A Briefing on the San Joaquin River Restoration Program

by Gary Pitzer, Water Education Foundation 2

Editor’s Note:

This special publication was produced by the Water Education Foundation to provide the public with information on a major river restoration project underway in California – the San Joaquin River Restoration Program. The 2009 federal legislation authorizing this comprehensive program followed a 2006 settlement in a two-decade court fight over providing water downstream of Friant Dam to support a salmon fishery. The San Joaquin River settlement established two primary goals: restoring robust, self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish below Friant Dam and minimizing the water supply impacts to farmers.

In 2009 the first restoration flows were released from Friant Dam down the San Joaquin River and in 2010 the river was reconnected to the Merced River. But restoration of this much-changed river must go beyond adding water – reshaping the San Joaquin is a substantial undertaking, involving significant structural changes. And federal officials and others involved in the program are striving to restore the river with as little adverse impact on local farms as possible – not an easy task. Bringing back the historic Chinook salmon fishery also is a complex task and will require the use of a fish hatchery in the early part of this program until a naturally producing population can take hold.

It is – and will continue to be – a fascinating program and we will continue to follow it in the years ahead through our publications, videos and other programs. We hope this online publication can help you understand the basics behind the restoration process. For more in-depth information, please visit the San Joaquin River Restoration Program website, www.restoresjr.net.

– Rita Schmidt Sudman, Executive Director, Water Education Foundation

Editor: Sue McClurg Writer: Gary Pitzer Editorial Assistance: Robin Douglas Photo Credits: Kathy Bishop California Department of Water Resources California Farm Bureau Federation The mission of the Water Robin Douglas Friant Water Users Authority Education Foundation, Sue McClurg Rod Meade, San Joaquin River Restoration Program an impartial, nonprofit Fish Reproduction Graphic: Courtesy of Bureau of Reclamation Publication Design: Graphic Communications organization, is to create © Copyright 2011 Water Education Foundation a better understanding of 717 K Street, Suite 317 water resources and foster Sacramento, CA 95814 public understanding and Phone: (916) 444-6240 resolution of water resource Fax: (916) 448-7699 issues through facilitation, www.watereducation.org education and outreach. www.aquafornia.com 3 Introduction Once home to the nation’s an estimated cost approaching $1 largest spring-run Chinook salmon billion – began in earnest. population, the San Joaquin River But water alone won’t do the job was dammed in 1942 and most of of restoring the altered river. its water was diverted north and “The first major projects that south to farms and cities on the we have to complete have to do east side of the San Joaquin Valley. with channel capacity,” said Jason The region became one of the most Phillips, former manager of the res- productive agricultural regions toration program for Reclamation’s in the world but the river’s flow Mid-Pacific Region. “We have essentially ended 30 miles down- sections of the river that have been stream of Friant Dam – drying encroached by farming, that have The San Joaquin River up most of a 60-mile stretch of not conveyed water except during river and effectively cutting off high flood events, that need to be settlement established the salmon from their historic rehabilitated, that need levees con- two primary goals: spawning grounds. structed and set back, that need the In 1988, environmentalists filed channel to be improved or cleared, restoring robust, suit to require some water to be and we have structures in the river self-sustaining released downstream to restore a that need to either be bypassed or salmon run. After nearly 20 years rehabilitated so that they can pass populations of salmon of litigation, a settlement was flows and salmon.” and other fish below announced between a coalition of The San Joaquin River settle- environmental and fishing groups, ment established two primary Friant Dam and including the Natural Resources goals: restoring robust, self- minimizing the water Defense Council (NRDC), the sustaining populations of salmon federal Bureau of Reclamation and other fish below Friant Dam supply impacts to (Reclamation) and the Friant Water and minimizing the water supply farmers Users Authority (FWUA), a joint- impacts to farmers. After so many powers authority consisting of 29 years in which most of the water water districts, to restore the river. went to agriculture, the restora- Congressional implementation of tion agreement will establish a new the settlement, including planning, basis for releases from Friant Dam environmental studies, and other and Millerton Reservoir. Prior to activities, were authorized in the the settlement, Friant Dam water San Joaquin River Restoration Act releases dried up about below the (Act), approved in 2009 (Public dam at Gravelly Ford until water Law 111-11.) was reintroduced to the riverbed at In October 2009, the first res- the Mendota Pool. toration flows were released from (Located 40 miles downstream Friant Dam down the San Joaquin of Friant Dam, Mendota Pool is River and in 2010 the river was where water is returned to the San reconnected to the Merced River Joaquin riverbed from a distant and, subsequently, the Sacramento- source – the Sacramento River. San Joaquin Delta. Past history was The Sacramento River water is no longer prologue and restora- delivered south from the Delta via tion of the San Joaquin River – at the 117-mile long Delta-Mendota 4

Canal to the pool, a historic diver- (CVP) is delivered. A bypass will sion point for irrigation water be built around the pool or the used by the Miller and Lux Corp. dam will be moved upstream to Here the Delta-Mendota Canal’s allow salmon to migrate. The lower remaining water is released to reaches of the river require substan- replace San Joaquin flows that tial upgrading to ensure adequate have been diverted by the Madera flood protection. and Friant-Kern canals. The water Flood capacity in this area is is then delivered to the historic a big concern, and Reclamation riparian diverters now known as the officials say improving the capacity “exchange contractors.”) of the stretch of the San Joaquin Initial studies indicated that River from Gravelly Ford to restoring the river would result in Mendota Dam needs $100 million the loss of 15 percent, on aver- to $300 million in improvements. age, of the water that had been “This is a significant investment in diverted to the Friant service area. flood capacity in the system and Officials hope that will be less as I don’t think that should be lost,” the program is fully implemented. Phillips said. “This is a very degrad- Supporters of the settlement believe ed flood control system. It doesn’t the amount of the river flow dedi- work very well.” cated for restoration is not a lot of Local flood control agencies water in the overall picture of the believe the system functions as San Joaquin Valley. According to it was intended but issues such Reclamation, approximately 42,000 as levee foundation seepage and acre-feet of the interim flows was channel capacity degradation recaptured and stored in San Luis from sediment buildup and heavy Reservoir in 2010 for recircula- vegetation encroachment need to tion back to the Friant contractors. be addressed. “These concerns are Some 260,000 acre-feet of water being exacerbated by the restora- was released. tion program for which the pro- Those additional flows in what gram needs to address, but has was once a dry river have the not yet done so,” said Reggie Hill, potential to effect farms alongside manager of the Lower San Joaquin the San Joaquin River. The irriga- Levee District. tion districts that serve these areas Thus far, water has been released are outside the FWUA and were not to the river for experimental and data subject to the litigation; nor were collection efforts. The majorriver they involved in the negotiations restoration efforts and full restora- that led to the restoration plan. tion flows are anticipated by 2013 Reshaping the San Joaquin is a with salmon introduced at that time. substantial undertaking, involving Riparian and aquatic restoration is significant structural changes. More targeted to be completed by 2016. than 10 miles of the existing river The agreement runs through 2026 channel will be widened leading up but may be extended indefinitely. to the Mendota Pool – where water Total cost for the implementation is from the Central Valley Project $720 million, provided by a measure 5

carried by Sens. Dianne Feinstein Vorster acknowledged “it will and Barbara Boxer as part of an take patience and letting the water omnibus public lands bill. flow,” but said that other areas such After so many years in which as Putah Creek, Butte Creek and most of the water went to agricul- Clear Creek have demonstrated fish ture, the restoration agreement will runs can be re-established and/or cause a new basis of releases from revitalized. Millerton Reservoir. For “third The preparation for salmon parties” the settlement and subse- will include barriers in the river at quent legislation include provisions Salt and Mud sloughs to prevent designed to address any third party migrating fish from mistakenly impacts. turning up those waterways to “I truly believe Third parties will not have to spawn and a new hatchery. involuntarily pay to implement the Jeff McLain, fishery biologist [the salmon] will terms of the settlement nor will with the National Marine Fisheries come back.” state and local agencies be obligated Service, said the goal of the restora- to undertake restoration activities. tion program is a self-sustaining – Peter Vorster, The state has an agreement with the salmon population. Re-locating the The Bay Institute federal government that commits spring run to the San Joaquin will it to being a full partner in the be a challenge, while establishing a restoration effort, including the use fall run might work naturally. Fall of funds from voter-approved ballot run salmon already are found in measures. several San Joaquin River tributar- A measure of the success of the ies. A fall run introduced in test river’s restoration will be the return areas in 2012 will enable research- of the spring run salmon, once the ers to evaluate factors such as pre- largest run of its kind in North dation and the suitability of rearing America. Skeptics say the fish have habitat. been gone for too long to make This publication, produced by a comeback, but others believe the Water Education Foundation, the run can be re-introduced and provides an overview of the issues sustained provided the necessary associated with restoration of the preparations are undertaken. “I San Joaquin River, along with some truly believe they will come back,” historical context of the river’s prior said Peter Vorster, hydrologist with development and some discussion the Bay Institute. on what the hopes for the future are. 6 A Restored San Joaquin? The unprecedented decision to Merced and Stanislaus counties. back for the new river channel would restore a long-dead river understand- Reclamation divides the river into five be needed. Likewise, replacement of ably requires a scope of activity reaches: the antiquated Sack Dam with newer previously unseen. Scores of people, • Reach 1 – Friant Dam to technology is being contemplated. including engineering experts and Gravelly Ford The settlement notes that changes fisheries biologists, are spending their • Reach 2 – Gravelly Ford to and modifications to the San Joaquin days analyzing data in preparation for Mendota Dam River system should be undertaken the expected return of salmon in a • Reach 3 – Mendota Dam to to the extent that they are consistent few short years. Re-establishing that Sack Dam with applicable law and operational population means reconfiguring a Reach 4 – Sack Dam to the criteria such as flood control, dam river channel that has been deprived confluence of Bear Creek and safety and operation and mainte- of water for decades. the Eastside Bypass nance. In March 2010, for the first time • Reach 5 – Eastside Bypass/Bear Naturally, such a large undertaking in a non-flood year in 60 years, San Creek confluence to the Merced requires a phased approach, and Joaquin River flows from Friant Dam River confluence planners announced a schedule that reached the river’s confluence with The area known as Reach 4B is a would gradually increase flows toward the Merced River and then on to controversial part of the restoration the expected reintroduction of salmon the Delta. As the water migrates, it program because of the work needed by the end of 2012. Restoration takes naturally seeks to refill available space to convey flows of at least 475 cubic different forms, from expansion of the underground, something restoration feet per second. river channel to levee improvements officials are keeping an eye on. Mendota Pool – where CVP water and to providing suitable habitat for The geographic area for restoration is sent to San Joaquin Exchange fish passage. Funds for the project stretches 153 miles from Friant Dam Contractors – may be moved up- come from water users, state bond to the confluence of the Merced River. stream or bypassed to accommodate initiatives and federal authoriza- The region includes Fresno, Madera, fish passage. The proposition invites tions. The settlement continues in questions of who pays for such an effect until 2026, after which possible undertaking and how large of a set- changes to the restoration program could occur.

The San Joaquin River Restoration team monitors the first pilot flows down the river. 7 Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project The geography of the San Joaquin The federal Flood Control Act of River and its tributaries has contrib- Dec. 22, 1944 authorized a flood uted to periodic flooding. Despite control project on the lower San the engineering efforts by federal, Joaquin River which would have state and local authorities, flooding required the state to obtain flow- problems continue to threaten lives age easements upstream of the and property. mouth of the Merced River. The Since completion of Friant Dam State Reclamation Board adopted a there have been reduced flow vol- substitute plan called the Lower San umes and a major accumulation of Joaquin River Flood Control Project The settlement notes sediment in the riverbed. The loss of that required bypasses, levees and peak flows prevented sediment from channel improvements. The federal that changes and moving downstream and inhibited government authorized the plan modifications to the the channel from conveying high on Aug. 9, 1955. The Lower San flood flows. Sediment buildup has Joaquin Levee District was created San Joaquin River led to vegetation encroachment by the Legislature to ensure the system should be within the channel, exacerbating the benefits of the project would not be problem. Consequently, when future lost and to provide protection to the undertaken to the floods arrive, the level of inundation people and the property for which extent that they increases. the project was designed. are consistent with applicable law and operational Reach 2B of the San Joaquin River includes the Chowchilla Bifurcation criteria such as flood Structure. control, dam safety and operation and maintenance. 8 Salmon: Life History and Reproduction Chinook salmon are anadromous, over the eggs to protect them from which means that they spend part predators. Chinook salmon burn a of their life in the ocean and the lot of energy migrating to the nest- other part in freshwater rivers and ing grounds, breeding and protect- streams. Chinook salmon are born ing the eggs. Both parents will die in freshwater streams and then travel before the eggs even hatch. to the open ocean to grow into Restoring the river means bring- adulthood. Chinook salmon may ing the salmon habitat back to spend between one to eight years in optimum conditions. “You have to the ocean before returning to their have the right proportions of the natal streams to spawn, though the gravel sizes for salmon, you also have average is 3 to 4 years. At reproduc- to have cool water, water flowing tive maturity, they will swim back to through the gravel, typically we call their birth stream to lay eggs. After those riffles, where they spawn, good so many years, some salmon can be water quality in general,” McClain hundreds of miles away from their said. “They also need structure and birth stream. The time of the breed- habitat, they need plants that are ing depends on the river and popu- both in-stream as well as habitat lation of salmon. Typically, they along the edges of the river, what we breed in the summer and autumn. call riparian habitat.” At their birth stream, male and Despite skepticism concerning female salmon pair up to breed. The the practicality of returning salmon female digs a nesting hole, known to the San Joaquin River, biologists as a redd. She deposits thousands say the river may in fact serve as a of eggs in the redd before the male refuge for the fish because its source releases his sperm. After mating, drains high-elevation snowmelt that the male and females stand guard remains ice-cold in spring. With the assistance of a hatchery rearing program that will be fully operational in 2014, projections are for 30,000 spring run and 10,000 fall run fish. Re-introducing the spring-run salmon population involves bringing as many as 100 breeding pairs of fish to the San Joaquin River from other managed areas such as Butte Creek and the Feather River Hatchery in late 2011. Other possible contribut- ing waterways are the Mokelumne, Stanislaus and Yuba rivers. The National Marine Fisheries Service is expected to approve a permit for the salmon re-introduction in April 2012. 9 The Science of Salmon Restoration Returning salmon to the San de-listing the spring run salmon, Joaquin River is not as simple as benefiting water users throughout merely returning flows to the river’s the state. The Central Valley spring dry reaches, although that is cer- run is listed as “threatened” under tainly part of the equation. Scien- the federal Endangered Species Act. tists have examined the river’s fishery At Putah Creek in Solano conditions and the water supply County, which had dried because needed to enhance habitat, but a of drought conditions, water was definitive answer remains elusive. reintroduced through alterations to Challenges are numerous, includ- Solano Dam releases. The result was ing the lack of available spawning a remarkable success with the return ground as well as the fact that the of about 70 salmon and sparked a river’s relatively flat slope hinders subsequent investment to restore movement of cold water and “bed spawning beds. mobilization,” the process by which Salmon are returned to rivers “Restoring the San fine silts are scoured downstream. by various means, in many cases Environmentalists say the San well before river restoration is fully Joaquin River and the Joaquin can be brought back to completed. Eggs can be incubated in channel capacity is not function as it did before Friant Dam waters to establish the homing base was built. that enables the majority of salmon impossible. We clearly “Restoring the San Joaquin River to return to their original nursery. can do it.” and the channel capacity is not The homing instinct for San Joaquin impossible. We clearly can do it,” River salmon has been eradicated, – Monty Schmitt, NRDC said Monty Schmitt, senior scientist with fish instead venturing up the with NRDC and the San Joaquin Merced River or other tributaries. River Project Manager. “Yes, it costs Several changes are needed to a lot of money but since this is for facilitate salmon restoration, such as perpetuity, let’s do it right.” re-establishing the historic channel, Restoration of the salmon will possibly isolating or filling hundreds not only benefit commercial fisher- of acres of large pits left from gravel men but could be a step toward mining, modifying numerous fish 10

passage barriers and ensuring proper element in the valley soil, could water temperature. Estimates are have deleterious effects on restored that 385,000 acre-feet of water in a salmon runs. Selenium is essential dry year to 1.8 million acre-feet in a for life, but in high concentrations, wet year are needed for the fish. One it will kill or cause deformities in of the key functions for develop- animals. ment is the relationship between Irrigation drainage collects sele- flow magnitude and water tempera- nium in high concentrations. The tures. river also gets big doses of selenium With adequate funding, a reason- during storms, when uncontrolled able amount of water and removal of runoff drains into the San Joaquin. the multiple barriers to fish passage While runoff has decreased, the on the river, an aggressive restora- concern is the cleanup has not tion program could return as many progressed far enough to protect With adequate funding, as 15,000 salmon. Still, scientists say salmon, including a 5-mile stretch a reason able amount the San Joaquin is not a functional from Mud Slough to the confluence river because there is no connection of the Merced River. of water and removal and there is no river channel any- Farmers say they need the extra of the multiple barriers more in certain reaches. A number time to develop a treatment plant to of places will require reconfiguration eliminate the rest of the bad water. to fish passage on the of the river channel, particularly in They must submit a plan on the river, an aggressive the lower river. treatment plant by 2013 and reduce How water quality is affected by selenium levels by 40 percent from restoration program irrigation drainage is of concern the current levels over the next five could return as many as because of the possible impacts to years. Furthermore, they say their fish restoration. The matter will studies show that increased fresh- 15,000 salmon. ultimately be decided by the State water during salmon migration will Water Resources Control Board dilute contamination and move it (State Water Board) as it considers out, especially during the higher regulation of discharges from agri- flows that the restoration must have cultural lands. Selenium, a natural to help the salmon move. 11 A River Diverted Powered by the snowpack and Within a decade, Friant Dam was facility for the Friant Project. springs of the Sierra Nevada, the San completed and except for releases to Throughout the early years of Joaquin River flows from the moun- manage floods and meet the needs of Friant Dam’s operation, and prior to tains, swings north and crosses the riparian water-rights holders imme- the completion and full operation of expanse of the Central Valley before diately below the dam, the upper San the Madera and Friant-Kern canals, mingling with the Sacramento River Joaquin’s entire flow was impounded water releases enabled salmon to and the brackish waters of the Bay- by the dam and diverted into Madera spawn in the river, with an estimated Delta estuary. Prior to its alteration, and Friant-Kern canals and delivered 56,000 salmon returning as part of which began in the 19th century, the to farms to the north and south, the 1945 spring run. Historically, river supported both fall and spring respectively. Prior to construction, spring run Chinook salmon were runs of Chinook salmon, with popu- historic San Joaquin water rights one of the largest runs on the Pacific lations estimated in the hundreds of holders agreed to exchange their Coast. In 1885, commercial fisheries thousands. rights for water from the Sacramento- harvested more than 600,000 fish in Farming expanded as the century San Joaquin Delta. The river ran in the Central Valley. turned, but growers became painfully fits and starts but Reclamationalways Even though Friant releases aware that the capricious climate released about 100,000 acre-feet of reached about 40 miles downstream, could often rob them of the pre- water each year to meet its water eventually increased diversions caused cious precipitation they needed to rights commitments and to support two long stretches of the river to dry fillcanals and refill underground the trout hatchery below the dam. up. By 1949, the fall run salmon aquifers. Today, the Friant Division’s 1 mil- had disappeared and the spring run Severe drought in the 1920s and lion acres of farmland support a $4.5 shortly thereafter. 1930s dried up thousands of acres of billion economy and the livelihood of The California Department of Fish land, strained groundwater supplies many large and small communities. and Game (DFG) in 1950 inquired and germinated the idea that would Relatively small at 520,000 acre-feet whether Reclamation was obligated eventually see the light of day as the of storage, water from Millerton Lake to comply with Section 5937 of CVP. After plans for a state-built sys- is allocated to water districts north the Fish and Game Code, which tem dissolved because of the inability and south via the Madera and Friant- required dam operators to “allow to sell bonds during the Depression, Kern canals. The dam provides flood sufficient water at all times to pass … the federal government in 1935 protection and recreation opportuni- to keep in good condition any fish authorized the CVP. ties, but is primarily a water storage that may be planted or exist below 12

the dam.” Federal officials and Friant The early legal skirmishes intensi- water users denied that releases from fied in the 1970s as the state sought the dam were called for to preserve certain water releases from New salmon, adding that legal opinion Melones Reservoir on the Stanislaus upheld Friant’s primary purpose as a River, a tributary to the San Joaquin. source of irrigation. Seeking to establish its pre-eminence Into the fray stepped then- over state law, the federal govern- Attorney General Edmund G. “Pat” ment filed suit to establish the rule Brown, who in 1951 opined that of law once and for all. Eventually, a the federal government did not have milestone 1978 U.S. Supreme Court to comply with the Fish and Game ruling required federal agencies to Code, and that releases for the preser- comply with state water laws unless vation of fish “would indeed consti- there was a clear congressional direc- tute ‘a waste of water’ in view of the tive to the contrary. Today, the Friant grave need for all available water for Armed with the high court’s Division’s 1 million higher use elsewhere.” DFG pressed ruling, NRDC, along with other on, pushing the matter to the agency environmental and fishery interests, acres of farmland then known as the State Water Rights sued Reclamation in 1988 to halt the support a $4.5 billion Board. renewal of long-term Friant water Ultimately, in a finding known contracts, claiming the impacts to economy and the as Decision 935 (D-935), the Water river habitat had not been adequately livelihood of many large Board dismissed DFG’s claim as “not considered. Shortly after the initial in the public interest” at that time, filing, the state Court of Appeals and small communities. while recognizing that Friant should affirmed the duty of the State Water maintain a minimum release that Board to follow Section 5937 and the waters the river to Gravelly Ford. suit was amended to incorporate a Rebuked, DFG prepared to take the 5937 cause of action. matter to court to force releases for The case’s winding, 18-year salmon. Brown, who was elected gov- course traversed three presidential ernor in 1958, was working on his administrations, numerous amend- own water plan and halted the suit. ments and an attempted negotiated Deprived of its flow, the San settlement. Along the way, the State Joaquin became a river in name only Water Board, which had previously for certain reaches, where bypasses sided with Reclamation regarding shunt flood flows while parts of the the operation of the dam, changed historical channel are choked with its stance, filing “friend of the court” trees and vegetation. Some stretches briefs on behalf of the plaintiffs. The were nothing more than irrigation brief acknowledged the conundrum drainage. with changing the course of the dam’s The loss of the San Joaquin Chi- operation. nook salmon run “was really felt most “It is still feasible to compel the strongly” by the commercial salmon release of water from Friant Dam fishermen along the coast, Schmitt to restore the former salmon runs, said. The end of the SanJoaquin and it would still impair the primary salmon run was “the beginning of a irrigation objective of the Friant Di- slide in the salmon populations in the vision to do so,” the brief said. “There state of California that really has had is still not enough water in the state’s a very large impact over time.” water bank to do both.” 13 The Court Ruling In 2004, a ruling in the San restoration fund, some $160 million Joaquin case issued by Judge between 1993 and 2003. Lawrence Karlton described a com- Karlton wrote “there is no plicated river system that supported apparent reason” why the CVPIA not only salmon, but also rain- and Section 5937 “cannot be read” bow trout, splittail and the water as complementary, and that “what- quality and habitat of the Delta. ever the reasonableness component Karlton cited a 1994 U.S. Fish & of the CVPIA ordains, it is clear that Wildlife Service report, The Relation- complete diversion of the river, with ship Between Instream Flow, Adult its concomitant destruction of the Immigration, and Spawning Habitat historical fisheries, is not reasonable.” Availability for Fall-Run Chinook He did not, however, suggest that The ruling set the Salmon in the Upper San Joaquin irrigated agriculture should suffer River, which called the dam’s opera- undue harm in the course of deter- stage for all the tion a “disaster” for Chinook salmon. mining the remedy for the belea- parties – famers, “There is no genuine dispute … guered river. as to whether [Reclamation] has “Farmers throughout the valley environmentalists, released sufficient water to maintain have dedicated their lives and fishery organizations – historic fisheries, and the record … fortunes to making the desert is clear [it] has not,” Karlton wrote. bloom,” he wrote. “They did so in to come together and As legal basis for the plaintiffs’ reliance on the availability of CVP forge an agreement for argument, Karlton pointed to a water. That reality most likely should provision of the federal Reclama- be taken into account when the the release of water tion Act that stipulates its purpose court comes to address a remedy.” down river. of not affecting or interfering with The ruling set the stage for all the state laws regarding the control, parties – farmers, environmental- appropriation, use or distribution ists, fishery organizations – to come of water. He chided the defendants together and forge an agreement for for “continually relitigating” previ- the release of water down river. The ously decided arguments, such as threat of further litigation and the the applicability of Section 5937, uncertainty regarding how a judge the State Water Board’s D-935 and might order a remedy for the river whether the 1992 Central Valley brought final agreement. Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) trumps the plaintiffs’ argument. The CVPIA required a comprehensive plan that is “reasonable, prudent and feasible” to re-establish and sustain anadromous fisheries from Friant to the San Joaquin River’s confluence with the Delta, while allowing the project’s operation to continue pending congressional authorization of additional releases. In lieu of water, FWUA members contribute to an environmental 14 Other Settlement Aspects Under the terms of the agree- & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, ment, wildlife habitat will be Merced Irrigation District, the San restored along the course of the Joaquin River Exchange Contrac- river. Water releases will be keyed tors Authority, the Merced, Turlock, to the specific needs of spring run Modesto, Oakdale and South San and fall run Chinook salmon, with Joaquin irrigation districts, and the amount varying depending on Westlands Water District. how wet or dry conditions are in the The settlement stipulates an envi- region. ronmental fee of $7 per acre foot of The settlement also allows water delivered to Friant contractors Reclamation to sell water during that is expected to average about wet spring periods at a reduced $8 million per year. As much as $2 price of $10 per acre-feet. Water million annually of other CVPIA districts outside the Friant Division restoration fund payments made by agreed to support the settlement Friant water users under the CVPIA after an agreement was reached to would also be directed for imple- protect their water rights. These mentation of the settlement. third parties included the San Luis 15 Ongoing Monitoring Reclamation is tracking how far The problem illustrates the dif- the water spreads from the riverbed ficulty associated with reviving a and how high the groundwater river in which channel capacity has level rises. More than 90 monitor- been severely degraded. As such, ing wells have been established for Reclamation must determine how this purpose. The amount of water much of the restoration flows are released from Friant Dam may have sent down the original river channel to be reduced if water is accumulat- or flood bypasses. Whatever course ing too rapidly near the surface, is chosen must reconcile the fact something that could drown the that crop plantings now exist in the root systems of crops. river’s traditional floodplain. “Again, Reclamation plans to use ground- this is where the restoration program water monitoring wells adjacent to fails in addressing the flood manage- the riverbed to track seepage. ment concerns and operations,” Hill “Water often finds the path of said. “[Reclamation] is not a flood least resistance, and oftentimes in management agency and they do not a system where we have no levees determine the route of flows in the the river is just adjacent to all of bypass system. That responsibility lies our fields,” said Cannon Michael, a with the [Lower San Joaquin] Levee Los Banos grower. “The hydraulic District, which they acknowledge.” pressure is going to push the water Concerned about the impacts out into sand lenses where you’ll see on their constituents, Reps. Dennis water come out hundreds of yards Cardoza, D-Merced, and Jim Costa, out into the field.” D-Fresno, in September 2010 asked Already, those downstream of for “immediate attention” from Friant have issues with the restora- Reclamation Commissioner Michael tion program. According to press Connor regarding the downstream reports, the Wolfsen Land and impacts of river restoration. “The Cattle Co. in Los Banos filed a long-term credibility of the [pro- claim for damage from flooding and gram] requires that Reclamation seepage. The effect of the discharge establish a good neighbor policy and “was to flood, erode, seep under, and immediately work with third party physically inundate and invade the stakeholders to develop a process Wolfsen properties, thereby taking to review claims and … provide their property for public use,” the mitigation, including compensa- complaint said. tion,” a letter says. 16 In For the Long-Term There is still a lot to be learned environmentally acceptable way. about restoring the San Joaquin Water contractors are working with River, including the relative suc- Reclamation on several options, cess of re-introducing salmon and including exchanges with the dis- the impacts to the farm economy. tricts on the Kings River system that The initial stages of the restoration also receive water from Millerton project are guiding officials as they Reservoir and districts like Arvin- steer the process. On one front, it Edison Water Storage District in may appear the projected loss of Kern County that can receive water water to agriculture will be less than from both the Cross Valley Canal the original estimates. Because of and Millerton. the wet 2009-2010 winter, farmers For Cardoza and Costa, self-pro- also were able to cheaply buy back claimed “supporters and advocates” about another third of the water of the restoration program, it is they lost. Even so, farmers say the imperative that the plan go forward water delivery system needs to be in a balanced fashion that takes improved so more water can be sent care of downstream landowners as back to farms in drier seasons. well as the interest of the longtime “The settlement agreement really water rights holders affected by has two co-equal goals,” Schmitt the settlement. The “worst possible said. “One is to restore naturally scenario,” they wrote, would be one occurring healthy populations of in which introduced salmon quickly Chinook salmon. The other goal is die off due to insufficient habitat the water management goal and this while farmers see their livelihood is to create a plan to re-circulate and destroyed. recapture some of that restoration Phillips stressed the need to take water that’s put downstream and to the long view of the restoration bring it back to the Friant farmers.” project. “It’s going to take longer Bringing water back to the than 20 years to restore a naturally farmers is important because of reproducing salmon fishery, it may the projected loss from their water take 40 or 60 years to really get to supply (with the associated loss that phase ultimately,” he said. “And acreage and jobs) and the challenge there’s a check in point at 2026 to of restoring that water in the most see how we’re progressing.”

For more information visit www.restoresjr.net