DOCSLIB.ORG

Friant Water Update

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Friant Water Update FRIANT WATER UPDATE May 16, 2018 NOTE: Three ALERT items, on pages 4 and 6. Data current as of May 14, 2018, unless otherwise noted. Meteorology, Climate, and Hydrology Water Year 2018 Precipitation (Oct 2017 – Sep 2018) • Sacramento Valley: 81% of normal for this week (Link: HERE) • San Joaquin Valley: 78% of normal for this week (Link: HERE) • Tulare Lake Region: 65% of normal for this week (Link: HERE) WY2018 Snow Accumulation (Link: HERE) • North Sierra: 8% of Apr 1 average; 16% of normal for this week • Central Sierra: 12% of Apr 1 average; 20% of normal for this week • South Sierra: 10% of Apr 1 average; 16% of normal for this week Looking forward: • High elevation thunderstorms are forecast in the Sierra Nevada throughout the week, with up to 1.5 inches of precipitation expected. Highest amounts are forecast for the northern Sierra Nevada. See maps of the 6-day precipitation forecast (Link: HERE for Sacramento Basin and Eastside streams; HERE for San Joaquin Valley). • Medium-term precipitation forecasts are near normal, for the 6-10 day and 8-14 day outlooks (Link for 6- to 10-day: HERE; Link for 8- to 14-day: HERE). • May 1 Water Supply Index Forecasts were released on May 8 (Link: HERE) o Sacramento River Unimpaired Runoff Forecast: 50% exceedance is 12.8 (72% of average) o Sacramento Valley Water Year Type Index (40-30-30): 50% exceedance is 7.2 (Below Normal) o San Joaquin Valley Water Year Type Index (60-20-20): 75% exceedance is 3.0 (Below Normal) o The 50% exceedance for the Sacramento and 75% exceedance for the San Joaquin are the values used to make the final water year determination under D-1641. • The May 1 Bulletin 120 Report is available as of May 8 (Link: HERE) and a forecast update was posted on May 11 (Link: HERE). Detailed forecast breakdowns are available for major rivers (Link for Sacramento Basin: HERE, link for San Joaquin Basin: HERE), as is a forecast discussion (Link: HERE). This is the last Bulletin 120 Report for the 2018 water year. Other resources: • An authoritative California climate and meteorology blog (Link: HERE). • Interactive, real-time meteorology updates available at Ventusky (Link: HERE). • Weather updates from the National Weather Service Sacramento office are available (Link: HERE). NASA Airborne Snow Observatory • Five Airborne Snow Observatory (ASO) survey flights for the San Joaquin basin were flown on April 22- 24. The ASO measures snow water equivalent from an airborne platform using a coupled imaging spectrometer and lidar system. Results for estimated snow-water equivalent (SWE) are 688 TAF for the entire watershed, with 302 TAF in the Main Fork San Joaquin, 306 TAF in the South Fork San Joaquin, and 79.5 TAF in lower elevation watersheds (Jose and Willow Creek watersheds). These sub-basin SWEs are 29%, 31%, and 25% of observed SWE at this time last year. This compares to March’s estimated snow-water equivalent for the basin of 554 TAF. Looking forward: • One remaining survey is scheduled at the begin-of-month May 2018, with two optional flights. North of Delta Reservoirs • CVP reservoirs: all are fuller than normal with a total storage of 6,954 TAF. Trinity, Shasta, and Folsom are at 103%, 108%, and 119% of their 15-year average storages for this week, respectively. Shasta has been increasing releases since the end of April to meet demands in the Sacramento Valley, and flows below Keswick are now 8,600 cfs. • Reclamation’s current report on Sacramento River temperatures and cold-water pool in Shasta, Trinity, and Whiskeytown is available (Link: HERE). As of May 8, Shasta had about 2,900 TAF of coldwater pool (<52° F). The current temperature control point on the Sacramento River is at Balls Ferry. NMFS RPA II.2.1 requires temperatures at the selected control point to not exceed 56° F from May 15-October 31. Currently the Shasta TCD is releasing primarily from the upper levels of the reservoir, from 5 upper gates and two middle gates (Link: HERE). • Reclamation’s daily CVP water supply report is available (Link: HERE). • Oroville: storage is well below normal, at 2,459 TAF, in response to dry conditions and limitations on operations resulting from the condition of the spillway. • Storage levels were stable compared to last week, with CVP North of Delta reservoir storage decreasing by 37 TAF and Oroville storage decreasing by 10 TAF. Looking forward: • Reclamation updated the 2018 water supply allocation for the CVP north-of-Delta contractors on April 20 (Link: HERE), to 100% for Agricultural service contractors and M&I water service contractors (including in- Delta and the American River). • The American River Group met on April 19 and discussed forecasted Folsom operations and temperature management. Reclamation’s forecasted end-of September storage in Folsom is 402 TAF under a 90% exceedance forecast and 538 TAF under a 50% exceedance forecast. Temperature management scenarios presented showed the ability to meet a target of 65° F at Watt Ave through September under both exceedance forecasts, and identical or lower targets after that. Meeting handouts are available (Link: HERE). • The Sacramento River Temperature Task Group met on May 9 and discussed forecasted temperature operations. Meeting handouts are available (Link: HERE). Delta/South of Delta Operations Flow values in this section are rounded to the nearest 100 cfs. • Controlling Factor(s) in the Delta: Vernalis 3:1 (per DWR Delta Ops report) o NMFS RPA Action IV.2.1, the San Joaquin River Inflow to Export Ratio, is controlling. This RPA reduces the vulnerability of emigrating steelhead to entrainment in the export pumps. It restricts exports in April and May to a proportion of flows on the San Joaquin River at Vernalis, based on Page 2 the forecasted San Joaquin River 60-20-20 Water Year Type. Under the current forecast of a Below Normal Water Year type, the export cap is 33% of flow at Vernalis, met as a 14-day average. Vernalis 14-day average flows are currently 5,950 cfs. Under this RPA exports can never be constrained to be less than 1,500 cfs for health and safety reasons. o Four other restrictions are currently active, but are not controlling at this time: . NMFS RPA Action IV.2.3 for protection of salmonids, which restricts 14-day average OMR flows to no more negative than -5,000 cfs, and 5-day average flows to -3,500 cfs or -2,500 cfs under high salvage conditions. FWS OMR Action 3 to protect juvenile Delta Smelt, which restricts 14-day average OMR flows to no more negative than -5,000 cfs. The D-1641 E/I ratio export cap of 35%. The ratio is currently at 18%. D-1641 X2 requirements in May, which are 18 days at Port Chicago (64 km) and 31 days at Chipps Island (74 km). The Port Chicago requirement is currently being met with 30 carryover days from April. The Chipps Island requirement is being met by the 14-day average EC. o Current X2 location: 75 km. o The Delta is currently in Excess conditions, so COA accounting is suspended. Reclamation’s COA accounting report currently shows the SWP in debt to the CVP by 12,200 cfs of exports (Link: HERE). COA debt is typically settled up later in the year, but it can also be zeroed out if storage in the major reservoir (Shasta or Oroville) of the project that is owed water hits its flood pool. Currently both Shasta and Oroville are well below their flood pools. • Daily Delta outflow is 11,700 cfs, down from 13,800 cfs last week. • Delta inflow is 17,000 cfs, down from 19,200 cfs last week. Inflow is 9,200 cfs on the Sacramento River at Freeport, 5,300 cfs on the San Joaquin River at Vernalis, and 1,600 cfs from Eastside streams. • Jones pumping is at a 2-unit operation of 1,860 cfs, decreasing from a 3-unit operation of 2,600 cfs that occurred on Saturday and Sunday. Reduced pumping is necessary to comply with NMFS RPA Action IV.2.1, the San Joaquin River Inflow to Export Ratio. • Banks pumping is currently at 1,000 cfs, and is at reduced levels because of lining repairs on the California Aqueduct (CA). These repairs will continue through late June. Additional SWP water may be pumped through Jones or moved through the DMC/CA Intertie during this outage. 0 cfs pumping at Banks for the Cross Valley Canal. • CVP San Luis storage is at 777 TAF, down from last week’s storage of 808 TAF. This is below its capacity of 966 TAF, and is 116% of its 15-year average. • CVP San Luis storage includes 2018 Recapture water that has been accumulating in San Luis since March 1. Recapture has been occurring at Mendota Pool and at Patterson and Banta-Carbona irrigation districts. • SWP San Luis storage is 869 TAF, down from last week’s storage of 886 TAF. • Salinities at compliance locations in the Delta are all well below applicable standards (Link: HERE). • Delta Cross Channel gates have been closed since November 24 under NMFS RPA IV.1.2, to facilitate salmon migration in the Sacramento River. • Reclamation South of Delta daily operations report is available (Link: HERE). Looking forward: • Reclamation updated the 2018 water supply allocation for the CVP south-of-Delta contractors on April 20 (Link: HERE), which is: o Agricultural service contractors: 40% o M&I water service contractors: 75% • DWR increased the allocation for the vast majority of SWP contractors to 30% on April 24, from the January allocation of 20% (Link: HERE).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • PIT Tag Monitoring for Emigrating Juvenile Chinook Salmon at Three Flow Conditions
    PIT Tag Monitoring for Emigrating Juvenile Chinook Salmon at Three Flow Conditions Introduction Historically, California’s upper San Joaquin River (SJR) supported stable populations of fall- and spring-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). However, both populations were extirpated from the system in the mid-twentieth century following the development of Friant Dam (Moyle 2002). In response to the San Joaquin River litigation Settlement, the San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP) has implemented an objective to restore a naturally reproducing and self-sustaining population of Chinook salmon, as well as other fishes, in the system. Because the anadromous life-cycle of SJR Chinook salmon requires conveyance of juveniles from a riverine system to the Pacific Ocean to support the return of spawning adults, meeting this objective requires the consideration of environmental conditions and a connected river system. Though there are likely a multitude of environmental parameters that impact emigrating juvenile salmon, flow regime and predation are often cited as having a significant effect on travel speed and survivability (Raymond 1968; Berggren and Filardo1993; Michel et al. 2013). Flows in the SJR are highly regulated as means to support agricultural production, and non-native piscivorous fish in the restoration reach tend to occur more frequently downstream of Reach 1 (Gravelly Ford to confluence of Merced River; SJRRP 2013 I&M Report). Anecdotal evidence collected during SJRRP fish inventory and monitoring efforts suggests many of the non-native piscivores tend to reside in anthropogenic altered habitats (e.g., mine pits, altered channels, etc), which may pose a challenge to emigrating salmon. River flow conditions and water temperatures were managed during spring releases to elicit downstream fish movement with pulse flows and receding flows benches to avoid stranding.
    [Show full text]
  • Chronology of Major Litigation Involving the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project
    Chronology of Major Litigation Involving the Topic: Litigation Central Valley Project and the State Water Project CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR LITIGATION INVOLVING THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT AND THE STATE WATER PROJECT I. Central Valley Project 1950 United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 U.S. 725 (1950) Riparians on San Joaquin River downstream of Friant Dam sued for damages for impairment of their rights to periodic inundation of their “uncontrolled grasslands.” Under reclamation law, the United States had to recognize prior vested rights and compensate for their impairment. 1958 Ivanhoe Irrig. Dist. v. McCracken, 357 U.S. 275 (1958) Congress did not intend that Section 8 of the Reclamation Act, which generally makes state water law applicable to reclamation projects, would make the 160-acre limitation in Section 5 inapplicable to the CVP. If needed for a project, Reclamation could acquire water rights by the payment of compensation, either through condemnation, or if already taken, through actions by the owners in the courts. 1960 Ivanhoe Irrig. Dist. v. All Parties, 53 Cal.2d 692 (1960) State law conferred legal capacity upon irrigation districts to enter into contracts with federal government for CVP water. Districts could execute the contracts even though they contained the 160-acre limitation under federal law. 1963 Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609 (1963) Parties claiming water rights along the San Joaquin River downstream of Friant Dam sued the United States and Bureau of Reclamation officials, seeking to enjoin storage or diversion of water at the dam. The Court held that the courts had no jurisdiction over the United States because it had not consented to suit and the McCarran Amendment did not apply.
    [Show full text]
  • Trinity Dam Operating Criteria Trinity River Division Central Valley Project-California
    ·rRlNITY ~IVER BASIN us RESOURCE LIBRARY BR TRINITY COUNTY LIBRARY T7 WEAVERVILLE, CALIFORNIA 1979 (c.l) Trinity Dam Operating Criteria Trinity River Division Central Valley Project-California TRINITY COUNTY JULY 1979 TRINITY RIVER BASIN RESOURC E LIBRARY TRINITY RIVER DIVISION CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT CALIFORNIA Trinity Dam Operating Criteria Prepared for the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Task Force July 1979 United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region 1 ~ 7 5 122 R 1 W R 1 E 2 23° \ R 10 W ( T 38 N ----- ·-----]r------------r-CANADA ' I • I WA r NORTH ~ J SHINGTON ' \ ' DAKOTA ) ___ 1 • \.-.. ..-- .. J, ': M 0 N TAN A !___ - ----\ ' \ souTH : i ,----- - ~ ~~ ,o. 0 R EGON ( ,_---, : DAKOTA I : IOAHo 1 I __ __ \ \~' I W YOMING ·----- ~ -- -----, ___ , ,I \ ~ ~u I ~ 0 ; ------1 , NEBRASKA ', 1\ ~ I I ·--------'--, ~ I NEVA 1' 1: 0 ~1 : t------- -'.) I I J \_ DA UTAH COLORADO: ANSAS ' ~,J t -+- ---1--- .. - ', : : I K .\ ~ I . ---- .... ~ ' I 4!< l o ' ------·------ -- -~----- ', ~ -r' "::: rJ A ~ '!> ','\_r) i t---! OKLAHOMA\ -:- . I , , r/ / ;' ARIZONA I' NEW MEXICO. L ______ 1_ MALIN-ROUND MOUNTAIN 500 KV ~ . ' ,... 36 : , I l PACIFIC NW-PAC/FIC SW INTERTIE ---, ' ' ', I, ---~-E~~'-;:--·;;::<_-'r EX A_(S ---i- - ~ ~ - t \. .. _;··-....., ~ CLAIR ENGLE LAKE IN 0 EX M A P '._\_ ~.:.. (__j ~ ) I I / \ I - BUREAU OF RECLAMATION HASTAL~l WHISKEYTOWN-SHASTA( rr TRINITY [NAT . lj r COMPLETED OR AUTHORIZED WORKS 34 TRINITY DAM & POWERP~LANT~- ? ) RECrATION AREAS (~ ,- DAM AND RESERVOIR LEWISTON LAKE TRIINir/cARR 230 KV ? 0 I <=::? r ~-~~- _./ TUNNEL ~<";:1 r ~ -+ ---< - .r') d,):3_ -}N , ··- •J?:y,--.___ N CONDUIT - ~~ wcAv~~VIL' 7 __r~\.
    [Show full text]
  • Cvp Overview
    Central Valley Project Overview Eric A. Stene Bureau of Reclamation Table Of Contents The Central Valley Project ......................................................2 About the Author .............................................................15 Bibliography ................................................................16 Archival and Manuscript Collections .......................................16 Government Documents .................................................16 Books ................................................................17 Articles...............................................................17 Interviews.............................................................17 Dissertations...........................................................17 Other ................................................................17 Index ......................................................................18 1 The Central Valley Project Throughout his political life, Thomas Jefferson contended the United States was an agriculturally based society. Agriculture may be king, but compared to the queen, Mother Nature, it is a weak monarch. Nature consistently proves to mankind who really controls the realm. The Central Valley of California is a magnificent example of this. The Sacramento River watershed receives two-thirds to three-quarters of northern California's precipitation though it only has one-third to one-quarter of the land. The San Joaquin River watershed occupies two- thirds to three-quarter of northern California's land,
    [Show full text]
  • Friant Division Facts
    FFrriiaanntt DDiivviissiioonn FFaaccttss FRIANT DAM Type Concrete gravity Location San Joaquin River above Friant, 17 miles northeast of downtown Fresno Groundbreaking Ceremony November 5, 1939 Basic Construction Period 1939-42 (Outlet gates installed in 1944; spillway drum gates installed in 1947) Outlets To the San Joaquin River, Madera Canal and Friant-Kern Canal Power Plants Operated by the Friant Power Authority (on the river and canal outlets), and by the Orange Cove Irrigation District (on a water line supplying the Friant fish hatchery) Named For The nearby town of Friant, recalling pioneer lumberman Thomas Friant Dimensions Structural Height 319 feet (97.23 meters) Hydraulic Height 296 feet (90.2 meters) Top Width 20 feet (6.1 meters) Maximum Base Width 267 feet (81.4 meters) Crest Length 3,488 feet (1,063 meters) Crest Elevation 581.3 feet (177.2 meters) above sea level Total Concrete Volume 2,135,000 cubic yards (1,632,325 cubic meters) Spillway Overflow section at dam's center controlled by three 18- by 100-foot gates, including two new rubberized air-filled bladder gates and one drum gate Elevation, Top of Gates 578.0 feet (176.2 meters) Spillway Crest Elevation 560.0 feet (170.7 meters) Maximum Release To River 59,770 cubic feet per second, on January 3, 1997 MILLERTON LAKE Total Capacity 520,500 acre feet (elevation 578 feet) Record Maximum Storage 530,452 acre feet, on January 3, 1997(elevation 580.01 feet) "Dead" Storage 135,000 acre feet (capacity below canal outlets) "Active" Storage 385,500 acre feet (maximum available for beneficial Friant Division use) Surface Area At Capacity 4,900 acres (1,983 hectares) Maximum Length 15 miles (24.1 kilometers) First Water in Reservoir October 20, 1941 (after temporary river outlets were closed) First Controlled Storage February 21, 1944 (after outlet gate valves were installed) Named For The town of Millerton, county seat of Fresno County from 1856-74, the site of which is inundated by the reservoir.
    [Show full text]
  • Reclamation's Salinity Management Plan
    Reclamation’s Salinity Management Plan Revised May November 2010 Actions to Address the Salinity and Boron Total Maximum Daily Load Issues For the Lower San Joaquin River Table of Contents Changing Landscape.........................................................................................................................1 Current Actions.................................................................................................................................2 Flow Actions.....................................................................................................................................3 New Melones Operations – Dilution Flows...............................................................................3 Water Acquisitions....................................................................................................................44 San Joaquin River Restoration Program..................................................................................55 Salt Load Reduction Actions ..........................................................................................................66 Grassland Drainage Area Salinity Reduction ..........................................................................66 Water Use Efficiency Grant Programs .....................................................................................77 Water Conservation Field Services Program......................................................................77 WaterSMART (previously Water 2025) Grant Program................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sites Reservoir Project Public Draft EIR/EIS
    6. Surface Water Resources 6.1 Introduction This chapter describes Existing Conditions (the environmental setting) and Sites Reservoir Project (Project)-related changes to surface water resources in the Extended, Secondary, and Primary study areas. Detailed descriptions and maps of these three study areas are provided in Chapter 1 Introduction, and summarized descriptions are included in this chapter. Surface water resources generally include reservoirs, rivers, and diversions. Permits and authorizations for surface water resources are presented in Chapter 4 Environmental Compliance and Permit Summary. The regulatory setting for surface water resources is presented in Appendix 4A Environmental Compliance. This chapter also includes a description of the surface water supply facilities operations and resulting surface water resources characteristics of California’s major water systems that are relevant to the Project: the Central Valley Project (CVP), a federal project that is operated and maintained by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the State Water Project (SWP), operated and maintained by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and associated tributary rivers and streams. A schematic showing the layout of these two water systems, with the relative location of the Project, is shown in Figures 6-1A, 6-1B, and 6-1C. A comparison of these characteristics has been made between the Existing Conditions/No Project/No Action Condition, and the four action alternatives (Alternatives A, B, C, and D). Unless noted, all numbers shown related to storages, flows, exports, and deliveries in this chapter are generated from the CALSIM II computer simulation model. Appendix 6A Modeling of Alternatives, Appendix 6B Water Resources System Modeling, and Appendix 6C Upper Sacramento River Daily River Flow and Operations Modeling describe the assumptions and the analytical framework used in the surface water modeling analyses.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Legislation to Benefit Fish and Wildlife in California's Central Valley
    Congressional Legislation to Benefit Fish and Wildlife in California's Central Valley by Joe Krovoza Representative George Miller (D - Contra Costa, CA), Chair of the House of Representatives' Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,1 and SenatorBill Bradley (D - N.J.), Chair of the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, have introducedbills in congress thatpromise to ensure the restoration and protection offish and wildlife in California'sCentral Valley. The history of Central Valley water development, the resulting habitat losses, and relevant state and federal laws will be discussed before reviewing the proposed legislation. Introduction California's Central Valley is the vast basin defined by the Sierra Nevada on the east and the Coast Ranges on the west. The valley stretches nearly 500 miles from the town of Shasta to the city of Bakersfield. Its average width is 100 miles. Countless tributaries and numerous rivers flow from these mountains to the floor of the valley. There they meet the Sacramento River flowing from the north and the San Joaquin River flowing from the south; their confluence is the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Delta) and the San Francisco Bay (Bay), through which they flow to the Pacific Ocean. I. Water for the West With passage of the Reclamation Act of 1902, the federal government sanctioned irrigation as one of the prime methods of "reclaiming" the arid and semi-arid western United States. The Act's purposes were to populate the West, develop the region's economy and promote the family farm. A. The Central Valley Project In California, the federal government began the Central Valley Project (CVP) to implement the goals of the Reclamation Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Friant Dam Fact Sheet
    MP Region Public Affairs, 916-978-5100, http://www.usbr.gov/mp, December 2017 Mid-Pacific Region, Friant Dam Division Background The capacity of the spillway is 83,020 cubic feet per second (cfs) at elevation 578.0 feet. Friant Dam is located on the San Joaquin The gates float open or close based on level River, 16 miles northeast of downtown in the Reservoir. The watertight gates are Fresno, California. Completed in 1942, the located in the recess of the spillway section dam is a concrete gravity structure, 319 feet forming a portion of the crest when lowered. high with a crest length of 3,488 feet. The Due to frequent drought cycles in central dam controls San Joaquin River flows and California over the past 50 years, water provides for: downstream releases to meet seldom spills at Friant. water delivery requirements above Mendota Pool; flood control, conservation storage and water diversions into Madera and Friant- Kern canals; and, water deliveries to a million acres of agricultural land in Fresno, Kern, Madera, and Tulare counties in the San Joaquin Valley. An additional function of Friant Dam began in October 2009 as the first experimental water releases were made for the San Joaquin River Restoration Program, a long- The Friant Dam and Friant-Kern Canal term effort to restore salmon populations in the San Joaquin River. Friant-Kern Canal Millerton Lake, the reservoir behind Friant The Friant-Kern Canal carries water about Dam, first stored water Feb. 21, 1944. It has 152 miles in a southerly direction from a total capacity of 520,500 acre-feet, a Millerton Lake to the Kern River, near surface area of 4,900 acres, and is Bakersfield.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydropower Technical Appendix
    Hydropower Hydropower Technical Appendix UPPER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN STORAGE INVESTIGATION Initial Alternatives Information Report Hydropower Technical Appendix TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. 1-1 STUDY AREA.........................................................................................................................1-2 SURFACE WATER STORAGE MEASURES CONSIDERED IN THE IAIR ...........................1-3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS TECHNICAL APPENDIX.............................................................1-3 CHAPTER 2. EXISTING AND FUTURE WITHOUT-PROJECT CONDITIONS......... 2-1 HYDROPOWER BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................2-1 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE................................................................................................2-1 EXISTING HYDROPOWER FACILITIES IN THE UPPER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN....2-5 Friant Dam and Millerton Lake ............................................................................................2-9 Friant Power Project............................................................................................................2-9 PG&E Kerckhoff Hydroelectric Project ..............................................................................2-10 Kerckhoff No. 2 Powerhouse .........................................................................................2-10 Kerckhoff Dam and Lake................................................................................................2-11
    [Show full text]
  • The Friant Dam Returns to the Docket
    TAKING DRY LAND UNDER NAVIGABLE WATERS: THE FRIANT DAM RETURNS TO THE DOCKET INTRODUCTION The Friant Dam, located in California’s San Joaquin River Valley, cannot stay out of the courtroom. Only a few years ago, a legal battle over the dam that has spanned two decades finally reached settlement.1 The result of the compromise can be found in Congress’s passage of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.2 Among other things, the Act mandates the renewed flow of water to the San Joaquin River, which has been dry for nearly seven decades, by opening flow valves in the Friant Dam.3 The purpose of increasing the flow is to achieve a water level sufficient to allow the threatened Chinook salmon to return to their native spawning grounds.4 However, on August 26, 2010, several farmers filed suit claiming that the restoration of water flows in the San Joaquin River will result in a violation of their constitutionally protected private property rights.5 The farmers have several theories of relief,6 including a claim of ownership of the dry San Joaquin riverbed that has been leveled and farmed for the last six decades.7 They argue that the excavation of the channel and the subsequent flooding of the riverbed will result in a taking of their land without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.8 Part I of this Note summarizes the history of the Friant Dam, the litigation leading to the recent settlement, and the terms of the settlement itself. Part II describes the pending takings litigation, focusing on the ownership of the San Joaquin riverbed.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical and Present Distribution of Chinook Salmon in the Central Valley Drainage of California
    Historical and Present Distribution of Chinook Salmon in the Central Valley Drainage of California Ronald M. Yoshiyama, Eric R. Gerstung, Frank W. Fisher, and Peter B. Moyle Abstract Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) formerly were highly abundant and widely distributed in virtually all the major streams of California’s Central Valley drainage—encompassing the Sacramento River basin in the north and San Joaquin River basin in the south. We used information from historical narratives and ethnographic accounts, fishery records and locations of in-stream natural barriers to determine the historical distributional limits and, secondarily, to describe at least qualitatively the abundances of chinook salmon within the major salmon-producing Central Valley watersheds. Indi- vidual synopses are given for each of the larger streams that histori- cally supported or currently support salmon runs. In the concluding section, we compare the historical distributional limits of chinook salmon in Central Valley streams with present-day distributions to estimate the reduction of in-stream salmon habitat that has resulted from human activities—namely, primarily the con- struction of dams and other barriers and dewatering of stream reaches. We estimated that at least 1,057 mi (or 48%) of the stream lengths historically available to salmon have been lost from the origi- nal total of 2,183 mi in the Central Valley drainage. We included in these assessments all lengths of stream that were occupied by salmon, whether for spawning and holding or only as migration cor- ridors. In considering only spawning and holding habitat (in other words, excluding migration corridors in the lower rivers), the propor- tionate reduction of the historical habitat range was far more than 48% and probably exceeded 72% because most of the former spawn- ing and holding habitat was located in upstream reaches that are now inaccessible for salmon.
    [Show full text]