watershed

seaweed, and salt. Men hunted and fished; women gath- expanded across the valley floor and hillsides, displacing ered berries, acorns, and bulbs from the tule (bulrushes) native vegetation. Rainwater pulsed into the river, scour- Waterways in that grew in wetlands along the river. ing the channel, undermining trees, and creating verti- In the early 1800s, when people of European origin cal banks susceptible to erosion and collapse. Trapped began arriving in Napa Valley—first via and in a single deep, narrow channel, the Napa River could Country then from the Midwest—they brought great change no longer distribute its flow over the floodplain each both to the and to the watershed. By 1900, the year and replenish the soil with deposits of sand, silt, and After decades of declining health, the Napa Wappo and other aboriginal people had been so decimated clay. These fine sediments instead deposited in the chan- by disease and con- nel bed, clogging n Dist r i c t vatio River is being resuscitated by neighbors. flict that scarcely up the shrinking any remained in number of gravel George Gmelch and Gretchen E. Hayes the valley. Forag- bars that provide ing gave way to critical habitat for cattle grazing, and, spawning salmon later, . and the threat-

Napa Cou n ty Resou rc es Co se r Napa Commercial trad- ened steelhead. ers shipped coveted As the river was isionary landowners in the 1960s had a radical idea: deep into the valley floor, becoming increasingly discon- “Napa leather”— becoming discon- turn the Napa Valley into an agricultural preserve, nected from its floodplain and its residents. Now, decades cow hides tanned nected from its V with minimum lot sizes of 40 acres (160 acres on the after the passage of the Ag Preserve, another visionary with oak bark— floodplain, so too hillsides) and restricted commercial activities. The pro- private-public partnership—the Napa River Restoration by riverboat steam- were Napa’s in- posal to create the Agricultural Preserve was met with Project in Rutherford and Oakville—has begun to rees- ers from the na- habitants losing vigorous opposition from both developers and residents tablish an ecological and economic balance in the agricul- scent port of Napa their ties to the who wanted the freedom to subdivide their land. For- tural heart of the Napa Valley. through the estuary river, once a popu- tunately, the visionaries joined forces with local govern- to markets in San lar site for recre- ments and prevailed, saving Napa from the urban devel- ore than 4,000 years ago, the Napa River and its Francisco. ation. Yountville opment that paved over other fertile valleys, M floodplain were central to the livelihood of the first As the 1849 Gold resident Andy Jae- such as the Santa Clara. peoples—mainly the Wappo—to settle the valley. Ar- Rush increased the ger recalls, “We’d Although the Ag chaeological surveys demand for food often be down Preserve—as it’s com- carried out in the 1940s to feed hungry there all day… monly known—saved by archaeologist Rob- prospectors, cattle When the moon the rural landscape, it ert Fleming Heizer at ranching gave way was bright, we’d did not prevent the the University of Cali- to wheat produc- go exploring at degradation of the fornia, Berkeley, dis- tion. When wheat night.” Folks of all Napa River, nor lessen covered middens (re- prices slumped in ages scanned gravel the destructiveness of fuse mounds) eight feet the 1870s, farm- bars for obsidian its floods. Rising from deep, indicating long- ers planted vine- arrowheads. Above ame l a S mithe r s

springs and seeps on standing village sites yards and orchards P all, the river was the slopes of Mount roughly ten miles, or of apples, prunes, Car body used to manage bank erosion in Calistoga, CA a place to swim. St. Helena (elevation one day’s travel, apart. walnuts, and olives. One 84-year-old 4,343 feet), the Napa “It’s not surprising Using horse-drawn, mold-board plows, they carved fur- resident, Louie Pommetta, remembers that “just about River flows fifty-five that the Wappo lived rows and dug ditches to route rainwater from the fields. everything we did as kids for fun was in the river. It was a miles south down the along the river,” notes Stream channels changed in response to the new land magical place.” valley through the The Port of Napa archaeologist Christo- uses. Nineteenth century sources describe a complex The river was also a convenient place to dump trash— winery towns of Cal- pher Kimsey. “All the J.L. S ousa/Registe r Napa River with multiple branches and sloughs spread everything from car tires and batteries to old appliances. istoga, St. Helena, Rutherford, Oakville, and Yountville staples in their diet—deer, , and acorns—were tied to across the valley floor interspersed with wetlands, pro- “When the river would come up in the wintertime,” re- before reaching the city of Napa and emptying into San the riparian environment.” The remains of Wappo settle- viding rich habitat for wildlife, including ducks, yel- members manager Davie Piña, a fifth-generation Pablo Bay north of . Today, the river and ments can be found all along its banks, and after winter low-billed cuckoos, beavers, deer, steelhead trout, and Napan, “people would take all the garbage accumulated over its thirty tributaries drain the most expensive farmland in rains, local residents still find obsidian shards, arrowheads, salmon. A few of these former waterways linger today as the year and throw it into the rushing water to get it out of the United States. and grinding stones in the river bed. ghost images in the —faint, dark pathways that here. Pesticides, motor oil, any sort of thing. It wasn’t that As Napa’s began its post-Prohibition rise Although the Wappo were foragers, which in most set- indicate their richer soils. people didn’t care about the river, they just didn’t know bet- to fame with a resurgence of vineyards in the 1960s, the tings requires a degree of nomadism, Napa’s environment The incision of the Napa River, resulting from the ter.” Rivers all across America were suffering similar abuse. decline of fisheries and habitat in the Napa River went was rich enough to enable them to stay put most of the practices of early farmers, accelerated dramatically after By the early 1980s, most Napans had turned their backs largely unnoticed. The river channel narrowed and dug year, with seasonal forays to the coast to gather shellfish, the 1970s as Napa’s wine industry took off and vineyards on the river. It was no longer a desirable place to play

28 natural history December 2015/January 2016 December 2015/January 2016 natural history 29 n Dist r i c t vatio , Napa Cou n ty Resou rc e n Koeh l e r , Napa Jo n atha Co n se r Salmon smolts in the Napa River, an anchor watershed for salmonid restoration Some of the most serious effects of development in the Napa watershed have been experienced in downtown Napa, the valley’s urban center and historic port. Napa suffered severe floods in 1955, 1986, 1995, and 1997. The worst, in 1986, caused widespread devastation, forced the evacuation of 7,000 people, and did $100 million in dam- age, finally prompting the Napa community to come to- gether to support a large flood protection project. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers initially proposed building higher levees and adding more concrete—“gray infrastruc- ture”—to contain the river within its banks. Fortunately, the voters rejected this traditional approach. They were persuaded by environmentalists that the solution lay not Newly constructed alcove in further channelizing the Napa River, making it harder, refuge and restored Village of Areni fish passage awaiting deeper and straighter, but rather adopting a design that revegetation adhered to “living river” principles. Instead of a concrete ayes, T esse r a Sc ie nc es Gr et c he n E . H ayes, infrastructure, which is subject to deterioration, “green or swim. Channel incision had eroded and steepened the with protecting water, air quality and wildlife. Land- ian forest can still be seen at the Yountville Ecological infrastructure” increases the connection of the river to its banks. Environmentally reckless road building, logging, owners’ prior practice of managing their land without Reserve. This 73-acre remnant surrounded by vineyard natural floodplain, attenuating flood damage while im- and vineyard planting on the valley’s steep hillsides had oversight—shoring up their river banks with riprap, bull- is home to more than 150 bird and 230 plant species. proving habitat, aesthetics, and access. Dikes were removed turned loose massive amounts of silt that muddied the dozing and removing trees from the channel, dumping to restore Napa’s tidal marshlands. Bridges that river and its tributary streams and degraded spawning into the river—could now result in hefty fines. Many obstructed flood flows were replaced, and the beds. New vineyard acreage on the valley floor led to landowners and vineyard managers became wary of do- river was widened and terraced to provide more more pumping for irrigation from the river, reducing its ing anything involving the river. Tension also grew be- room for large volumes of water. volume and flow. For the first time in human memory, tween landowners primarily concerned with protecting For downtown residents, accustomed to lug- some up-valley reaches went dry in summer. And what their property rights and those more environmentally ging sandbags to ward off high water each win- water remained became increasingly polluted by slaugh- conscious. All of these threatening conditions were ex- ter, the flood control project has been a huge terhouses and effluent from a few up-valley towns that acerbated by general confusion over agencies’ differing relief. They no longer make every decision resisted treating their sewage. jurisdictions, river management policies, and a lack of in- n Dist r i c t vatio about home, garden, and yard with the worry of Demographic changes also reduced interaction with formation about how watersheds function. flooding in the back of their minds. the river. Fences and “No Trespassing” signs sprung up The growing consumption of and demand for fine r Co n se ate with the influx of new landowners, who came mostly wine in the United States also threatened the river. As looding also caused destruction in the ru- from urban areas and were unfamiliar with the local cus- grape prices increased and land became scarce, vineyards F ral valley upstream. In 1997, John Williams, tom of letting people walk across their property. Worried pushed ever closer to the river, hastening the removal of owner and winemaker of Frog’s Leap Winery, about vandalism, theft, loss of privacy, and liability, many the riparian forest that once buffered the banks from ero- waded into the river near his recently purchased blocked public access to the river across their land. Life- sion, filtered fine sediments from storm water runoff, and vineyard in Rutherford to check on a breach in style changes also caused Napans to turn away from the provided vital habitat. Willows, oaks, white alder, and the earthen berm that protected the property river. With computers, electronic games, and schedules California bay laurel once bordered the river channel to from flooding. He was shocked by the damage filled with sports and extracurricular activities, children a width of 500 feet. But today, notes Robin Grossinger he found. “As I walked along the river, I saw my had less time and inclination to explore outdoors. in his seminal Napa Valley: Historical Ecology Atlas, all that neighbors had similar damage. I saw, too, that Further distancing residents from the river was the remains of this primordial forest are a few strands 50 to they were trying to protect themselves by building Beavers return to the Napa River.

growing scrutiny by county and state agencies tasked 100 feet in width. Some idea of Napa’s historic ripar- Cou n ty F l oo d Co t r o a nd W Napa Je r emy S a rr ow, higher and higher berms, using riprap, car bodies,

30 natural history December 2015/January 2016 December 2015/January 2016 natural history 31 just about anything, piled up high owner and a champion of the restoration, along the bank to keep the water out.” said, “Our goal is a living river.” For years, people had been waging a “The big challenges to making this a suc- losing “berm war” against the river, cessful collaboration,” said an environmen- and with each other. Confining flood tal scientist on the restoration team, “were flows with longer and higher berms, ignorance of how watersheds function, thereby further pinching the flow of concern over individual property rights, water and increasing the river’s erosive and distrust of government.” The costs force, only exacerbated the problems were ultimately spread equitably between caused by the already incising river. landowners and state and local agencies, Adults who, as children, had clam- with help from a county sales tax. Where bered down five-foot banks to roam the Napa River had become a long, narrow the river’s gravel beds now peered ditch carrying fast-flowing floodwaters, down 25-foot vertical drops and la- there is once again a complex system of mented the unchecked erosion and pools and gravel bars with many new acres disappearance of their farmland. of slow-water habitat in which fish can take “But it wasn’t just the eroding refuge during high storm flows. banks and breached berms that land- Sitting on the veranda of his Frog’s Leap owners were dealing with,” recalled Winery, which uses sustainable principles Williams. “They had a host of other including dry farming (no irrigation) to bellyaches—arundo (Arundo donax, grow grapes, John Williams mused in June a tough, invasive giant cane), blue- 2015 about the completion of the restora- green sharpshooters (insect vectors tion project. “Looking back now, it is all for Pierce’s disease that attacks grape a bit unbelievable. None of us could have vines), erosion and bank collapse, and ever imagined what has been achieved. I excessive pumping of water from the Willow baffle at inlet to a newly restored secondary channel was just down at the river this morning. river for irrigation and frost control. It T esse r a Sc ie nc es Gr et c he n E . H ayes, It’s such a beautiful sight with new ter- occurred to me that if we tackled these raced banks, and with beaver, salmon, and different problems together we might have a better chance engineering report came in, the RDS formed a formal group of such diverse local landowners had gotten together steelhead coming back. It just goes to show that in this [of success].” Williams invited local landowners to a meet- private-public partnership with Napa County and the and were putting up their own money to try to fix their age of great skepticism about our political institutions and ing in his barn to discuss their collective problems. “Besides local Resource Conservation District, which they chris- river.” In the end, all thirty-one riverside land and vineyard polarized views about the environment, a group of diverse an airing of the issues, we discovered that a lot of people tened the “Rutherford Dust Restoration Team” (RDRT owners voluntarily came on board, including several who individuals can find common ground and work construc- didn’t really know their neighbors, as many were newcom- or “our dirt”) to initiate a plan to restore and manage the had spent significant personal funds to defeat previous bal- tively with government to build a sustainable river for ers to the valley. So we organized some lunches, visits to river. One of the biggest challenges RDRT faced, said lot measures that would have mandated channel setbacks our future.” one another’s vineyards and wineries, and did a group walk former RDS president Rue Ziegler, “was getting all thir- on their land to restore the riparian buffer zone. “That in The restoration project has inspired other endeavors, to survey the river.” Meetings were soon convened under ty-one landowners on board. Some were strong property itself was a remarkable achievement,” said one observer. such as saving the valley’s ancestral walnut trees. Not many the auspices of the newly-organized Rutherford Dust So- rights people—folks who were used to doing things their The RDRT therapy for the river involved a suite of years ago, none of these projects would have seemed pos- ciety (RDS), whose mission is to promote from the own way and didn’t want anyone, and especially govern- approaches, including relocating earthen berms from the sible to many of the participating landowners. And their Rutherford sub-appellation and to serve the local commu- ment agencies, telling them what to do.” riverbank. All told, landowners along the five-mile stretch example is now spreading downstream, with another nine nity. “At these meetings people brought their own wines… In large measure, the success of the project came down of the river from Rutherford to Oakville converted eigh- river miles slated for restoration. Those working to restore and we drank a lot of Zinfandel,” recalled Williams. “I can’t to personality, to having the right leader. That person was teen acres of vineyard floodplain back to native riparian the Napa River today are continuing what an enlightened emphasize enough the importance that drinking wine to- local vineyardist Davie Piña, who chaired the RDRT forest. Invasive plants (e.g. Himalayan blackberry, peri- group of residents achieved nearly fifty years earlier when gether had in creating a community.” landowner committee. “Davie knew that he could never winkle, arundo) were replaced by native species to cre- they created the Agricultural Preserve—the protection of As they educated themselves about the river, the land- get everybody on board simply by touting the project’s ate a complex vegetated buffer between the river and the their beautiful valley from urbanization, and the creation owners decided that rather than seek the help of local environmental benefits,” explained John Williams. “Da- adjacent vineyards. Floodplain benches were excavated of a sustainable community. government (which some feared would result in unde- vie’s approach to the landowners was pragmatic… Davie and planted. Structures made of wood and stone were in- sired scrutiny of their agricultural practices and more reg- understood that landowners needed to know that they stalled in the streambed to help reestablish resilient habitat ulations), they would fund a river restoration study them- would always be in control of their land and were not George Gmelch is a profes- conditions including gravel bars, riffle-pool sequences, sor of anthropology at the selves. Each landowner contributed to the fund based on being forced to do something. Davie knew how to work and cover for fish. Landowners continue to fund and help University of San Fran- the length of river frontage they owned. Collecting about the back channels.” manage a long-term river channel maintenance program cisco and Union College. $100,000, they hired Philip Williams & Associates, now Once united, RDRT began to seek assistance from Gretchen E. Hayes is a wa- with the Napa County Flood Control District, which tershed science, planning, part of Environmental Science Associates, a San Francisco agencies including the California Department of Fish and also removes debris and log jams, manages and removes restoration, and education environmental hydrology firm, to conduct an assessment Wildlife and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. non-native vegetation, and monitors the instream habitat consulting professional in of the Rutherford Reach of the Napa River. When the “These regulators were surprised,” said Ziegler, “that a structures. As Andy Beckstoffer, the valley’s largest land- the .

32 natural history December 2015/January 2016 December 2015/January 2016 natural history 33