This is the water question that California politicians keep refusing to answer | Opinion
In 1980, Congress enacted Public Law 96-375, authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to study the feasibility of enlarging Shasta Dam. Every study the Bureau of Reclamation has conducted under that authority has concluded that enlarging Shasta Dam would have multiple benefits.
Most recently, in 2020, the Bureau of Reclamation concluded that enlarging Shasta Dam 18.5 feet would create an additional 634,000 acre-feet of storage for environmental and consumptive water uses; improve water supply reliability for environmental and consumptive uses; improve water temperatures and quality below the dam for Chinook salmon survival; improve hydro-electric generation; and improve flood control.
Opinion
Enlarging the Shasta Dam is not a partisan issue. The 1980 legislation, House Resolution 5278, had three cosponsors: Representatives Harold Terry “Bizz” Johnson, Tony Coelho and Vic Fazio, all California Democrats. In August 2000, the state and federal governments, under the leadership of Gov. Gray Davis and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, both Democrats, proposed in the California Bay-Delta Program (CALFED) Programmatic Record of Decision enlarging Shasta, as such an expansion would “increase the pool of cold water available to maintain lower Sacramento River temperatures needed by certain fish and provide other water management benefits, such as water supply reliability.”
Current Democrat members of the California delegation, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Representative Jim Costa, consistently express support for enlarging Shasta Dam.
State law does not prohibit enlarging Shasta Dam. In fact, the only limitation in the Wild and Scenic River Act provides that “no department or agency of the state shall assist or cooperate . . . in the planning or construction of any dam, (or) reservoir, . . . that could have an adverse effect on the free-flowing condition of the McCloud River or on its wild trout fishery.”
Therefore, the question is this: Would enlarging Shasta Dam 18.5 feet adversely affect the free-flowing condition of the McCloud River or on its wild trout fishery?
This question has never been evaluated by any state agency. In 2015, when the late Anthony Saracino, a California water policy expert, proposed the California Water Commission analyze the question, he was forced to resign from the commission. In 2019, when Westlands Water District began preparing an environmental impact report to evaluate the issue, then Attorney General Xavier Becerra sued, asserting that even analyzing the question through a public environmental study violated state law.
Enlarging Shasta Dam 18.5 feet would periodically inundate only an additional 3,500 feet of the McCloud River. This is less than 3% of a 24-mile-reach between Shasta Lake and the McCloud Dam, which diverts a substantial portion of the McCloud River flow into the Pitt River watershed for hydro-electric generation. Impacts of the Shasta Dam on the McCloud River wild trout fishery will persist whether or not the dam is enlarged, and despite those impacts, the McCloud River above Shasta Lake supports an excellent wild trout fishery.
It is difficult to imagine how periodically inundating an additional 3,500 feet could adversely affect a fishery that occupies a 24-mile reach above the existing reservoir. But it’s easy to understand, as acknowledged by the CALFED Record of Decision, how enlarging the dam would benefit fish species below the reservoir.
The extreme, variable weather patterns caused by climate change demand California manage its water resources efficiently. Assertions that there is insufficient runoff to fill an enlarged reservoir ignore recent hydrology.
Had Shasta Dam been enlarged in 2015, the additional 634,000 acre-feet of storage would have filled in 2017, 2019 and 2023 without any negative impacts on downstream fish populations, water quality or other diversions. To the contrary, this additional, precious water would have benefited downstream fish populations, water quality and consumptive water users in nearly every region of the state.
Thomas Birmingham is the former general manager of Westlands Water District.
