several communities in Yuba County Located along the east bank of the seepage, adding stability berms to add will likely become some of the first in Feather River between the confluence weight and extra resistance to flood California’s Central Valley with a 200- of the Bear and Yuba rivers, the 13-mile waters in weaker areas, and building a year level of flood protection. Most levee improvement project is located in segment of new levee. areas of the Central Valley have only South Yuba County, just south of Marys- Total project costs are estimated at 100-year protection – or less. (A 200- ville in the area of Linda, Olivehurst and approximately $192 million. DWR will year level of flood protection means Plumas Lake. (Six miles of the project contribute $138.5 million, while Yuba that in any given year, there is a one- will consist of a setback levee.) County, YCWA, Reclamation District in-200 chance that a storm might occur Historically, levees in the 784 and one local landowner are part- that the system could not handle.) Sacramento Valley were deliberately nering to provide $53.3 million in local Money generated by the water built close to the river channels to funding. transfers delineated in the Yuba Accord help scour mining debris. But this Regionally, the project is expected is financing YCWA’s share of the set- practice can often lead to problems to lower water elevations by more than back levee project. “Through the Yuba with erosion because under natural a foot during floods, easing pressure Accord, we’re investing in our levee conditions, rivers meander between on both the Yuba and Feather rivers system, which will reduce the chance their banks. Building a levee that is and providing increased flood protec- in the future that we’ll get flooded and purposely placed back from the river, tion for Marysville and Yuba City. In the state will have to pay millions of a setback levee, allows the river to addition, the project will create 1,550 dollars in flood claims,” Aikens said.

This new Feather River setback levee (to the left in the photo) allows the Feather River (shown on the right) to meander in its channel during high flow events – increasing flood protection for nearby land.

The Lower Yuba River Accord • 21 The Conjunctive Use Agreements Conjunctive use involves the The groundwater will be used only River. Because of ample surface water management of surface water and to irrigate farmland – no groundwater supplies in the North Yuba Subbasin, groundwater supplies to maximize will be directly exported out of Yuba the area’s groundwater level had not the yield of the overall water resource. County. And YCWA and its participating been drawn down extensively. How This includes reverting to groundwater members are implementing strategic ever, in the South Yuba Subbasin, during dry years and then replenishing steps to assure total diversions do not surface water supplies were limited – recharging – that supply with surface exceed specified amounts. and in the past agricultural and urban water in order to avoid groundwater “Using groundwater to irrigate water users relied heavily on ground- overdrafts. (Groundwater is water that their crops means no land will be fal- water supplies. This resulted in an has seeped beneath the earth’s surface lowed to carry out a water transfer,” overdraft of an estimated 100 feet at and is stored in the pores and spaces Aikens said. “Taking land out of produc- some locations between 1949 and between alluvial materials such as tion to accommodate a water transfer 1981. sand, gravel or clay.) has had adverse economic impacts in With development of the south Under the Yuba Accord, YCWA other parts of California. As a matter diversion and canal system in 1984, has agreed with seven of its local of policy YCWA does not approve land YCWA started delivering surface water water districts to pump 30,000 acre- fallowing water transfers.” from New Bullards Bar Reservoir to feet of groundwater instead of relying YCWA has had success with its the South Subbasin. As a result, the on surface water for irrigation during conjunctive use program, balancing groundwater elevation has returned to very dry years to fulfill a YCWA its surface water and groundwater sup- near historical levels. commitment under the Fisheries plies with water transfers during the In coordination with its mem- Agreement. These “dry years” histori- past 14 years. In fact, YCWA has used bers, YCWA has developed a special cally occur in about 4 percent of the its Yuba River flows to restore ground- groundwater monitoring and reporting years. In addition, these water districts water levels that had been depleted program to ensure that groundwater can pump groundwater on a volun- through the decades. pumping associated with the Yuba tary basis as a substitute supply for The Yuba River watershed has Accord will be within the sustainable any surface water they make available two aquifer regions, the North Yuba yield of the groundwater aquifers to for transfer under the Water Purchase Subbasin and South Yuba Sub safeguard agricultural, domestic and Agreement. basin, which are divided by the Yuba municipal wells.

Diesel to Electric

To improve Yuba County’s air qual- with more efficient electric motors – ity and reduce climate impacts, YCWA reducing fossil fuel demands by up to is administering a $1 million program 600,000 gallons of diesel per year and to reimburse farmers for the purchase reducing greenhouse gas emissions and installation of new, more-efficient by up to 7,000 tons per year. Thus far, electric groundwater pump motors – 54 older, diesel engines have been replacing older diesel pump engines. replaced with more efficient electric This program, which is being financed motors. by the Water Purchase Agreement buy- “Our conjunctive use program will ers, will enable local farmers to irrigate aid in conservation efforts and also their crops with groundwater when provide climatic benefits,” said Curt surface water is needed for other Yuba Aikens, general manager of YCWA. Accord purposes. “Farming and economic activity The environmental benefits of essential to our region’s economy will this program are striking. When fully continue, and in fact it will be strength- operational, it will result in the replace- ened under these agreements.” ment of up to 75 older diesel engines

22 • The Lower Yuba River Accord Summary The Yuba Accord has been heralded these organizations for its collaborative process that yields were able to come up real solutions to manage the water with an agreement that resources of the lower Yuba River. met all their needs at Attorney Bartkiewicz said he once is phenomenal – strongly recommends an interest-based and an example that approach to negotiating a solution sneaky, back-room because “at a minimum, you have a bet- competition doesn’t ter opportunity to understand what the have to be the norm.” other parties hope to achieve through The Yuba Accord Gov. Schwarzenegger honors representatives of the Yuba the process.” has won accolades Accord on receiving the state’s highest environmental “Historically in California, water from other groups. In award, saying, “Their collaboration to protect the wars have been the most contentious 2008, the Association environment and the economy is phenomenal.” resource battles imaginable,” Linda of California Water Adams, secretary of the California Envi- Agencies awarded YCWA the “Theodore tive partnership, and strategy develop- ronmental Protection Agency told the Roosevelt Environmental Award” for ment in the pursuit of a sustainable Christian Science Monitor. “The fact that Excellence in Conservation and Natural solution to a complex controversy,” the Resources Manage- NHA said. ment. YCWA also was a 2009 recipient In 2009, the of the Governor’s Environmental and National Hydropower Economic Leadership Awards. Association (NHA) The Yuba Accord also serves to honored YCWA with its address California water supply issues “Outstanding Stewards – especially during drought years – by of America’s Waters increasing cost-effective supplies with Award” for recreational, water transfers. Revenue generated by environmental and the transfers through the Yuba Accord historical enhancement. will contribute to securing Yuba County “The Yuba Accord repre- against flooding and also bolster re- Janet Cohen, SYRCL, and Chuck Bonham, Trout Unlimited, sents a nexus of smart gional economics. after announcement of the 2005 Yuba Accord “framework.” engineering, collabora- YCWA Director and local farmer Tib Belza said Yuba County farmers will benefit from the Yuba Accord. “Water Yuba Accord Participants and Supporters rights held by YCWA and the local water Yuba County Water Agency districts are no longer threatened by Friends of the River controversy over instream fisheries South Yuba River Citizens League flows,” he said. “This certainty is invalu- The Bay Institute able in enabling Yuba County’s farm- Trout Unlimited ers to make capital investments, to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hire workers and to successfully grow National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) wholesome food in California, like rice, California Department of Fish and Game peaches and plums.” California Department of Water Resources Finally, the Yuba Accord serves as Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region an example of how groups with diverse Pacific Gas & Electric Co. missions can work together to find a Brophy Water District solution that benefits all stakeholders. Browns Valley Irrigation District “In the midst of the controversy, it was Dry Creek Mutual Water Company difficult to believe that a consensus- Hallwood Irrigation Company solution was possible. Now I know that Ramirez Water District used correctly, like in an interest-based South Yuba Water District negotiation, consensus can be an effec- Wheatland Water District tive problem-solving tool,” Aikens said.

The Lower Yuba River Accord • 23 For More Information

717 K Street, Suite 317 Sacramento, CA 95814 916-444-6240 www.watereducation.org

Yuba County Water Agency 1220 F Street Marysville, CA 95901 530-741-6278 www.ycwa.com