No Prop. 1 funding for Sites dam
Last week salmon fishermen applauded the California Water Commission’s announcement that water storage projects, such as the proposed Sites Reservoir, received a “zero” score in an important Proposition 1 project review. Today the commission will announce its draft final public benefit scores. If you are not following these most arcane developments in the water wars, you’re forgiven. But let me recapitulate: Water agencies are applying for millions of Proposition 1 dollars, the water bond approved by voters in 2014, to help construct their projects.
California law requires that water use must be in the public’s interest. Reflecting and expanding upon this, Prop. 1 included some basic standards that water projects must meet to receive funding. These requirements included commonsense items such as reducing water waste and providing environmental benefits. It requires that projects increase regional water selfreliance, meaning that projects designed chiefly to benefit San Joaquin Valley agricultural interests shouldn’t qualify.
The fishermen I represent voted for Prop. 1 in droves. But like most Californians, fishermen voted for salmon and clean water, not new dams and diversions. Thus, the Sites Reservoir is a nonstarter for us. The reservoir would be built north of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta in Colusa County at an estimated cost of $3.2 billion and operated as part of the State Water Project. Contrary to the claims of its proponents, we reject assertions that Sites is about helping the environment.
We also reject the claim that Sites, one of the more expensive projects up for Prop. 1 funding, will be built regardless of public funding and that Prop. 1 requirements are our only chance to get environmental water benefits from the project. Some project proponents believe that the only opportunity to secure environmental benefits from Sites is to build it now, otherwise project beneficiaries will take all the water. If this were true, not only would it be bad public policy, it would be tantamount to blackmail. Luckily, the Sites Project Authority, a joint project authority comprising several Central Valley water districts, does not have water rights and cannot hold California’s water hostage.
Water is a public trust resource, one that commercial salmon fishermen and recreational anglers depend on. And our industry is hurting. The fall run Chinook salmon fishery, which once supported many thousands of families and working jobs in the Bay Area, is teetering on the brink of complete collapse. Creating new diversions from the Sacramento River, then using the water for private benefit, is not a good option for us or the millions of Californians who value living rivers with healthy fisheries.
Our fisheries have been in crisis for a long time, but many are only now realizing how bad it’s become. A 2017 report shows that if we don’t start making serious changes to our water policies, 45 percent of California’s salmon and steelhead species will be extinct within 50 years. That could mean no fishing for us, our kids or future generations. Forever. All to benefit irrigators farming south of the delta, who seem to be just fine with building Sites with no environmental requirements attached. That’s unacceptable.
There is hope for our rivers, however. The state will soon recommend criteria that will ensure adequate river flows for salmon in key times of the year. Thousands of acres of Sacramento River side channel habitat, the perfect place for baby salmon to grow, will be restored. These and many other projects could greatly improve the state’s drinking water supply, salmon populations, and water quality in the Sacramento River and delta. Unfortunately, these flows (and the projects that need them) are precisely the same ones that the Sites Authority is targeting for new water rights and diversions to fill its reservoir.
The California Water Commission should reject the Sites Authority’s application for Prop. 1 funding. If it does, the commissioners should be commended for standing up to immense political pressure and following the will of the people and the spirit of the law.