Water storage successes, failures, and challenges from Proposition 1

by Jay Lund

A rendering of Sites Reservoir, one of the proposed storage projects under Prop 1. (Source: KVCR)

The California Water Commission recently allocated $2.7 billion from Proposition 1 bonds for eight water storage projects.  Proposition 1 was passed in 2014 to fund a range of projects, including “public purposes” of water storage projects, such as for ecosystem support, flood risk reduction, water quality, recreation, and emergency response.  Among its many funding provisions, both surface and underground water storage projects were eligible, non-storage projects were not eligible, and Proposition 1 could fund no more than 50% of storage project costs.

Proposition 1’s storage provisions were driven by the still-common notion that expanding surface storage is the major way to end water problems. This idea has long myth-directed policy and public discussions.  The competition for Proposition 1 funds indicates that few large surface water storage expansions are cost-effective in California.

Completing all Proposition 1-funded storage projects would increase total surface water storage capacity in California by less than 8 percent, and increase water deliveries by perhaps 1-2 percent, because most of the expanded capacity would refill infrequently.  New storage capacity will be useful, but usually has a low and decreasing incremental value for water users and other beneficiaries. The Proposition 1 water storage program could easily be the last hurrah for major expanded surface water storage in California.

Nevertheless, this process has shown some successes, failures, and challenges for state water infrastructure bonds, and water development in California more generally.

Successes

Remarkably, it took only four years for this bond fund allocation to be made by a nonpartisan independent commission for some fairly large complex projects. The Commission involved insisted effectively that projects be well justified and competitively compared.  When money is being given away, everyone feels worthy to receive, but the Commission seems to have allocated this $2.7 billion to relatively cost-effective and promising water storage projects.  The California Water Commission, long mostly dormant, became an effective institution.

Another major success of the Proposition 1 process is that it brought more creativity to project proposals.  The program brought proposals of many sorts, both surface and groundwater storage, from many parts of the state.  And the commission allocated funds to a diverse set of the most promising projects scattered across California.

The state could have done much worse.  However, it will take years more to complete these projects, and some projects may never be completed.  Building major projects has always been a long road.

Failures

Proposition 1 general revenue bonds are to be repaid with general state tax revenues.  At 5% interest, this $2.7 billion in bonds implies about $135 million/year in decreased state general revenues available for every other state government responsibility, including education and public health, as well as environmental and water management more generally.  Although public benefits will come from these storage projects, in many cases these benefits are likely to be less than the broader public benefits of less-restricted government investments.

A few projects will receive the bulk of these state subsidies.  Beneficiaries include state and local agencies and groups receiving these project’s public benefits.  But because only storage projects were eligible for funding, other non-storage water projects are likely to provide similar public benefits at less expense.

Challenges

Although partial state funding has been secured, projects now must secure substantial water user funding.  Modern water supplies rely on a “portfolio” approach, mixing a diversified water supply system and diverse efforts to reduce water demands.  This approach greatly reduced the costs of the recent drought to urban and agricultural water users.  The partially state-funded storage projects will need to compete with other potential water utility portfolio investments for their remaining funding.

The water storage projects, especially the larger ones, also must work within the limitations of existing water availability, water rights priorities, environmental regulations, and limited conveyance capacities. Most water storage projects will require water right, environmental, and operation agreements with a host of other agencies and interests.  This will be a challenge, but brings possibilities for improving system operation overall, where agreements can be made. Such negotiations are often protracted. Upgrading California’s water system has always been negotiation-intensive (and expensive).  This is probably unavoidable, but does need to be better organized and expedited.

Time will tell if these projects will attract sufficient non-state funding, permits, and coordinating agreements for their completion.  Some will, and probably some won’t.

State infrastructure policy should be concerned with local and regional balancing of supply and demand management based on performance and costs.  Proposition 1 has brought mixed progress overall in this regard, while catering to a common misconception that storage is the major water limitation statewide. Current and future storage expansions should be narrowly targeted to be cost-effective and fit well within the larger system.

Jay Lund is the Director of the Center for Watershed Sciences.

Further reading

Sites bond funding decided this week”, Chico Enterprise-Record, 23 July 2018

California Water Commission, Proposition 1 Water Storage Investment Program: Funding the Public Benefits of Water Storage Projects,

Hanak, E., J. Lund, A. Dinar, B. Gray, R. Howitt, J. Mount, P. Moyle, and B. Thompson, California Water Myths, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, CA, Dec. 2009.

Lund, J., A. Munévar, A. Taghavi, M. Hall and A. Saracino, “Integrating storage in California’s changing water system,” Center for Watershed Sciences, UC Davis, 44 pp., November 2014.

Lund, J.R., J. Medellin-Azuara, J. Durand, and K. Stone, “Lessons from California’s 2012-2016 Drought,” Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, October 2018.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Water Grabs of California, Explained Simply

by Jay Lund

California Water Grabs explained simply 2

Your water use is a “grab” and a “waste.”  My water use is a nab, and a sacred right.  We all see water the same way, mostly, but from different perspectives.

Historically, periods of progress in water management occur when enough people rise above such motivational rhetoric and struggle for workable solutions.

Further reading

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.

Kelley, R. 1998. Battling the Inland Sea. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Pisani, D. 1984. From the Family Farm to Agribusiness: The Irrigation Crusade in California, 1850–1931. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Jay Lund is a Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California – Davis. 

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Science, the Delta, and the future of San Joaquin salmon

by Peter B. Moyle

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Image credit: Carson Jeffres

I feel fortunate to be a biologist in an era and place, California, where science matters.  Routine scientific studies rarely make headlines but they are relied on by decision makers because they reduce uncertainty, bit by bit.   This seems to be true nationwide as well, except in the highest levels of the federal government.  There, scientific findings on such subjects as climate change, evolution of disease organisms, and the importance of ecosystems to human health can be discarded because they contradict traditional ignorance (“gut feelings”) or because they are somehow part of some mystical conspiracy (“deep state”).   I therefore think it is worthwhile to give an example of how typical scientific studies, even studies from outside the state, provide important information that can benefit all of us in California.

The example comes from reading the latest issue of the North American Journal of Fisheries Management (NAJFM).  This is a journal that publishes scientific studies related to managing fisheries, mainly in North America. The articles are by scientists from academia, government agencies, and the private sector, and are published only if they have survived critiques by other scientists, via the peer-review process.  The journal is published by the American Fisheries Society, one of the oldest scientific societies in the USA.  This is not a high-prestige journal for scientists, based on the citation rates of its articles in papers in other scientific journals.  Nevertheless, this respected journal publishes strong studies relevant to resource managers.  In other words, this is a journal for scientists who want to influence what goes on in the real world, rather than just impress colleagues.

Here I describe 5 (of 24) articles from the June 2018 issue of the journal, providing them with headlines as if their results attracted a lot of attention.  The full citations to the articles are provided at the end of this blog. I must admit I chose this issue because I thought the article by Buchanan et al. (2018, #1 below) was particularly important and because another article was on delta smelt.  But I was struck by the relevance of all five articles to our region.

  1. Flows do not improve San Joaquin salmon survival but salvage does.

This is an exhaustive study on factors influencing the survival of juvenile Chinook salmon in the San Joaquin River, its tributaries, and Delta, using acoustic tags.  The authors are very careful in their conclusions. The study nevertheless shows that juvenile Chinook from the San Joaquin region are not surviving passage through the south Delta and that increased flows are not likely to increase their survival.  Highest survival is for juveniles that are salvaged at the State Water Project pumping plant, because they avoid going through the Delta by being trucked past it. Large-scale improvement of habitat in the south and central Delta is likely the key to improved survival, as shown by higher survival rates of fish from the Sacramento River that pass through the north Delta.

  1. Hatchery delta smelt look different from wild delta smelt.

This study shows that individual delta smelt from the captive breeding program can be recognized by black dots (known as chromatophore patterns) on the chin. If introduced into the wild, they presumably can be distinguished from adult wild smelt when captured, without resorting to tags.  This study is part of the desperate effort to prevent the extinction of delta smelt, which will likely involve introducing hatchery smelt into the wild.  One of the concerns is that sampling programs trying to determine the status of wild smelt would not be able to distinguish wild from hatchery smelt.

  1. Game fish do not eat Atlantic salmon in a New Brunswick river

Native striped bass and non-native muskellunge are favorite game fishes in a New Brunswick river.  They have been accused of preying on Atlantic salmon juveniles and causing the decline of salmon runs in the river. Both species were found not to prey on salmon.  Similar accusations fly around about striped bass and other predators being the major cause of Chinook salmon decline in central California.

  1. Striped bass decline is caused by the fishery for large individuals.

Striped bass populations on the Atlantic Coast have generally recovered to historic abundances thanks to reductions in pollution and improved management. An exception has been the population in the Neuse River estuary in North Carolina.  This paper, using diverse models, examined possible causes of decline and concluded that the main cause was removal of most of the larger individuals by anglers. The largest and oldest fish are typically females, which produce the most and healthiest eggs. This suggests that problems with large females may be contributing to the decline of striped bass in the San Francisco Estuary.

  1. Effects of predator control on native fish is unproven but continues anyway.

This paper reports results of a program to remove large channel catfish from the San Juan River (southwestern USA), to enhance native fish populations. The program did not cause a collapse of the catfish population, as had been hoped, but did alter the size structure of the population, increasing the proportion of smaller individuals.  Effects on native fishes could not be determined, nor could any unintended consequences. “Non-native fish removal….has continued under the guise of beneficial effects to native fishes and in the absence of other available management actions for reducing threat to native fishes… (Pennock et al. 2018, p 576).”

What does this admittedly biased and limited sample of studies tell us?  First, the problems of saving native species, including harvested species, are found throughout North America and are a major concern of fisheries managers. Each region, of course, has its own distinctive problems and solutions. California is not alone in our efforts to save native fishes; we just have especially big battles to fight. But we can benefit from what has been learned elsewhere (e.g. causes of striped bass decline as in #4 above).

Second, causes of decline are diverse and vary from region to region. Predation by non-native species comes up repeatedly as a possible cause, but it often winds up being discounted after intensive study.  As is true in California, predation is most likely to be a problem in highly altered habitats that make native fishes (such as Chinook salmon) especially vulnerable to predation.

Third, scientific papers and their conclusions are tied to a long history of other studies, which usually (but not always) support the study that cites them.  This is not surprising considering that each paper cites an average of 37 other papers in a chain that goes back to Charles Darwin and beyond.  Each of the five papers cited here was based on studies that first had to be approved for funding, often by a committee of peers, as valid and useful. After the data collection and analysis is done, drafts of the paper are typically discussed and modified by the coauthors. The five papers cited here average 5 coauthors, with a range of 3-10.  The approved draft is then sent to a journal for review. If the journal editor agrees it is suitable, it is sent out for peer review by 2-3 scientists familiar with the field. If the reviews are positive (including “major revision required”) and the editor agrees with the reviews, the paper is revised, resubmitted, and eventually published.  I describe this process to emphasize peer-reviewed scientific papers are generally reliable sources of information. There are always exceptions, of course, but they are rare and problem papers are often ‘caught’ once they are read by the scientific community.

Despite the rigorous process just described, scientists are remarkably cautious about drawing conclusions from their data, except, of course, “more research is needed.”  Yet their conclusions are often the most important part of the paper because they represent the opinions of scientists who have been deeply involved in the research and have a good idea of what it all means, or should mean.  A good example can be seen in the San Joaquin Delta (SJD) study by Buchanan et al. (#1, above).

The SJD study was important because (1) fall-run Chinook salmon are the major support of sport and commercial fisheries for salmon; (2) the San Joaquin River and its tributaries are the focus of restoration efforts to increase Chinook salmon numbers; (3) the State Water Resources Control Board is currently examining the potential of increasing flow releases down the San Joaquin, Tuolumne, Merced, and Stanislaus rivers to benefit salmon; and (4) the results are applicable to spring-run and winter-run Chinook, both listed under state and federal endangered species acts.  The basic questions being asked are: How well do juvenile salmon from the San Joaquin watershed survive passage through Delta? What are the implications of the findings for salmon and water management?

The SJD study was a huge undertaking, involving surgically implanting over 9,000 acoustic telemetry tags in juvenile fall run Chinook salmon over a six-year period (2010-2015).  The fish, all of hatchery origin, were released into the San Joaquin River above the Delta and their movements were tracked by their passage past 12 stations with receivers to detect signals emanating from the tagged fish.  The movement of the few surviving fish through the Delta took 1-11 days for the 92 km-long principal route.  Alternate routes were also available, including via the pumping plant of the State Water Project, where fish are trapped, trucked, and released below the Delta.

The basic results showed such low survival of salmon passing through the Delta that returning adults would be too few to sustain the salmon populations in the San Joaquin basin.  The study indicates that the lack of decent habitat for juvenile salmon in the Delta means that most are picked off by predators (as shown in part by tagged fish moving in the wrong direction because the tags are in the stomachs of predators).   Essentially, fall-run Chinook populations in the San Joaquin basin are being sustained by straying hatchery fish from the Sacramento River system.

I suspect the cautious wording of the scientists will annoy non-scientists trying to read the paper.  For example:  “Thus, the low survival estimates observed in the acoustic-telemetry studies may be considered to represent the Delta survival of the smolt-sized migrant component of the natural-spawned population, to the extent to which hatchery fish may represent natural fish (p. 675)”.   This statement says that despite the huge and well-considered nature of the study, we will never have complete certainty of its meaning.  Nevertheless, the findings strongly point to conclusions that survival of salmon in the south and central Delta is extremely low. This in turn implies that massive habitat restoration is required to improve survival.  Without improving habitat, just increasing flows through the region is unlikely to have much effect on salmon survival.

The moral of this story is that scientists can provide answers to complex questions, but the answers may not be what managers want to hear.  For the SJD study, perhaps the real question is: How badly do we want to restore self-sustaining salmon runs to the San Joaquin and its tributaries? This question has to be asked in the context of future scenarios of climate change with increasingly variable conditions and likely permanent flooding of Delta islands.  What the science provides is the basis for developing realistic management alternatives, as shown by close reading of studies such as those presented here.

Peter Moyle is Distinguished Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Davis and is Associate Director of the Center for Watershed Sciences.

Further reading

  1. Buchanan, R. A., Brandes, P. L. and Skalski, J. R. (2018), Survival of juvenile Fall‐Run Chinook Salmon through the San Joaquin River Delta, California, 2010–2015. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 38: 663-679. doi:10.1002/nafm.10063
  1. Castillo, G. C., Sandford, M. E., Hung, T. , Tigan, G. , Lindberg, J. C., Yang, W. and Van Nieuwenhuyse, E. E. (2018), Using natural marks to identify individual cultured adult Delta Smelt. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 38: 698-705. doi:10.1002/nafm.10066
  1. Andrews, S. N., Zelman, K. , Ellis, T. , Linnansaari, T. and Curry, R. A. (2018), Diet of Striped Bass and Muskellunge downstream of a large hydroelectric dam: a preliminary investigation into suspected Atlantic Salmon smolt predation. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8: 734-746. doi:10.1002/nafm.10074
  1. Bradley, C. E., Rice, J. A. and Aday, D. D. (2018), Modeling the effects of vital rate manipulation and management scenarios to predict the population impact of restoration programs on an unrecovered coastal population of Striped Bass. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 38: 639-649. doi:10.1002/nafm.10062
  1. Pennock, C. A., Durst, S. L., Duran, B. R., Hines, B. A., Cathcart, C. N., Davis, J. E., Schleicher, B. J. and Franssen, N. R. (2018), Predicted and observed responses of a nonnative Channel Catfish population following managed removal to aid the recovery of endangered fishes. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 38: 565-578. doi:10.1002/nafm.10056
Posted in Biology, California Water, Fish, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, San Joaquin River | Tagged | 4 Comments

Fish managers tasked with ranching? Conservation wins

by Ann Willis

The Shasta River shares the landscape with grazing cattle. (Photo credit: Carson Jeffres)

In May, the Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB) approved $2.4M for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to acquire Shasta Big Springs Ranch on the Shasta River, a tributary to the Klamath River.  This follows a 2010 state award of $10M to purchase the existing easement and control over water rights on the property. The WCB made the final acquisition funding contingent on a commitment by CDFW to continue cattle grazing on the property, which is seen as a linchpin to broader recovery of the lower Klamath watershed’s cold-water ecosystem, including federally and state-listed threatened coho salmon.

Such agricultural mandates on critical conservation resources seem counter-intuitive. Rather, such strategies are necessary for large-scale ecosystem recovery and sustainability.

Protecting areas with functions critical to vulnerable ecosystems are important in conservation. In California, disappearing cold-water habitat is a major threat to native salmonid species, including coho salmon. The Shasta Big Springs Ranch contains the largest and most stable source of cold-water habitat in the entire lower Klamath Basin.

Coho salmon are listed as threatened by the U.S. and California. (Photo credit: Carson Jeffres)

So why would the state’s Wildlife Conservation Board require keeping the surrounding lands, owned by a wildlife agency with a mandate for wildlife conservation, in  agricultural production?

The “reserve-and-preserve” model is  rapidly becoming a disconnected and less effective patchwork of habitats. Moving beyond this approach requires us to conserve lands and waterways far beyond what we can protect through the public acquisition and decommissioning of agricultural lands.

In the U.S., 85% of federally listed endangered species occur on private lands. Private agricultural land is over 50% of all land in the U.S.; in the Shasta River watershed, where the Shasta Big Springs Ranch is located, private agricultural lands account for 80%. Private properties include almost all the major waterways, cold-water springs, and high-value habitat in the watershed. Just as diversification is needed in financial portfolios, so it is to a species survival portfolio. To create a diverse network of spawning, rearing, and migratory waterways for protected species, private landowners’ participation is needed.

Private land includes most of the waterways in the Shasta and Scott watersheds, two critical tributaries for coho recovery. (Source: The Nature Conservancy)

Persuading landowners to forego agriculture for conservation objectives is difficult when the only example is total land use conversion. Without the WCB’s condition to maintain ranching, Shasta Big Springs Ranch would be such an example. When communities support taking sensitive habitat out of farming via public acquisition, important habitat can be protected. But top-down approaches that convert private land to public nature preserves often have negative repercussions that limit larger-scale restoration.  Such strategies may instead hurt conservation by entrenching a culture of conflict between fish and farms and stoke mistrust between landowners and agencies.

When The Nature Conservancy (TNC) acquired Shasta Big Springs Ranch from a private owner in 2009, it aspired to make SBSR a model working ranch compatible with conservation objectives. With willing partners from nearby Prather Ranch who shared the project’s vision, TNC achieved its goal and demonstrated how ranching could coexist with a robust aquatic ecosystem.

That example encouraged other private landowners, not interested in converting their land to a public preserve, to consider how they might change their land and water management to encourage conservation. This has resulted in numerous conservation successes, including voluntary instream flow dedications, seasonal water transactions, and the first Safe Harbor Agreement between a federal agency and a single private landowner. Most importantly, TNC’s approach resulted in the rapid recovery and sustainability of over 10 miles of highly valuable cold-water habitat.

The WCB vote is notable because the original CDFW staff proposal was to manage the property for wildlife and wildlife-oriented recreational activities. In an op-ed to the local community, CDFW Director Bonham wrote, “Should the Wildlife Conservation Board choose to approve the acquisition, CDFW will manage the property as a state wildlife area,” but would remain “open to leasing this property for dryland grazing in the future.” WCB’s decision to require ranching land use as a part of CDFW’s property management shows a keen understanding of the larger-scale efforts, and strategies to achieve them, that are required for successful conservation.  Pure specialization of land as only for wildlife or only for agriculture, is not always the best solution for either interest.

WCB set its August meeting as the deadline for CDFW to develop its management plan incorporating ranching into Shasta Big Springs Ranch. Currently, there are no items on the agenda to review that issue.  There should be. Agencies need support in real financial terms, as WCB has done. They need support from public opinion, too, when agreements such as the proposed strategy for SBSR are made. Acknowledging the vital role of promoting compatible private land conservation, will be our most effective step to achieve ecological conservation while preserving our human communities, too.

Ann Willis is a research engineer at the Center for Watershed Sciences and PhD student in Civil and Environmental Engineering. Her work focuses on water management on private lands for large-scale conservation.

Further reading

Siskiyou Daily News. 2018. Guest opinion: CDFW’s purchase of Shasta Big Springs Ranch.

WCB. 2018. May 2018 final agenda.

WCB. 2018. August 2018 preliminary agenda.

Lusardi et al. 2017. The Future of California’s Unique Salmon and Trout: Good News, Bad News. California WaterBlog.

Willis et al. 2015. A salmon success story during the California drought. California WaterBlog.

Willis et al. 2017. The Little Shasta River: A model for sustaining our national heritage. California WaterBlog.

Rosenzweig, M. 2014. Tactics for Conserving Diversity (video). UC Davis Winter Water Policy Seminar Series.

Posted in Agriculture, Conservation, Planning and Management, reconciliation, Sustainability | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Killing Native Fishes for Fun and Predator Control

by Teejay A. O’Rear, John R. Durand, and Peter B. Moyle

A hardhead on the North Fork American River.

A recent posting of a short film on a 2017 fishing derby (FISHBIO 2018a) is disturbing to those of us interested in conserving our native fishes.  The film glorifies killing Sacramento pikeminnow and hardhead for reducing predation on juvenile Chinook salmon and for attracting more people to sport-fishing.  The idea is for anglers, from senior citizens to kids, to catch and kill as many pikeminnow and hardhead as possible for prizes.  On derby day in 2017, 638 fish were killed, some appearing to weigh more than four pounds.  The big fish were likely 15-20 years old.

Supposedly, removing these fish as predators will increase the number of adult salmon returning to spawn a few years later. In fact, little scientific evidence exists to support the notion that hardhead and pikeminnow affect numbers of returning adult salmon.

The sponsor referenced the bounty program instituted on the Columbia River for northern pikeminnow (a related but different species than Sacramento pikeminnow), implying that a similar program may have similar benefits in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Watershed.  The Columbia River consists of a series of hydropower dams along the mainstem river and major tributaries, creating a series of slow-flowing reservoirs through which salmon have to migrate and within which most predation of northern pikeminnow on salmon is concentrated (Vigg et al. 1991).  These Columbia River reservoirs differ considerably from tailwater rivers where Sacramento pikeminnow and hardhead in the video were targeted.

The Columbia River bounty program is notable because it was instituted after considerable research (e.g., Poe et al. 1991, Vigg et al. 1991) that examined metabolic rates of predators, predator diets, predator abundances, habitat types, and daily/seasonal predation rates.  The research suggested that reducing northern pikeminnow numbers could improve salmon survival.  No such research has been performed for Sacramento pikeminnow or hardhead in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Watershed.

The lower American River is one area where hardhead and pikeminnow reside.

Hardhead have jaws deep in the throat with big, flat teeth (like human molars) used for grinding up hard-shelled prey such as crayfish.   While pikeminnow may feed on naïve hatchery-released salmon until full, their slow digestive rate (Vondracek 1987) indicates the population effect is likely small, even when hundreds of pikeminnow are present.   The account of the derby states Sacramento pikeminnow are known for “disturbing salmon redds to scavenge for eggs.”  In fact, the pikeminnow mainly consume eggs that failed to get buried, eggs doomed in any case. Of course, steelhead/rainbow trout do the same thing (e.g., Johnston 2018) but they are not castigated for such “bad behavior,” being game fishes.

Various studies demonstrate the futility of Sacramento pikeminnow and hardhead control.  Females of both species, even relatively small ones, produce thousands of eggs, so a few individuals can restore a population quickly.  In the 1980s, a UC Davis team evaluated an effort to eradicate pikeminnows, hardhead, suckers, and other native fishes from the North Fork Feather River, which were thought to compete with trout.  The California Department of Fish and Game (as it was then) killed 99.9% of the fish with a poison, an effort repeated previously at about 10-year intervals. Examination of the ages of the dead fish showed that most large individuals were spawned a year or two after the previous poisoning operation (Moyle et al. 1983).

Clearly, the few fish that survived the operation had banner reproduction in the following years.  A saying goes that “Nature abhors a vacuum,” which this illustrates well.  Likewise, in a reach of the Mokelumne River, all predatory fish were removed by electroshocking, but predator numbers tripled after two weeks due to new predators moving into the vacant space (Cavallo et al. 2013, Grossman 2016).  In the Columbia River, the northern pikeminnow removal co-occurred with increased numbers of Caspian Terns, Double-crested Cormorants, and marine mammals, all of which consume high numbers of salmon (Carey et al. 2012).

The lower Yuba River, another area where pikeminnow reside.

As discussed in a previous blog about striped bass predation (Moyle et al. 2016), top predators such as Sacramento pikeminnows can potentially help salmon populations by consuming other predators and competitors, including their own young (Brown and Moyle 1981).  Ironically, the derby sponsor’s website contains an earlier report (FISHBIO 2018b) on attempts to control numbers of the invasive green crab, which resulted in an increase in the population.  Control was focused on removing large adult crabs, to reduce reproduction. However, the major factor limiting survival of juvenile crabs was abundance of adults, which were highly cannibalistic. Simplistic solutions to complex problems rarely work!

The website claims the derby educates people about the harm done by predatory fish to salmon.  However, the main area in the Sacramento Valley where pikeminnow predation has been seriously considered a problem was at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam, which created near-optimal conditions fish and bird predation on salmon (Vondracek et al. 1991). The problem was largely resolved once the diversion dam’s gates were left open during salmon emigration (Moyle 2002). Many other studies, such as Sabal et al. (2016), have also noted that artificial structures enhance predation.

Predation is a two-partner relationship.  Salmon and steelhead in the Central Valley are largely hatchery-supported, with little genetic difference between wild and hatchery-produced fish (Pearse and Garza 2015, Satterthwaite and Carlson 2015).  Effects of hatcheries on genes can be profound, and one of the most common effects of hatcheries is reduction of predator-avoidance behaviors (Berejikian 1995).   Hatcheries also create naïve fish by spraying food pellets onto the water surface of concrete-lined raceways crowded with fish. When released into rivers, these domesticated juveniles become easy prey as they encounter myriad water-diversion structures that concentrate and disorient them on their way to the ocean. Minimizing hatchery influences and redesigning water-control structures would better improve juvenile survival. Using predation as an excuse to indiscriminately kill native fishes and not take other major actions is shameful.

The foothill yellow-legged frog, a Species of Special Concern, commonly occur with hardhead as part of the native community.

The goal of killing large numbers of Sacramento pikeminnow and hardhead implies that these fishes are of little value.  But Sacramento pikeminnow and hardhead are native fishes restricted to northern and central California, part of the native biotic community that California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) Ecosystem Restoration Program (CDFW 2018) seeks to restore.  Further, hardhead are a California Species of Special Concern because of their long-term decline in numbers (Moyle et al. 2015).  Hardhead and large pikeminnow are good game fish, and anglers who catch them when fishing for other species are often surprised at their sporting qualities.  Properly prepared, both species can be good eating as well; scaling, filleting, scoring the fillets to cut through the intermuscular bones, then breading and frying gives tasty fish nuggets (Buffler and Dickson 1990).

The website states that one of the derby’s goals was to get more people fishing – sport-fishing – because fewer people are sport-fishing in California these days.  Implicit in the definition of sport-fishing is fair chase and restraint from killing unnecessarily.  With no evidence of Sacramento pikeminnow or hardhead harming salmon or steelhead populations in the Central Valley, coupled with hardhead’s conservation status, the killing of hardhead and pikeminnow in their native watershed appears to be highly antithetical to the spirit of sport-fishing.

We – anglers and conservationists – find the justifications for the derby lacking in evidence, overly selective and simplistic, and degrading to the spirit of sport-fishing.  Rather than killing any species found with a few salmon in their guts, a more productive approach is to create a better ecosystem for salmon.  Such a holistic approach – for example, using rice fields and duck ponds for growing fish food, increasing winter and spring river flows, restoring tides to Delta islands – promises benefits to not only salmon but also other native species, including hardhead and Sacramento pikeminnow. As remnants of wild, native California, a much better place for hardhead and Sacramento pikeminnow is swimming freely in their home rivers, rather than in a dog-food bowl or flowerbed.

Teejay O’Rear is a fish ecologist at the Center for Watershed Sciences and lab supervisor for Dr. Peter Moyle. His research interests include the application of the reconciliation-ecology concept in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Watershed, with a particular focus on non-mainstem and/or generally ignored habitats (e.g., managed wetlands, water-supply reservoirs, agricultural ditches, and dead-end sloughs) that may benefit both native and desirable non-native species – including people. John Durand is a researcher specializing in estuarine ecology and restoration at the Center for Watershed Sciences. Peter B. Moyle is a UC Davis Professor Emeritus of fish biology and an associate director of the Center for Watershed Sciences.

References

Berejikian, B. A.  1995.  The effects of hatchery and wild ancestry and experience on the relative ability of steelhead trout fry (Oncorhynchus mykiss) to avoid a predator.  Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52(11):2476-2482.

Brown, L.R. and P. B. Moyle. 1981. The impact of squawfish on salmonid populations: a review. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 1:104-111

Buffler, R., and T. Dickson.  1990.  Fishing for Buffalo.  Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Carey, M.P., B. L. Sanderson., K. A. Barnas, and J. D. Olden. 2012. Native invaders–challenges for science, management, policy, and society. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10: 373-381.

Cavallo, B., J. Merz, and J. Setka, 2013. Effects of predator and flow manipulation on Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) survival in an imperiled estuary. Environmental Biology of Fishes 96: 393-403.

CDFW.  2018.  Ecosystem Restoration Program.  CDFW.  July 25, 2018.

FISHBIO.  2018aFishing for pikeminnow: a native predator removal derby.  The Fish Report. July 10, 2018.

FISHBIO.  2018bCrab wars: the invasive European green crab.  The Fish Report. July 22, 2018.

Grossman, G.D. 2016. Predation on fishes in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta: current knowledge and future directions. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 14(2).

Johnston, R.  2018.  Rivers: the lower Sacramento River and the Feather River.  RJ’s Fly Trips.  July 31, 2018.

Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. Berkeley: UC Press.

Moyle, P.B., R. M. Quiñones, J.V.E. Katz, and J. Weaver. 2015.  Fish Species of Special Concern in California.  3rd edition.  Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Moyle, P., A. Sih, A. Steel, C. Jeffres, and W. Bennett.  2016.  Understanding predation impacts on Delta native fishes.  California WaterBlog.  July 25, 2018.

Moyle, P. B., B. Vondracek, and G. D. Grossman.  1983.  Responses of fish populations in the North Fork of the Feather River, California, to treatments with fish toxicants.  North American Journal of Fisheries Management 3:48-60.

Pearse, D. E., and J. C. Garza.  2015.  You can’t unscramble an egg: population genetic structure of Oncorhynchus mykiss in the California Central Valley inferred from combined microsatellite and single nucleotide polymorphism data.  San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science: 13 (4).

Poe, T.P., H. C. Hansel, S. Vigg, D. E. Palmer, and L.A. Prendergast. 1991. Feeding of predaceous fishes on out‐migrating juvenile salmonids in John Day Reservoir, Columbia River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120: 405-420

Sabal, M., S. Hayes, J. Merz, and J. Setka. 2016. Habitat alterations and a nonnative predator, the Striped Bass, increase native Chinook Salmon mortality in the Central Valley, California. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 36: 309-320.

Satterthwaite, W. H., and S. M. Carlson.  2015.  Weakening portfolio effect strength in a hatchery-supplemented Chinook salmon population complex.  Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 72: 1860-1875.

Vigg, S., T. P. Poe, L. A. Prendergast, and H. C. Hansel. 1991. Rates of consumption of juvenile salmonids and alternative prey fish by northern squawfish, walleyes, smallmouth bass, and channel catfish in John Day Reservoir, Columbia River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120:421-438.

Vondracek, B. 1987. Digestion rates and gastric evacuation times in relation to temperature of the Sacramento squawfish, Ptychocheilus grandis. Fishery Bulletin 85(1):159-63.

Vondracek B, S. R. Hanson, and P. B. Moyle. 1991. Sacramento squawfish predation on Chinook salmon below a diversion dam on the Sacramento River. Unpublished manuscript files.

Posted in Conservation, Fish, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta | Tagged , , , | 10 Comments

Groundwater exchange pools in Los Angeles: An innovative example of adaptive management

by Erik Porse, Kathryn Mika, Stephanie Pincetl, Mark Gold, and William Blomquist

Major groundwater basins in metropolitan Los Angeles. Most of the groundwater basins are adjudicated.

Across California, Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) are devising plans to reduce long-term overdraft. As part of the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, GSAs will submit plans in 2020-2022, which detail strategies to bring groundwater use into balance by 2040. Planning processes must assemble stakeholders and estimate sustainable yields of groundwater, quantify existing pumping, describe future options to limit overdraft, and identify funding. GSAs are actively searching for ways to stretch limited supplies and sustainably use the underground storage space created by decades of overdraft, drawing on lessons of previous regional agreements.

In one part of Los Angeles County (a region whose groundwater basins are mostly adjudicated, in contrast with most other parts of the state), an innovative approach has established a community exchange pool where parties can store and purchase water. The arrangement, which allows pumpers such as water districts and municipal utilities to newly store water in the emptied aquifers, was incorporated into a 2013 re-adjudication of the groundwater management agreement, now managed by the Water Replenishment District of Southern California. The new arrangement presents intriguing questions. For instance, what is the potential for groundwater storage and exchange pools to help meet regional goals of water supply planning in L.A.?

The Central and West Coast Basin territories managed by WRD, where an exchange pool was instituted by the 2013 re-adjudication (Source: WRD)

In a recently-published study, we modeled potential operations of groundwater exchange pools across the L.A. County metro area and its adjudicated basins and sub-basins. Results indicated that, if used, storage and exchange pools have significant potential to promote long-term water supply reliability, including mitigating potential effects of water scarcity from reduced imports. Combined with water conservation, exchanging groundwater among retailers could reduce water shortages by as much as 80%. To accomplish this, pumpers with excess water store it for later use, or transfer it to other parties with supply shortfalls. Storage pool operations were seasonal, with more groundwater banking taking place during winter months and more extractions occurring in late summer.

The rules that organize such arrangements are critical. Accessibility to exchange pools is an important driver of their success. L.A.’s regional groundwater adjudications specify pumping rights among parties. These allocations occurred decades ago, and not all communities and agencies have pumping rights. This inhibits capacity to deal with water scarcity and reduces economic incentives for building enhanced stormwater capture infrastructure that augments groundwater supplies, which is a useful economic benefit to quantify in paying for new infrastructure. Opening up access to groundwater basins, and exchange pool arrangements, by adjusting pumping rights and/or making storage and transfers more widely available could enhance reliability across retailers.

Additionally, a distinction exists between rights to pump groundwater vs rights to store groundwater. Groundwater is one type of Common Pool Resource (CPR) and L.A. basins were seminal examples in the development of contemporary theories of CPR management. In California today, groundwater management agreements might treat the Common Pool Resources of groundwater supply and groundwater storage as either separate or joint. For instance, if only existing pumpers in a basin can access the storage capacity, storage and supply are managed jointly. Alternatively, if other parties without pumping rights in a basin could access its storage capacity, the CPRs would be managed separately.

Modeling results showed that this distinction is important. Managing access pumping and storage to exchange pools separately allows for greater reductions in regional shortages as compared to allotting rights for pumping and storage in exchange pools to only existing pumpers. This occurs because communities and agencies without current access to groundwater rights are more vulnerable to imported water cutbacks. Broadening access to storage facilitates broader reliability.

The modeling included a few assumptions for the storage pool operations. For instance, it assumed water retailers would meet demand reduction targets before offering water to exchanges, and also allowed pumpers to extract more than their regular allocations.  We also did not account for how water would be recharged into the groundwater basins, or the economic costs of implementing the exchange pools.  Clearly all of those issues would have to be addressed for exchange pools to be established broadly across a groundwater management area, but the modeling results were sufficient to suggest that such institutional reforms are worth taking seriously.

The organization of exchange pools also involves both philosophical and policy debates. Generally, exchanges of groundwater can occur as bilateral transfers between two parties, regulated contributions to storage pools based on allotted rights, market-driven exchanges where parties buy and sell water, or other schemes. Market-driven exchanges can effectively move water from areas of excess to areas of economic demand. But, markets do not necessarily address issues of equity and access. For instance, small, undercapitalized retailers in L.A. that would benefit from additional sources of water supply may not actually have funds or authority to participate in exchange pools, let alone fix their existing systems. Moreover, bilateral transfers may not adequately protect other important groundwater basin interests and values – where and how water is stored, and when and how it is withdrawn, can impact other basin users and the overlying lands and structures. As a critical resource supporting health and safety needs, groundwater basins must also be managed to incorporate state policies for water as a human right.  These should all be complimentary goals in organizing flexible groundwater management agreements.  For these and other reasons, relying on just one design for exchange pools will likely fail to achieve regional water supply reliability and equity goals.  What can be said with confidence is that for groundwater exchange pools to realize their potential, “storage management” will have to become an essential element in groundwater management.

As California groundwater users develop groundwater sustainability plans, flexible and adaptive agreements will be critical. Regional agencies are poised to be innovators. The groundwater basin adjudications of L.A. are unique historic, but evolving, examples of court-approved pacts that lay out the conditions for adaptive management, both between years and over time. Exchange pools can be a useful contribution in promoting management flexibility.

Erik Porse is a Research Engineer in the Office of Water Programs at CSU-Sacramento and a Visiting Assistant Researcher at UCLA. Bill Blomquist is a Professor of Political Science at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) in Indianapolis, Indiana.  His areas of research are water resource management, institutions, and the policy making process. Stephanie Pincetl is the Director of the California Center for Sustainable Communities and a Professor-in-Residence at the UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability. Katie Mika was a postdoctoral scholar at the UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability and authored reports for the LA Sustainable Water Project. Mark Gold is associate vice chancellor for Environment and Sustainability at UCLA and heads UCLA’s Sustainable LA Grand Challenge.

Further Reading

Blomquist, William A. 1992. Dividing the Waters : Governing Groundwater in Southern California. San Francisco, Calif.; Lanham, Md.: ICS Press.

Central Basin/West Coast Basin Amended Judgment. 2013. Central and West Basin Water Replenishment District v. Charles E. Adams et al: Third Amended Judgment. Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County.

Kiparsky, Michael, Andrew T. Fisher, W. Michael Hanemann, John Bowie, Rose Kantor, Chris Coburn, and Brian Lockwood. “Recharge Net Metering To Enhance Groundwater Sustainability.” (2018).

Langridge, Ruth. Evaluating California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins in the SGMA Era. California Water Blog. October 23, 2016.

Langridge, Ruth, Abagail Brown, Kirsten Rudestam, and Esther Conrad. 2015. An Evaluatoin of California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins. University of California, Santa Cruz.

Ostrom, Elinor. 1965. “Public Entrepreneurship: A Case Study in Ground Water Basin Management.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles.

Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons : The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Porse, Erik, Madelyn Glickfeld, Keith Mertan, and Stephanie Pincetl. 2015. “Pumping for the Masses: Evolution of Groundwater Management in Metropolitan Los Angeles.” GeoJournal, August.

Porse, Erik, Kathryn B. Mika, Mark Gold, Stephanie Pincetl, and William A Blomquist. 2018. “Groundwater Exchange Pools and Urban Water Supply Sustainability.” Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 144 (3).

Schlager, Edella, William Blomquist, and Shui Yan Tang. 1994. “Mobile Flows, Storage, and Self-Organized Institutions for Governing Common-Pool Resources.” Land Economics 70 (3): 294.

Water Replenishment District of Southern California. 2015. Groundwater Basins Master Plan: Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. ESA/120192. Los Angeles, CA.

Posted in California Water, Groundwater, urban water | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Indirect Environmental Benefits of Cannabis Cultivation Regulation

by Kathleen Stone

Marijuana plants for harvest inside a growing room. (Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times)

The external pressures for cannabis cultivation and the immediate need for water use regulation may provide opportunities for broader, long-sought environmental objectives in California. Specifically, legislation and state programs regulating water use for cannabis cultivation could produce collateral benefits for environmental instream flow and water quality management in general.

The Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act included several state laws from 2015 and 2016. Of these, Assembly Bill 243 (AB 243) and Senate Bill (SB 837), passed in October 2015 and June 2016, respectively, include several provisions for regulating water use for cannabis cultivation (CDFA 2016).

AB 243 established responsibilities for state agencies to regulate the impact of medical marijuana cultivation on the environment (CA State Legislature 2015). The bill called for several agencies, including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), to reduce the effects of cultivation on the environment and required the SWRCB to regulate marijuana cultivation water use and waste discharge (CA State Legislature 2015). The bill also has the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) administer a cultivation licensing system (CA State Legislature 2015). These state agencies would coordinate with local agencies to enforce environmental cultivation regulations (CA State Legislature 2015). SB 837 required the CDFW and SWRCB to further develop water diversion and use standards for cannabis cultivation (CA State Legislature 2016). The bill also requires that cultivators specify water diversion sources and report diversion amounts to the SWRCB at least annually.

This previous legislation was adopted into the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act, enacted as Senate Bill 94 (SB 94) in June 2017 (CA State Legislature 2017). This bill increased regulatory authority for state agencies in permitting and required cultivators to report additional cultivation specifications.

With these laws, several state agencies were tasked with developing programs and policies to regulate and enforce cultivation water use. Table 1 summarizes the main state agencies involved in developing regulation and the primary purpose of each policy and program.

Table 1. State Agencies Involved in Regulating Cannabis Water Use

The SWRCB, working with the CDFA and CDFW, developed the Cannabis Cultivation Policy: Principles and Guidelines for Cannabis Cultivation, released in October 2017 (SWRCB 2017). This policy outlines regulatory jurisdictions for state agencies regarding water quality, waste discharge, groundwater use, instream flow, monitoring, licensing, and enforcement requirements for cannabis cultivation (Carah et al. 2018; SWRCB 2017). An exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allowed timely development of statewide instream flow requirements (Carah et al. 2018; SWRCB 2017). The policy establishes fourteen regional boundaries for cultivation water use regulation and identifies nine priority regions with sensitive salmon migration habitats, shown in Figure 1 (SWRCB 2017).

Figure 1. Cannabis Cultivation Regulation Regional Boundaries (SWRCB 2017)

The immediate need for cultivation regulation and the development of these state agency programs, which call for environmentally focused regulations of water quality and flows, has provided an opportunity to expedite long-sought environmental objectives and flow regulations for streams affected by cannabis production, and perhaps environmental flow management in general. Progress on environmental flow management often seems slow or stalemated in California. External pressures for cannabis cultivation and its regulation could bring broader progress and precedence on instream flow and water quality management.

Water policy often moves in mysterious ways. External forces sometimes are needed to innovate over the status quo. Just as a drought was needed to finally bring groundwater management to California, perhaps marijuana is needed to bring more effective environmental management to California’s streams.

Kathleen Stone is a M.S. graduate student in Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of California, Davis. Her research focuses on quantifying the economic tradeoffs of groundwater policy alternatives.

Further Reading

Bauer, Scott, et al. 2015. Impacts of Surface Water Diversions for Marijuana Cultivation on Aquatic Habitat in Four Northwestern California Watersheds.

Butsic, Van, and Patrick Murphy. 2016. Regulating Marijuana as a Crop

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018a. Watershed Enforcement Program (WEP)

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018b. Cannabis Restoration Grant Program

California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2018. CalCannabis Cultivation Licensing Fact Sheet

California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2017. CalCannabis Cultivation Licensing: Final Program Environmental Impact Report.

California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2016. Comprehensive Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act 2016

California State, Legislature. 2015. Assembly Bill 243

California State, Legislature. 2016. Senate Bill 837

California State, Legislature. 2017. Senate Bill 94

California State Water Resources Control Board. 2017. Cannabis Cultivation Policy – Principles and Guidelines for Cannabis Cultivation

Carah, J., Clifford, M., Grantham, T., & Schultz, D. 2018. Environmental Flows Seminar: Cannabis Regulation and Impacts

Chappelle, Caitrin, and Lori Pottinger. 2015. California Streams Going to Pot from Marijuana Boom

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 3 Comments

SGMA struggles to overcome marginalization of disadvantaged communities

by Kristin Dobbin

Small Disadvantaged Communities (DACs), or DACs with less than 10,000 people, have long been disproportionately affected by California’s water management woes such as groundwater overdraft and pollution. Now, new research from the UC Davis Center for Environmental Policy and Behavior shows that the majority of small DACs are not participating in the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) formed to address them.

In 2014, California passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Under SGMA, 127 high- and medium-priority groundwater basins were required to form Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) by June 30, 2017. Now, GSAs have until January 2020 or 2022, depending on their basin condition, to develop Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs). Throughout the process, GSAs have a responsibility to “consider the interests of beneficial uses and users,” specifically including DACs, which California defines as communities where the average Median Household Income is less than 80% of the state’s average.

How or if this will happen, however, is an important policy and research consideration extending beyond just SGMA. SGMA’s closest cousin in the state, the Integrated Regional Watershed Management (IRWM) program, has been criticized for not meeting the needs of small DACs. As a result, under Proposition 84 (2006), the state invested more than $2.5 million in DAC pilot studies; Proposition 1 (2014) includes $51 million in funding for DAC involvement in the IRWM program.

A spatial analysis identified small DACs intersecting one or more exclusive GSAs. GSA formation documents from the Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) SGMA portal were then used to analyze how small DACs are integrated into governance. Our analysis reveals three key findings.

First, the SGMA process will impact many of the state’s small DACs. 45% (243 of 545) of small DACs in the state intersect one or more GSAs. Moreover, a similar percentage of GSAs, 41% (109 of 269), intersect one or more small DAC. For example, the Tulare Lake hydrologic region has 81 small DACs intersecting 26 different exclusive GSAs, more than any other hydrologic region (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Small DACs and exclusive GSAs in the Tulare Lake Basin.

Second, the prevalence of small DACs was not well accounted for in the initial interested parties lists submitted to DWR despite the requirement of Water Code Section 10723.8 to include them. Overall, only 55% of the small DACs intersecting exclusive GSAs were identified anywhere in interested parties lists submitted. Only 51% of GSAs correctly identified all the small DACs in their boundaries. 23% identified none of the small DACs in their boundaries. Figure 2 provides an example of an interested parties list submitted to DWR. While the GSA’s list claims that there are no DACs known at this time, according to DWR’s publicly available DAC mapping tool, this particular GSA contains eight small DACs.

Figure 2. A screenshot of the interested parties list from an exclusive GSA’s notification.

Third, the vast majority of small DACs are not formally participating in GSA governance. 25% (27 of 109) of GSAs with small DACs have small DAC members and 28% (30 of 109) have small DAC board members. Figure 3 shows how participation varies by hydrologic region. Participation rates also vary by the incorporation status of the community. While 47% (15 of 32) incorporated small DACs are members of their GSA and 53% (17 of 32) are board members, only 10% (22 of 211) of unincorporated small DACs are members of their GSAs and only 12% (25 of 211) are board members.

Figure 3. GSAs with small DACs, small DAC members and small DAC board members by hydrologic region.

While GSA and board membership are not the only ways that DACs can or do participate in SGMA, these numbers, taken together with the 45% of small DACs that were not listed anywhere on their respective interested parties lists, calls into question the participatory and inclusive nature of the SGMA process thus far. SGMA, like IRWM before it, poses challenges in representing these already marginalized groundwater users. Understanding these challenges, and what can and should be done about them, are important areas for future research as GSAs dive head first into writing their GSPs.

 Kristin Dobbin is a PhD student in Ecology at UC Davis studying regional water management and drinking water disparities in California. Many thanks to Mark Lubell and Amanda Fencl for their review and edits.

Further Reading

Balazs, C., & M. Lubell. 2014. Social learning in an environmental justice context: a case study of integrated regional water management. Water Policy, 16(S2), 97-120.

Disadvantaged Communities Visioning Workshop December 3-5, 2014. Recommendations. 2015.

Dobbin, K. Research Brief: Small Disadvantaged Community Participation in Groundwater Sustainability Agencies. 2018. (English / Spanish).

Dobbin, K., J. Clary, L. Firestone and J. Christian-Smith. 2015. Collaborating for Success: Stakeholder engagement for Sustainable Groundwater Management Act implementation.

Feinstein L, Phurisamban R, Ford A, Tyler C and Crawford A (2017) Drought and Equity in California, Pacific Institute, Oakland, CA

Posted in California Water, Drinking water, Drought, Groundwater | Tagged , , | 7 Comments

Guest Species – What about the nonnative species we like?

by Karrigan Bork, JD, PhD

Striped bass – One of California’s guest species.

Conservationists worry about a host of nonnative species, and with good reason. Nonnative species cause north of $120 billion per year in damages in North America alone, and they present the primary extinction risk for roughly half of the threatened or endangered species in the United States.

The worst offenders are well known – aquatic species like zebra mussels and Asian carp, and terrestrial species like kudzu, yellow star thistle, and myriad rat species. But there’s another category of nonnative species, species that we celebrate and enjoy.

“Guest species” describes naturalized nonnative species that humans have introduced, intentionally or accidentally, and which we actively conserve because we benefit from having them in the wild. This isn’t just semantics; the terms we use to describe a species play a central role in determining how we think about that species.

Pheasants are another guest species in the United States that have acquired iconic status.

Guest species include intercontinental introductions like honey bees, earth worms, pheasant, wild horses, and brown trout; and many other species that we’ve moved around (directly or via habitat modification) within North America, like striped bass, largemouth bass, turkey, and deer. These species are well-loved, culturally significant, and may play important roles in their new ecosystems.

But they also create significant conflicts for aquatic ecosystem management, and these conflicts often crop up as part of our most heated debates about how we manage our natural resources. My recent paper on guest species undertook case studies of several of these conflicts, including management of striped bass in California’s Delta and rainbow trout in Utah’s Green River. These two case studies highlighted several common themes in dealing with guest species that help to explain why they breed so much conflict. Top themes include:

  1. federal oversight of state wildlife management breeds conflict;
  2. people love their guest species, which increases conflicts;
  3. guest species can eventually become part of the local ecosystem; and
  4. guest species may be better adapted for the current environment than native species.

Guest species are particularly prevalent among aquatic species, which makes this a central issue for watershed scientists. Introduced fish species make up anywhere from 10% of the total species in eastern areas up to 30–60% of fish species in the west, and most of these transplanted species were introduced as game species or forage for game species.

UC Davis fish ecologist Carson Jeffres with a Delta striped bass. Photo by Martin Koening

Striped bass came to California via railroad in 1870, brought by Livingston Stone at the suggestion of the California State Board of Fish Commissioners. Striped bass populations exploded, and the population supported a commercial fishery for many years. Striped bass remain among the most popular California game fish, and 81% of fisherman near striped bass fish for them, with an average expenditure of $146.91 per day.

In 2008, the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta filed suit against the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, arguing that the state’s fishing regulations for striped bass amounted to a violation of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Coalition, a group of agricultural water users, seeks to “to better the conditions of those engaged in agricultural pursuits in the San Joaquin Valley by ensuring a sustainable and reliable water supply.”

The Coalition argued that the lawsuit was a way to improve the numbers of listed species in the Delta, which would in turn allow the coalition members to divert more water from the Delta. However, the lawsuit looks more like an effort to separate striped bass fishermen from the rest of the sportfishing community, which would reduce the community’s strong opposition to many Coalition positions. Regardless, the lawsuit was a bombshell for wildlife managers in California and across the country.

The Coalition’s theory of the case goes like this: the ESA bars any killing of any endangered species of fish or wildlife without a permit; the state catch and size limits increased the number of striped bass in the Delta; increased numbers of striped bass eat increased numbers of threatened and endangered species; therefore, the state regulations protecting striped bass amounted to state actions that kill endangered species in violation of the ESA. This line of reasoning was successful in a similar case in Hawaii.

But if courts generally accept this line of reasoning, virtually any management of game species could amount to a violation of the ESA, which carries serious monetary penalties and potential jail time. This could include management of native species as well – the law does not distinguish between native and nonnative species in this kind of conflict.

The Coalition’s lawsuit over striped bass ultimately failed. After the judge in the case signaled that the science on striped bass was too convoluted for easy resolution without trial, the parties settled the lawsuit in February 2011. Per the settlement agreement, CDFW recommended that the California Fish and Game Commission (an independent body which writes the sport fishing regulations in California) “modify the striped bass sport fishing regulation to reduce striped bass predation on the listed species.” See Coal. for a Sustainable Delta v. McCamman, No. 1:08-CV-00397 OWW GSA, 2011 WL 1332196, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2011). The Commission unanimously rejected the proposed change in February 2012, and although the court dismissed the case, the broader dispute remains unresolved.

This dispute highlights several of the aforementioned themes:

First, federal oversight of state wildlife management breeds conflict. Under the traditional North American model of wildlife management, state agencies, funded by hunting and angling licenses and special taxes, manage wildlife at the state level. This inherently creates some preference for game species at the state level.

When the federal government intrudes in the game management space, most often through the ESA, longstanding tensions between the state and federal governments can make the disputes worse. With striped bass, California once had an ESA permit allowing them to enhance striped bass populations via stocking, but abandoned that effort. Anglers at the state level, who had funded that effort with a special striped bass fee, blamed federal regulators for intruding on their fishery. This conflict is unlikely to go away and could easily spread to encompass other guest species. The Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service should act now to clarify how the ESA applies to state management of game species and should, if necessary, work with state agencies to permit (and mitigate for) these activities.

Second, people love their guest species, which increases conflicts. As with the striped bass, many aquatic guest species were introduced into new ecosystems as game species for our fishing pleasure, and this effort has been a success. Introduced game fish are well loved, with strong interest groups lobbying at the state and federal level on their behalf. The striped bass fan club in California includes the Sportfishing Conservancy, the California Sportfishing League, the Coastside Fishing Club, the California Striped Bass Association, and the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, all of which lobby on the fish’s behalf.

Wild horses: another guest species of the American West with iconic status. Image source: Wyoming Public Media

This isn’t limited to aquatic species – Wyoming put the wild horse, a guest species, on its state quarter.

Because people love these guest species, efforts to reduce their populations or eliminate them entirely often run into stiff opposition, ranging from lawsuits to direct action, i.e. sabotage of removal efforts or reintroduction of the species. The flip side is that this same love of guest species brings people closer to their environments and can result in increased environmental activism, as seen by the sportfishing groups’ broader involvement in protecting the Delta ecosystem from pollution and water withdrawals. Guest species are a, and perhaps the, motivating factor for many casual conservationists today. Without these species, conservationists lose much of their public support.

Third, guest species can eventually become part of the local ecosystem. This is true in two ways – both in terms of the bass’s role in the ecosystem, and in broader philosophical terms. Scientists have a very difficult time predicting what would happen in the Delta ecosystem if striped bass were functionally removed. Although striped bass eat some listed species, they also eat predators on listed species, and so ecologists can’t accurately predict how striped bass removal would affect the populations of listed species. Ecosystems like the Delta “are so highly altered that attempting to restore them to an earlier condition or stable state is largely not possible.”

More broadly, striped bass have been in California for almost 150 years. Based on research on transplanted salmon populations, the California striped bass are likely adapted to the West Coast ecosystems and are likely genetically differentiated from their East Coast kin. These fish have adapted to their new habitats, and they have thrived in the current Delta, which offers habitat far different than historic conditions. The Delta today is a novel ecosystem, an ecosystem which lacks a historic analog.

If we think about native species as species that evolved in a given habitat, then it’s hard to say what’s native to a novel ecosystem like the Delta. Today’s Delta isn’t the Delta where Delta smelt evolved or where winter run Chinook salmon evolved, and these species are not well adapted to today’s Delta. Within this framework, guest species like the striped bass are as native to a novel ecosystem as anything else. This is not to devalue the biodiversity offered by native species–it must be protected as well. But it does mean that we shouldn’t devalue guest species in novel ecosystems just because they were not a part of the historic ecosystem.

This brings up the fourth and final theme: guest species may be better adapted for the current environment than native species. In places like the Delta, the habitat has been changed so much that species evolved for the historic Delta cannot survive without intense and ongoing human intervention. This is only going to get worse under climate change. A recent study of California fishes found that, under project climate scenarios, “[m]ost native fishes will suffer population declines and become more restricted in their distributions; some will likely be driven to extinction. . . . In contrast, most alien fishes will thrive, with some species increasing in abundance and range.”

This means we must think long and hard about removing guest species. If these species are the most likely to survive our future climate, removing them now in a bid for historical ecosystem re-creation is misguided and shortsighted. We could end up with nothing left to protect.

Karrigan Bork is a Visiting Assistant Professor with a joint appointment at the McGeorge School of Law and the Dept. of Geological & Environmental Sciences, both part of the University of the Pacific. He is also a visiting researcher at the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences. His research interests include environmental law, natural resources law, international law, and administrative law, focusing on the interplay of science and law. For more information visit his SSRN page.

Further reading

Karrigan Börk, Guest Species: Rethinking Our Approach to Biodiversity in the Anthropocene, 2018 Utah L. Rev. 169 (2018).

Moyle, PB, Jeffres CA, and Durand J. 2018. Resurrecting the Delta for desirable fishes. California WaterBlog.

Moyle PB et al. 2016. Understanding predation impacts on Delta native fishes. California WaterBlog.

Moyle PB and Bennett WA, 2011.  Striped Bass: the cure worse than the disease. California WaterBlog.

Posted in Conservation, Fish, Stressors | Tagged , | 4 Comments

Managing Domestic Well Impacts from Overdraft and Balancing Stakeholder Interests

by Robert M. Gailey and Jay R. Lund

The historic drought in California from 2012 through 2016 brought unprecedented groundwater level declines and reports of dry domestic supply wells.  This was particularly true in the Central Valley.

New research on conditions in Tulare County during the drought provides insight regarding tradeoffs in interests between domestic well owners and agricultural pumpers, as well as suggests an approach for addressing the needs of both stakeholder groups.  These results can be useful for groundwater management policy and implementing the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).

Groundwater often buffers water supplies against drought.  The benefits from increased well pumping are greatest during long droughts when statewide groundwater use can rise from about 30 to 60 percent of human water demand.  Up to 80 percent of this use is for crop irrigation.

Agriculture is willing to incur higher costs from additional groundwater pumping during drought because it is profitable to do so.  Moreover, investments in trees and vines hardens agricultural water demands and creates need for the constant water supply provided by pumping groundwater.  (Domestic water demands also are hardening with water conservation, but are much smaller – particularly in rural areas.)

Other costs often result from groundwater use and affect neighbors who might not benefit from sustaining economic production by pumping more during drought.  Increased pumping decreases the volume of water stored in groundwater systems and water levels fall.  This groundwater drawdown can spread from deep, high-capacity wells – sometimes for thousands of feet.

In regions where there are many production wells, areas of water-level depression from individual wells can merge into broader regions of impact.  The decreased water levels can cause problems for shallower wells.  Pumps are no longer properly submerged, cavitation occurs and pumps stop working unless they are moved lower in the wells.  Some wells are too shallow to allow further pump lowering and must be shut down or replaced with deeper wells.

These are expensive actions and service providers are in high demand during drought.  Domestic wells are generally more susceptible to going dry and incurring additional costs because they are mostly shallower than the larger and deeper agricultural wells that draw down water levels the most.  These domestic well impacts are a classic case of economic externality – when one party is affected by another’s actions.

Domestic wells are common in rural areas that lack municipal and community water supplies.  Rural wells often supply economically disadvantaged households and communities already struggling with water quality problems from nitrate and arsenic.  Domestic well owners usually cannot compete financially with larger pumpers to employ the skilled labor needed to fix wells.

Figures 1 a and b show the distribution and density of domestic and agricultural supply wells in California (approximately 235,000 domestic and 34,000 agricultural wells statewide).  Although drought problems for domestic wells are more likely in sub-basins designated as Critically Overdrafted and High Priority by the California Department of Water Resources under SGMA, differences in stakeholder interests likely also occur in other areas. Potential impacts of agricultural groundwater pumping on shallow domestic wells should be considered when groundwater management plans are developed.

Figure 1. Numbers of wells in California: a domestic wells (Dom) and b irrigation wells (Ag). Gray shaded area is the portion of Tulare County located on floor of the Central Valley (study area). Data source: CADWR Well completion report map application

Available data do not provide a precise count of domestic supply well impacts in Tulare County during the 2012-2016 drought; however, our analysis suggests that the part of the county on the valley floor experienced approximately 1,100 well outages.  The cost to maintain uninterrupted supply from these wells is estimated at $10.3 million.  Because agricultural revenue during this same period was significantly higher (approximately $35 billion), reducing groundwater pumping for agricultural supplies would likely have cost far more than the estimated additional costs to maintain domestic wells.

Institutions in the southern Central Valley and elsewhere in California are beginning to plan for compliance with SGMA.  The new regulations require including a range of stakeholder concerns in planning.  Balancing agricultural pumping with domestic supply reliability will likely be an important consideration.  A funding mechanism to prepare shallow domestic and community wells for decreased groundwater levels (lowering pumps and replacing wells) might allow agriculture to maintain operational flexibility to meet their water demand during drought.

Figures 2 a and b show how information on agricultural profits and domestic well impacts could be used to develop a management policy that considers both stakeholders’ interests.  Using the historic groundwater level record (Figure 2a), three policies regarding maximum allowable depth to groundwater are considered for the recent drought.  Policy 1 limits the decrease in groundwater level to the previous lowest point (which occurred in 2010).  Policy 2 specifies a limit halfway between the previous low and the lowest point during the recent drought.  The Unregulated policy entails no regulation and allows groundwater levels to drop as low as needed to meet all pumping demands (as happened in 2017).  For policies 1 and 2, groundwater levels reaching the regulatory limit would trigger significant curtailment of pumping so that no additional decline occurred and groundwater levels would rebound more quickly after the drought when pumping lessened.

Figure 2: Example groundwater management policy analysis: a potential policies and resulting groundwater hydrographs and b depth and compensation trade off curves. Groundwater depth data source: Well 362539N1193051W001 CADWR Water Data Library. Ag is agricultural. Opp is opportunity. Dom is domestic well. Ops is operations. Prof is profit. Black and colored dots on Fig. 2b correspond to groundwater depths at 1 m intervals. Red dot is 36 m and blue dot is 50 m.

The hypothetical policies can be evaluated based on principles of economics using the estimated costs for domestic wells and agricultural financial data.  The end result is a plot of agricultural opportunity costs (lost profit resulting from limited water supply) against domestic well costs (Figure 2b), which demonstrates the trade-off in costs between stakeholders for the different policies discussed above (indicated as colored dots).  This curve presents the spectrum of potential policies from a perspective of neutral economic efficiency.  Moving from one potential policy to another results in gains for one party and losses for the other.

Maximizing economic benefits to all stakeholders results in a specific maximum groundwater depth policy (dashed green line on Figure 2a and green diamond on policy trade off curve on Figure 2b).  The water depth for this policy is near the historic low during the recent drought because the agricultural opportunity cost is so much greater than the domestic well cost.  This disparity in costs affects the economic calculations that drive policy selection.  Although maximizing the overall economic benefits would do little to ease impacts to domestic wells, future water level declines would be limited (blue dotted line on Figure 2a could not dip below green dashed line).

This total economic welfare approach does not address 1) the distribution of cost among stakeholders relative to benefits received, 2) ability of each stakeholder to absorb costs and 3) impacts on human subsistence (need for drinking water versus need for additional production).  These considerations may lead to more stringent policies that lessen the burden on domestic wells (left shift along depth policy tradeoff curve from green diamond).

An alternative approach might be for agriculture to provide some compensation for well costs.  The green dotted line on Figure 2b indicates a constant level of maximum economic welfare (and a single maximum water depth policy) but varies from no compensation (green diamond) to full compensation (red diamond).  It is a compensation trade-off curve that represents a negotiated, or regulated, shifting of the externality from well owners back to agricultural producers.

The amount of compensation (location along green dotted line on Figure 2b) might depend on considerations such as whether some of the groundwater level decline occurs from pumping farther away rather than from nearby agricultural pumpers.  The compensation approach is obviously preferable for domestic well owners and would also be preferable for agricultural producers if it reduced costs relative to a more stringent policy.

This analysis assumes the maximum groundwater depth policy only addresses costs to domestic wells from agricultural pumping that are related to supply quantity.  Other considerations, such as maximum depth limits related to land subsidence, also could be incorporated.  The approach presented here would supplement balancing the groundwater budget as required by SGMA.  Groundwater systems should be managed to an agreed upon set of metrics that includes water depth thresholds.  Achieving agreement on the specific metrics could be made easier using some economic analysis.

More details on the research summarized here will be presented at noon on May 22, 2018 at the Center for Watershed Sciences, UC Davis.

Rob Gailey recently earned a PhD in Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of California, Davis and is a practicing hydrogeologist in California.  Jay Lund is a Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of California, Davis, where he is also Director for its Center for Watershed Sciences.

Further Reading

Gailey R.M. (2018) Approaches for Groundwater Management in Times of Depletion and Regulatory Change.  PhD Dissertation, University of California – Davis.

CADWR (2014) California water plan update 2013. California Department of Water Resources. California Department of Water Resources.

CADWR (2015) California’s most significant droughts: comparing historical and recent conditions. California Department of Water Resources.

County of Tulare (2017) Drought effects status updates.

Feinstein L, Phurisamban R, Ford A, Tyler C and Crawford A (2017) Drought and Equity in California, Pacific Institute, Oakland, CA Last accessed 28 September 2017

Hanak E, Lund J, Arnold B, Escriva-Bou A, Gray B, Green S, Harter H, Howitt R, MacEwan D, Medellín-Azuara, Moyle P and Seavey N (2017) Water stress and a changing San Joaquin Valley, Public Policy Institute of California, March 2017.

State of California (2017) Household water supply shortage reporting system.

Tulare County Agricultural Commissioner (2017) Tulare County crop and livestock report, 2016.

Posted in Groundwater | Tagged , | 6 Comments