Wild Things and the Delta

Posted on May 10, 2012 by
Jay Lund, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Peter Moyle, Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology
University of California – Davis
 

The recent death of Maurice Sendak, author of Where the Wild Things Are, brings some whimsical reflections on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.  Several quotes from the book seem to have potential lessons for Delta policy.

“Oh, please don’t go—we’ll eat you up—we love you so!” – The Delta devours the things it loves.  Subsided islands are devoured by levees failures (e.g., Franks Tract, Mildred Island, and Liberty Island).  Delta smelt and juvenile salmon are devoured by un-natural flow patterns from south Delta pumping.  Sacramento River inflows also are devoured by south Delta pumping. (Most of the San Joaquin River is devoured upstream of the Delta.)  Largemouth bass devour native fishes and are of course devoured by fishermen.  And the careers of many lawyers, engineers, administrators, and politicians are profitably, but otherwise futilely, devoured by Delta controversies.

“And now,” cried Max, “let the wild rumpus start!”– The wild rumpus of Delta politics and policy has been going on for a long time.  But when and how will the rumpus end?  BDCP will not be the end, although it might be a new beginning.  Or the wild rumpus could worsen with the next major earthquake or flood.

“And Max, the king of all wild things, was lonely and wanted to be where someone loved him best of all.” – The Delta is a sad place for native species, who often are loved less for themselves than for what they mean for others.  The USFWS, our king of wild things through the ESA, desperately needs some love.

“And the wild things roared their terrible roars and gnashed their terrible teeth and rolled their terrible eyes and showed their terrible claws.” – A nice description of Delta stakeholders on bad days and many of their press releases.

“Then from far away across the world he smelled good things to eat, so he gave up being king of the wild things.” – Wild things and agriculture are commonly perceived to be in conflict.  More seriously, outside adults, such as the state and federal governments, are likely needed to end, or at least confine, the wild rumpus of the Delta.  The CALFED days of nominal cooperation were fueled by the aroma of relatively abundant state and federal money.  But we also seem to need a king of all wild things; without someone to protect them they will disappear.

With the more limited ingredients available today, it will be harder for state and federal governments to cook up an appealing alternative to the ongoing rumpus (especially when so many players seem to enjoy giving terrible roars and gnashing terrible teeth).

Posted in Uncategorized

Some springtime reading on California water

Posted on May 2, 2012 by

Jay R. Lund, Director, Center for Watershed Sciences and the Ray B. Krone Chair of Environmental Engineering, University of California – Davis

Precipitation in California

Precipitation in California

California is a wonderful place to study water, with so many interesting and important problems, many thoughtful and insightful authors, and much to be learned.  Here is a short selection of  readings on California water, although some readings are appropriately long.

  1. Division of Water Resources. 1930. State Water Plan 1930, Bulletin 25, Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Works.  The most influential state water plan ever done for California, and mercifully short. Ironically, it was never implemented by the state, but became the basis for the federal Central Valley Project and California’s overall strategy for water management.  Expands on the 1919 Marshall Plan by a former USGS employee working from the University of California.
  2. Pisani, D. 1984. From the Family Farm to Agribusiness: The Irrigation Crusade in California, 1850–1931. Berkeley: University of California Press.  The best and most insightful history I have seen on California’s water supply system.  Sadly out of print.
  3. Kelley, R. 1998. Battling the Inland Sea. Berkeley: University of California Press.  Tremendously interesting and insightful history of the confluence of politics and flood management for the Sacramento Valley.  One of my favorite books on watManaging California's Waterer management overall.
  4. Hanak, E., J. Lund, A. Dinar, B. Gray, R. Howitt, J. Mount, P. Moyle, and B. Thompson (2011), Managing California’s Water:  From Conflict to Reconciliation, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, CA, 500 pp.  Free pdf from ppic.org or hard copy from Amazon.com.  This book tries to do everything, looking forwards as well as historically.  We’ll see how well it ages.  California Water Myths is a short motivating pre-report for this work.
  5. Lund, J., E. Hanak, W. Fleenor, W. Bennett, R. Howitt, J. Mount, and P. Moyle (2010), Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.  A comprehensive non-stakeholder view of the Delta.  Based on earlier Delta reports produced by PPIC.
  6. Kahrl, W.L. 1983. Water and Power: The Conflict over Los Angeles Water Supply in the Owens Valley. Berkeley: University of California Press.   An insightful in-depth look at the development of Owens Valley for Los Angeles’ water supply.
  7. Hundley, N., Jr. 2001. The Great Thirst. Californians and Water: A History. Berkeley: University of California Press.   A fine history of water in California, which unfortunately ends in 2001.
  8. Bain, J. S., R. E. Caves, and J. Margolis.  1966. Northern California’s Water Industry: The Comparative Efficiency of Public Enterprise in Developing a Scarce Natural Resource, Baltimore, MD: Resources for the Future, Johns Hopkins Press.  A tour-de-force of Northern California water management in the early 1960s looking forward to the development of the State Water Project.
  9. Jackson, W. T., and A. M. Paterson. 1977, The Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta and the Evolution and Implementation of Water Policy: An Historical Perspective, California Water Resources Center, Contribution No. 163, University of California, Davis.  The best middle history of the Delta, before the 1982 vote.
  10. Thompson J. 1957. Settlement Geography of the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, California. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.  Where the Delta came from in historical time.
  11. Orlob, G. T. 1991. “San Joaquin Salt Balance: Future Prospects and Possible Solutions.” In The Economics and Management of Water and Drainage in Agriculture, ed. A. Dinar and D. Zilberman (Boston, MA: Kluwer), 143–67.  No one has written a water quality history of California, but this would be an essential element of such a story.
  12. Vaux, H. J. 1986. “Water Scarcity and Gains from Trade in Kern County, California.” In Scarce Water and Institutional Change, ed. K. Frederick (Washington, DC: Resources for the Future), 67–101.  A wonderful paper on how local agricultural water and groundwater actually work.
  13. Walker, R. A., and M. J. Williams. 1982. “Water from Power: Water Supply and Regional Growth in the Santa Clara Valley.” Economic Geography 58(2): 95–119. An intriguing paper on how local urban water utilities have developed.

Special announcement: The UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences is looking for someone to work at the forefront of communications on water issues in California from a non-advocacy university perspective to “lead strategic planning, management, and implementation of the Center’s communications and outreach programs.”  The position description and (online only) application can be found by clicking: www.employment.ucdavis.edu/applicants/Central?quickFind=61932.  There is so much to do, and we can use some help.

Posted in California Water, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta | Tagged , , , , ,

When Good Fish Make Bad Decisions

Posted on April 16, 2012 by

Carson Jeffres, Staff Research Associate, Center for Watershed Sciences

Canyon section of the Shasta River in the late fall when spawning conditions appear to be good. Photo: Carson Jeffres

Restoration of degraded habitat is generally considered to be a no-brainer.  But, what if by “restoring” the habitat, you inadvertently create a habitat that causes either the target species or other important non-target species to spiral towards extinction—that is, a place that looks good on the surface, but actually leads to poor outcomes for the population?  In riverine ecosystems, habitats are generally created through physical processes such as flooding and sediment transport.  Over time, fish have evolved the ability to adapt and thrive in the habitat that these processes create.  Human changes to river systems often disrupt underlying processes that created natural habitat, and can result in the elimination or degradation of such habitat.  When we try to mimic these habitats on the surface with restoration, but without the associated underlying processes, we can create an ecological trap that worsens the problem.

An ecological trap occurs when an animal seeks out habitat that ultimately reduces its survival or reproductive success (Robertson and Hutto, 2006).  Conditions which lead fish into poor quality habitats or away from high quality habitats can diminish populations.  Most fish have evolved mechanisms to recognize environmental cues that indicate favorable habitats.  Occasionally, however, cues that indicate high quality habitat can belie poor conditions and lead to errors in judgment that reduce fitness and survivorship.  If poor quality habitat is repeatedly chosen over time, population numbers will decrease and an increased risk of local extinction may occur.

At times, ecological traps also may be an unintended consequence of well-intentioned restoration or conservation activities (Robertson and Hutto, 2007; Hawlena et al., 2010).  Usually, such mal-restoration results from efforts to support a single life stage (e.g., spawning) of a single species.  Other species may be attracted to and utilize the restored habitat, but receive either no benefit from it, or are instead harmed by it.

Figure 1. Map of Shasta River watershed showing the two primary spawning locations for salmonids. The Canyon spawning complex is the location of historical spawning gravel placement.

An example of an ecological trap comes from the Shasta River, a Klamath River tributary in Northern California (Figure 1) (Jeffres and Moyle, 2012).  Coho salmon, once abundant, are nearing extinction in this tributary for many reasons.  Most notably, they are particularly susceptible to high spring and summer temperatures caused by land and water use activities, along with a geological quirk of the watershed.  Unlike juvenile Chinook salmon that migrate to sea before their first summer, juvenile coho spend a year and one-half in the watershed before leaving.  This exposes these sensitive fish to high spring and summer water temperatures (Null et al., 2010).  Historically, when temperatures warmed, juvenile coho would have survived by migrating upstream to cool water sources or moving out into the Klamath River for the summer.

The Shasta River passes through a steep, narrow canyon in its lowermost reaches, just above the confluence with the Klamath River.  When salmon return from the ocean in late fall/winter, multiple cues (such as clean gravels, well oxygenated cool water, and good flow velocities and depths) are present that signal that this is good spawning and rearing habitat.  But, juvenile coho that end up in this lower canyon reach inevitably die for three reasons.  First, once they emerge from the gravels, the stream is too steep for them to move upstream to cooler waters.  Second, if they stay, temperatures are almost always fatal by summer.  Finally, with poor water quality conditions in the Klamath River, fish that move into the mainstem are unlikely to survive.

In evolutionary terms, natural selection should weed out adult coho salmon that spawn in the lower Canyon, selecting for those that spawn near cold water sources in the headwaters.  This would be possible if the population were large enough to withstand the selection pressures, but selection pressures function poorly when the population is small.  Additionally, since coho are semelparous (i.e., they die after spawning), there is little opportunity for learning.  Finally, a significant number of these fish are strays from the Klamath River and the Iron Gate Hatchery, thus diluting the local gene pool where selection has already taken place.

Juvenile coho in the Shasta River. Photo: Carson Jeffres

Adding to the effectiveness of this trap are historical conservation efforts.  For many years gravels were added to the canyon reach to improve the quality of spawning habitat for Chinook salmon.  These “no regrets” efforts may have helped Chinook since they do not stick around after the water warms up.  But, coho salmon were drawn to these gravels as well, which left their offspring in a fatal trap.

A more holistic approach to restoration—addressing causes of habitat degradation rather than symptoms — addresses the underlying water quality limitations and spawning locations in the Shasta River while providing access to locations where oversummering habitat is available (Jeffres and Moyle, 2012).  One example comes from the efforts of The Nature Conservancy, aided by scientists from UC Davis, to improve habitat and water temperatures in areas accessible to coho salmon.  This successful approach focuses on all of the fresh water life stages of the fish and has helped to keep coho going in the watershed.

Ecological traps occur in many settings where efforts are underway to restore habitats in California.  Ecosystem-based approaches, rather than the more common species-specific or life stage-specific approaches, are more likely to be successful at avoiding the creation of these traps.

Further Reading:

Hawlena, D., Saltz, D., Abramsky, Z. & Bouskila, A. (2010). Ecological Trap for Desert Lizards Caused by Anthropogenic Changes in Habitat Structure that Favor Predator Activity. Conservation Biology 24, 803-809.

Jeffres, C. & Moyle, P. (2012). When Good Fish Make Bad Decisions: Coho Salmon in an Ecological Trap (PDF). North American Journal of Fisheries Management 32, 87-92.

Null, S. E., Deas, M. L. & Lund, J. R. (2010). Flow and water temperature simulation for habitat restoration in the Shatsa River, California. River Research and Applications 26, 663-681.

Robertson, B. A. & Hutto, R. L. (2007). Is selectively harvested forest an ecological trap for Olive-sided Flycatchers? Condor 109, 109-121.

Robertson, G. A. & Hutto, R. L. (2006). A framework for understanding ecological traps and an evaluation of existing evidence. Ecology (Washington D C) 87, 1075-1085.

Posted in Biology, California Water, Conservation, Fish, Fish Life History, Restoration | Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Recent News Stories You May Have Missed–A Compilation

Posted on March 31, 2012 by


State Budget Gap Solved by Sale of Department of Water Resources
It was announced today that the Department of Water Resources (DWR) has been formally sold to the State and Federal Water Contractors Association.  The $5 billion price will substantially reduce this year’s state budget deficit and the merger will remove much lingering public confusion.

Web-cast of Joint California Water Plan/BDCP Meeting
To make their planning processes more transparent and efficient, the California Water Plan and the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) have agreed to combine and web-cast their agency meetings.  Here is the link for the webcast of their first joint meeting: http://youtu.be/YawagQ6lLrA

Urban-to-Urban Delta Water Transfer Announced to Aid US Trade Balance with China
Hebei Province in northern China announced today that it was seeking to purchase water from the California State Water Project for transfer to the growing, water-short Beijing metropolitan area.  Water would be loaded on ships at the ports of Stockton and West Sacramento for through-Delta export.  Proponents are planning to purchase the available water from cities in Southern California and the Bay Area.  A Hebei Province spokesman said, “This would be a win-win-win, supporting economic activity for Delta port cities, urban water conservation, and net Delta outflows all the way out the Golden Gate.  We didn’t want to buy water from agriculture because we need California’s abundant fruits and nuts.”

Delta Combat Science Meeting
Delta stakeholder scientists prepare to deliver a report to other stakeholders.  Intense exchanges are expected to continue.

Delta combat science meeting (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

State Government Replaced by a Computer
Recent budget shortfalls have led the State to replace several departments with an automated computer program.  The simple program takes all public and bureaucratic requests, inquiries, and input, consults an immense database of state regulations and procedures, and then replies, “No”.  “As we were working on the software, we discovered that there were almost no cases where the legal, regulatory, and administrative response to a question would be yes,” reported Chief Programmer George Orwell.  A spokesman for the Governor’s office indicated that the new system would be put in place as soon as the CA Department of General Services (DGS) approves the purchase of a computer.  “If we can get just one positive response from the human bureaucracy, we can reduce staffing for entire departments to a single server technician.”

Farm Hatcheries Found to Reduce Farm Fitness
Subsidies for water and infrastructure have been found to reduce the agricultural fitness of wild farmers.  Subsidized farmers have been driving out wild farmers for several generations now.  A United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) spokesman indicated that the competitiveness of wild farmers has been reduced by federal and state spending of millions of dollars a year on various subsidies.

The CALSIM model, a “comprehensive and powerful modeling tool for water resources systems simulation”, explained: http://is.gd/77KvTv

New Delta aqueduct composed of draft plans (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

New Delta aqueduct constructed with agencies' draft plans (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

Draft Plans Made into Bricks for New Delta Aqueduct
Draft plans from the many state, federal, and local agencies involved in California planning will be recycled into bricks for constructing a new Delta aqueduct, dams to expand California’s water storage capacity, and flood control levees.  “We figured we would re-use these resources for a constructive purpose.  This also allows us to partially finance these projects using carbon sequestration credits,” said one agency spokesman.  “They finally found a way for these plans to hold water,” said an environmental spokesman.

Zombie escapes from water meeting (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

Zombies Escape from California Water Meetings
Brain-eating zombies are emerging from major water meetings throughout California.  “The meetings began eating our brains away, and then we found that we liked eating brains as well,” said a recent meeting attendee.  A walking dead DWR consultant further observed, “Consensus is now achieved.  We can have peace in our time.”

Other Headlines You May Have Missed:

  • Pirates Boost Delta Economy
  • State to Restore the Salton Sink
  • Lawyers find Gold in Delta and behind Klamath Dams
  • Secret Tunnel completed from Columbia River to LA
  • “Flush twice for LA”: Sacramento Wastewater Treatment Plant becomes PC Intake #1, Stockton Strives to be #2
  • The Biologist with the Smelt Tattoo
  • New Delta Policy: Adaptive management through litigation

(Hope you enjoyed this April Fool’s Round-up. None of this should be taken seriously and if you didn’t find humor in at least one of these topics, you might be a zombie. No delta smelt were pepper-sprayed in the making of this blog.)

Further Reading:

 Blogs, blogs everywhere…, California WaterBlog, April 1, 2011

Posted in April Fools' Day | Tagged ,

Can solid flood planning improve all California water planning?

Posted on March 27, 2012 by

Jay R. Lund, The Ray B. Krone Chair of Environmental Engineering, University of California – Davis

An atmospheric river hitting California in December 1996 – part of the 1997 flood. Photo: NOAA GOES Image Server

“No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood.”  E.L. Kersten

The best time to prepare for floods is during a drought.

In December, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) released their new Central Valley flood plan.  Looking it over, and having seen some of the thinking behind it, the plan seems like the most substantive, serious, and modern state water plan in quite some time.

There will be criticisms that the plan is weak regarding the environment, conjunctive use, water supply, unrealistic funding, and other issues, with some justification.  But, after all, this represents the beginning of one of the first comprehensive state-led examinations of flood problems in a long time, following a technically successful, but politically failed federal “Comprehensive Study” a decade ago.   And this is a flood plan, which attempts to connect with other water management issues, rather than a comprehensive water plan which attempts to address everything at once.

The Good:

  1. The flood plan is a thoughtful preliminary overview of Central Valley flood problems and system-wide management options, and how such options and local problems work together as a system.  All flood problems are local to those whose feet are getting wet, but solutions often have to work together for a river system.
  2. The report is supported by a tremendous wealth of explicit analysis, found in the numerous attachments on the web.  The extensive analysis, albeit preliminary in many areas, provides numbers for many costs, benefits, flows, and capacities.  Such organized analysis and numbers add coherence, perspective, and confidence to the work.
  3. The plan recognizes, in considerable detail for an initial release, the connections, opportunities, and potential conflicts of flood management and environmental objectives.  It can easily be argued that flood management has had more effects on the native ecosystem than any other so-called “stressor”.  Opportunities to get large environmental co-benefits with improved flood management are something for all parties to anticipate and cultivate.  The plan seems especially farsighted and thoughtful in this regard.  It is a good beginning.
  4. It recognizes the many connections of flood management with other water management aspects such as water supply and conjunctive use.
  5. The plan recognizes that Central Valley flood management requires the management and funding involvement of many local, state, and federal agencies, and has some ideas on what should be done to improve these inter-governmental workings and responsibilities.  Many water plans in California dissolve into hand-wringing over decentralized responsibility and decision-making; this plan productively tries to rise above it.
  6. There is recognition that flood improvements, and other potential related benefits will be expensive, and that firm long-term funding is needed.
  7. The plan is of a readable length.  Not so short as to be superficial and glitzy.  Not so long as to be imponderable and debilitating.  (It lacks a good summary, however.)

The Less Than Good:

  1. Funding.  Long-term funding is a hard issue for almost any endeavor these days.  The plan imagines abundant federal and state government funding.  A more realistic funding plan will be needed.  This will make some unhappy.
  2. Environmental plan.  Sadly, the absence of coherent state plans for environmental management and other water issues will lead to pressure for the flood plan to become a general water and environmental plan.  While a comprehensive water plan would ideally address all water problems at all locations for all sorts of current and future conditions, including climate change, this is too much for DWR to take.  Such comprehensive comprehensiveness might even be beyond human capabilities.  For now, pointing out promising opportunities and constraints for co-management across objectives is a major step forward.
  3. Adaptive management?  The flood plan’s conservation framework (a separate document of similar length to the plan) has an adaptive management discussion.  Adaptive management is invoked by almost every regional and state plan these days.  However, no plan seems to have the vaguest practical idea of how to make adaptive management successful.  Clearly, the state needs an overall credible adaptive management plan for the Central Valley, which various state, regional, and local flood, water supply, and other sector plans can connect to.
  4. Where do the numbers come from?  The current plan has a wealth of technical attachments, which are not well referenced in the main plan report.  It is nice to see the beginnings of a coherent plan based on numbers, and the lack of explicit ties between the detailed documentation and the main plan is understandable, for now, given the short time frame.  I giddily look forward to learning much from these supporting analyses and seeing them used more explicitly to support the a major planning document.  Alas, these details will become a devilish obsession among some stakeholders, some of which will be useful.

The Interesting:

Everyone is likely to find some aspects of the plan interesting and thought-provoking.  For me the point was brought home that the Central Valley flood management system’s success for major floods currently relies on unplanned levee failures in more rural areas.  Urban areas benefit from moderately good rural levees (probably better than rural areas could afford on their own) having a lower flow capacity than urban levees.  The positive view of this is that rural and urban areas can benefit from each other.

No plan is perfect, but this flood plan provides thoughtful and informed ideas to move the discussion forward realistically.  This is a noteworthy accomplishment.  In this complex problem with an even more complex array of stakeholders, incrementalism will be necessary, but incrementalism alone is doomed.  Sacramento Valley flood management in the late 1800s and early 1900s had similar controversies, and ultimately illustrated the benefits of rising above incrementalism (Kelley 1989).

Little has come from recent state or federal water planning in California.  If the state becomes effective in managing floods, then our collective prospects are greatly improved for managing the environment, conjunctive use, water supply, and anything else.

Ideally, we would see a greater integration of state plans across functions (floods, water supply, etc.) building on more integrated plans arising from the local and regional levels (such as SAWPA) (Hanak et al. 2011).  This flood plan might become a pragmatic start to such a process.

Further reading

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2012 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan; DWR: Sacramento, CA, USA, 2011. Available online: http://www.water.ca.gov/floodsafe/

Hanak, E., J. Lund, A. Dinar, B. Gray, R. Howitt, J. Mount, P. Moyle, and B. Thompson, Managing California’s Water:  From Conflict to Reconciliation, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, CA, 500 pp., February 2011.

Hansen, T.R., “A troubled flood plan,” Colusa County Sun-Herald, Friday, Mar 16 2012, 4:53 pm

Kelley, R. Battling the Inland Sea; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1989.

Lund, J.R., “Flood Management in California,” Water, Vol. 4, pp. 157-169; doi:10.3390/w4010157, 2012.

Lund, J.R., E. Hanak, and B. Gray, “Adaptive management means never having to say you’re sorry”, CaliforniaWaterBlog.com, posted on July 21, 2011.

Mount, J.F., “The Stockholm Syndrome in Water Planning in California,” CaliforniaWaterBlog.com, posted on September 27, 2011.

Posted in California Water, Climate Change, Floodplains, Planning and Management, Water Conservation, Water System Modeling | Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Wanted: An integrated strategy for recovery of Central Valley salmon

Posted on March 19, 2012 by

Jacob Katz, Ph.D. Candidate, Center for Watershed Sciences
Peter Moyle, Professor of Fish Biology, University of California – Davis

Central Valley fall-run Chinook salmon in the Yuba River. Photo: Jacob Katz

Historically, the rivers of the Central Valley had seasonally variable stream flows and diverse habitats.  Rivers tended to flood in winter, with low flows in summer.  Salmon used in-channel gravel beds for spawning, deep in-channel pools for holding, and off-channel floodplains and tidal marshes for rearing.  One hundred fifty years of agricultural land use, urban development, and water diversion have simplified habitats and altered stream flows, radically changing the quality, extent and spatial patterns of fish habitat and making today’s rivers very different from those in which California’s native fishes evolved (Moyle 2002, Brown and Bauer 2009, Hanak et al. 2011).  As a result, Central Valley Chinook salmon stocks have gone from a diverse collection of wild populations occupying the diverse habitats of the historic Central Valley to a portfolio dominated by fall-run Chinook produced in four large hatcheries (Lindley et al. 2009).  Habitat degradation paired with deleterious effects of hatcheries have put the Central Valley Chinook salmon on a clear trajectory towards extinction (Katz et al. 2012). While there is no going back to historical conditions, the amazing adaptability of Chinook salmon, if freed from hatchery interference, should allow them to adapt to the modern environment if restoration actions give them a chance (see previous blog).

Actions to protect Central Valley salmon have primarily focused on hatchery production or specific defensive actions intended to prevent further declines. Thus, as legal and political opportunities presented themselves, more water was released from dams, large diversions were screened to reduce intake of young salmon into canals, some barriers to fish passage were removed, and juvenile salmon sucked into the large South Delta pumping plants were captured and trucked back to the Delta.  A slight increase in Chinook numbers from 1994 to 2005 was attributed in part to these actions, although more favorable water years and good ocean conditions were probably more important overall, as the subsequent collapse in 2006-2009 indicated (Lindley et al. 2009). Additional band-aids continue to be proposed, such as trapping adult salmon and trucking them above impassable dams to spawn in rivers now flowing into reservoirs.  However, a truly integrated management strategy that balances wild salmon conservation with hatchery production for fisheries does not currently exist.  Instead, hatcheries below the big dams continue to be the principal means of producing salmon returns (Williams 2006, Barnett-Johnson et al. 2007, Johnson et al. 2012) even as the evidence increasingly shows these practices to be counterproductive (Araki et al. 2007, Kostow 2009, Chilcote et al. 2011, Christie et al. 2012).

Estimated return to rivers (escapement) and total production (escapement + catch in fisheries) of Central Valley fall-run Chinook salmon 1952-2010. Source data: AFRP Chinookprod, accessed Jan 25, 2012.


In the Central Valley, where more than 70% of salmon spawning habitat has been lost, recovery actions have focused on improvements to remaining in-stream spawning and rearing habitats with little focus on off-channel habitats despite the loss of more than 90% of floodplain rearing habitat.  Recent scientific investigations have illustrated the importance of floodplain and estuarine habitats for rearing salmon (Sommer et al. 2001, Jeffres et al. 2008) as well as the dramatic negative effects on native fishes of altering stream flows (Marchetti and Moyle 2001, Kiernan et al. in press). This new understanding suggests that current restoration actions will never lead to recovery.  If recovery of self-sustaining, naturally-spawning populations of salmon and other native fishes is truly the objective then a comprehensive re-design and reoperation of Central Valley water infrastructure is necessary.  We need to simultaneously address the range of factors affecting salmon for each of their life stages in an integrated portfolio of actions, such as those listed below.

  • Manage dams and in-Delta diversions to promote flow regimes that favor native organisms.
  • Manage Central Valley rivers as an integrated unit while prescribing specific flows in specific rivers for specific objectives. This would include actions such as managing flows for different species (or fish communities) in different locations to make best use of water allocations.
  • Target large-scale re-connection of floodplains to their river channels which will both reduce flood risk for urban communities and, if properly designed, substantially improve ecosystem function for fish, waterfowl, and other wildlife (such as Yolo, Sutter, Colusa and Chowchilla bypasses and setback levees where appropriate).
  • Restore natural migratory access to as much of the Sacramento-San Joaquin system as possible by removing dams (such as Englebright Dam), improving flows (such as the San Joaquin River), or providing/improving passage over barriers.
  • Expand tidal marsh habitat in the San Francisco Estuary and Delta, through strategic levee breaches and similar actions.

Such actions will do much to aid recovery of naturally-produced, self-sustaining populations of fall-run Chinook. However, it must be realized that habitat-based and flow-based actions alone will never result in recovery of natural populations of Central Valley Chinook salmon, as long as hatchery practices continue to limit the reproductive and adaptive potential of naturally- produced fish (see previous blog).

The present system is broken in many ways, perhaps irrevocably. Restoring salmon will require more than incremental solutions.  Improved flows, habitat restoration, or hatcheries alone will always be inadequate.  Under the status quo, extinction of all four Central Valley Chinook runs is increasingly likely, particularly as changes in climate and continued development compound existing stresses (Katz et al. 2012).  Maintaining salmon populations, even at present levels, will require new thinking, fundamental changes to management, and an integrated portfolio of recovery actions specifically designed for future conditions and the biology of the different populations.

Central Valley fall-run Chinook salmon circling below Daguerre Point Dam on the lower Yuba River. Photo: Jacob Katz

Links to related blogs

J. Katz & P. B. Moyle. Have our salmon and eat them too: Re-thinking salmon hatcheries in the Central Valley. California Water Blog. February 29, 2012.

Jeffres, C. A. Frolicking fat floodplain fish feeding furiously. California Water Blog. June 29, 2011.

Moyle, P. B. Coho in Crisis, Part 1: The decline toward extinction in California. California Water Blog. October 12, 2011.

Further reading

Araki, H., B. Cooper, and M. S. Blouin. 2007. Genetic effects of captive breeding cause a rapid, cumulative fitness decline in the wild. Science 318:100-103.

Barnett-Johnson, R., C. B. Grimes, C. F. Royer, and C. J. Donohoe. 2007. Identifying the contribution of wild and hatchery Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) to the ocean fishery using otolith microstructure as natural tags. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 64:1683-1692.

Brown, L. R. and M. L. Bauer. 2010. Effects of hydrologic infrastructure on flow regimes of California’s Central Valley rivers: Implications for fish populations. River Research and Applications 26:751-765.

Chilcote, M. W., K. W. Goodson, and M. R. Falcy. 2011. Reduced recruitment performance in natural populations of anadromous salmonids associated with hatchery-reared fish. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68:511-522.

Christie, M. R., M. L. Marine, R. A. French, and M. S. Blouin. 2012. Genetic adaptation to captivity can occur in a single generation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109:238-242..

Hanak, E., J. Lund, A. Dinar, B. Gray, R. Howitt, J. Mount, P. Moyle, and B. Thompson. Managing California’s water: from conflict to reconciliation. Public Policy Institute of California. San Francisco, California.

Jeffres, C. A., J. J. Opperman, and P. B. Moyle. 2008. Ephemeral floodplain habitats provide best growth conditions for juvenile Chinook salmon in a California river. Environmental Biology of Fishes 83:449-458.

Johnson, R. C., P. K. Weber, J. D. Wikert, M. L. Workman, R. B. MacFarlane, M. J. Grove, and A. K. Schmitt. 2012. Managed metapopulations: Do salmon hatchery sources lead to in-river sinks in Conservation? PloS ONE 7:e28880.

Katz, J, P. B. Moyle, R. M. Quiñones, J. Israel, and S. Purdy. 2012. Impending extinction of salmon, steelhead, and trout (Salmonidae) in California. Environmental Biology of Fishes.   DOI 10.1007/s10641-012-9974-8.

Kiernan, J. D., P. B. Moyle, P. K. Crain. In press. Restoring native fish assemblages to a regulated california stream using the natural flow regime concept.  Ecological Applications. 

Kostow, K. 2009. Factors that contribute to the ecological risks of salmon and steelhead hatchery programs and some mitigating strategies. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 19:9-31.

Lindley, S. T., C. B. Grimes, M. S. Mohr, W. T. Peterson, J. E. Stein, J. J. Anderson, L. W. Botsford, D. L. Bottom, C. A. Busack, and T. K. Collier. 2009. What caused the Sacramento River fall Chinook stock collapse? US Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Fisheries Ecology Division.

Marchetti, M. P. and P. B. Moyle. 2001. Effects of flow regime on fish assemblages in a regulated California stream. Ecological Applications 11:530-539.

Moyle, P. B.  2002.  Inland Fishes of California. Revised and expanded. Berkeley: University of California Press. 502 pp.

Sommer, T. R., M. L. Nobriga, W. C. Harrell, W. Batham, and W. J. Kimmerer. 2001. Floodplain rearing of juvenile Chinook salmon: evidence of enhanced growth and survival. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:325-333.

Williams, J. G. 2006. Central Valley Salmon: A perspective on Chinook and Steelhead in the Central Valley of California. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 4.

Posted in Biology, Conservation, Dam Removal, Fish, Fish Life History, Restoration, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Sustainability | Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Growing costs and concern for drinking water in the Tulare Basin and Salinas Valley

Posted on March 12, 2012 by

Thomas Harter, Robert M. Hagan Endowed Chair in Water Management and Policy, University of California – Davis

Jay R. Lund, The Ray B. Krone Chair of Environmental Engineering, University of California – Davis

Addressing Nitrate in California's Drinking Water

A potential public health concern has been percolating into aquifer drinking water supplies in the Tulare Basin and Salinas Valley for the past 50 to 60 years.  Nitrate is accumulating in the groundwater, with 1 in 10 residents in these areas exposed to potential contamination of their drinking water supplies.  This problem will worsen if nothing is done to correct it.

Some nitrate comes from septic tanks and wastewater treatment plants, but our UC Davis research team recently concluded that the overwhelming source of nitrate contamination—more than 90 percent —is from agricultural fertilizers.  The researchers studied nitrate in the drinking water of these two agricultural regions —an area that includes Fresno, Bakersfield and Salinas. Throughout the region, nearly all of the 2.6 million residents rely on groundwater for drinking water.

Overview of cropland input and output (Gg N/yr) in the study area (Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley) in 2005. The left half of the pie chart represents total nitrogen inputs to 1.27 million ha (3.12 million ac) of cropland, not including alfalfa. The right half of the pie chart represents total nitrogen outputs with leaching to groundwater estimated by difference between the known inputs and the known outputs.

Nitrate contamination is a common problem among the world’s agricultural regions. So for California, addressing nitrate in drinking water supplies is an opportunity to provide leadership at a time when food and fiber production must nearly double to feed the world by 2050.

The contamination in the Tulare Basin and Salinas Valley has worsened with the increase of synthetic fertilizers and the growth of confined animal feeding operations. Yet, even if we were to completely eliminate the sources of nitrate in groundwater, this region will continue to have a drinking water problem for the next 10 to 30 years, because groundwater moves very slowly from nitrate sources to drinking water wells. There are long-term benefits to reducing those nitrate sources, but fixing the immediate drinking water problem will require significant costs for many years.

Our UC Davis research estimates that roughly 254,000 people in the study area drink water from wells with potential nitrate contamination. This could become a serious public health risk. Nitrate has been linked to infant death, cancer, as well as thyroid and reproductive disorders. State and federal regulations on nitrate in public drinking water systems keep tap water safe for the vast majority of people, but at a financial cost to water users.  Reducing nitrate in the water delivered to consumers could involve drinking water treatment or connecting to cleaner water sources, all of which cost millions of dollars.

Five-year moving average of the percentage of wells for which the average annual measured concentration exceeded 9 mg/L (background), 22.5 mg/L (half of the MCL), and 45 mg/L (MCL) in any given year. Since the 1990s, an increasing number of wells other than public supply wells have been tested. In 2007, Central Valley dairies began testing their domestic and irrigation wells on an annual basis.

Some efforts to reduce nitrate sources can be accomplished at relatively little cost, through improved education, irrigation, and nutrient management changes. But much larger – and costlier – source reductions are needed to stop groundwater degradation.

This UC Davis study was done for the California State Water Resources Control Board, in response to state legislation requiring examination of the sources and costs of handling nitrate contamination in the Tulare Basin and Salinas Valley.  It involved 26 researchers and graduate students, numerous undergraduate students,  28 external reviewers, numerous external scientific and technical discussions, as well as an active Interagency Task Force.

The reports estimate that fixing the small drinking water systems affected will cost $20 million to $36 million each year for several decades.  The reports also outline options for funding these solutions. Options include compensation agreements from nitrate dischargers, a fee on nitrogen fertilizer use, or a water fee.

The various state and county officials who own aspects of this problem would be well served by a coherent state policy on groundwater nitrate contamination. The reports lay out facts, some cost estimates, and the range of options to help elected and appointed officials make informed choices.

Looking forward, state and local officials face three key challenges:

  • The most immediate and unavoidable problem is drinking water. How should California manage these small water systems, and how can the costs of mitigating nitrate contamination be defrayed for these often poor communities?
  • Nitrate discharges to groundwater and the degradation of underground water supplies are a chronic problem. Do the economic benefits of groundwater degradation outweigh the negative effects of degraded groundwater? Will it be cheaper, and better for all, to pay for the treatment of small water systems and preserve agricultural jobs? Would such an approach threaten long-term groundwater salinization from some of the same sources? Who will bear these costs of source reduction?
  • Any solution requires more organized collection and analysis of groundwater data, along with better technical and policy coordination among affected agencies, including the state and regional water boards, county health departments, and the state departments of Public Health, Food and Agriculture and Water Resources.

The cost of addressing the drinking water problem is much less than the value of agriculture in this region. But without a firm state policy, this problem will become harder and more expensive to solve. Reducing the nitrate leaching will slow the rate at which the problem worsens over time, but the drinking water problem must be addressed today.

The entire set of reports, as well as summaries and other material can be found at: http://groundwaternitrate.ucdavis.edu

Posted in California Water, Economy, Nitrate, Planning and Management, Sustainability, Water Supply and Wastewater | Tagged , , , , , ,