With much less water, much of north Valley will suffer

The seats at the Merced Theatre are plush, nicely cushioned, quite comfortable. But no matter where members of State Water Resources Control Board sit, Monday’s meeting isn’t going to be comfortable. And their discomfort will have nothing to do with the chairs. The board is certain to hear some extremely difficult truths, likely in no uncertain terms.

We hope hundreds will be there to comment on the water board’s 3,100-page Substitute Environmental Document. Many here believe it is unfair, unworkable, wrongheaded and will destroy significant parts of our lives – mainly our jobs. Tens of thousands of people in Turlock, Oakdale, Modesto, Manteca and everywhere in between feel the same.

The state’s SED outlines how the state water board intends to “save” threatened fish species by letting more water flow past us to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. That means we’ll have less water to grow crops, create jobs and power our economy. Never mind the billions of dollars we’ve invested in dams, canals, fish hatcheries, homes and farms – investments predicated on 150 years of carefully using the water.

In that same time, California has been altering and transforming the Delta into a system of rip-rap clad channels funneling water toward pumps that send it to millions of people hundreds of miles away. Most of that water, 80 percent, comes from the Sacramento River; only 20 percent is provided by the San Joaquin’s tributaries, the Merced, Tuolumne and Stanislaus. Yet, it is water from our rivers the state has targeted first.

Yes, 100 years ago the estuary teemed with Delta smelt and thousands of salmon came up the San Joaquin and down the Sacramento before migrating to the ocean. But that estuary no longer exists. It’s been “channelized” to facilitate faster flows; its native plants are long gone. Now, 95 percent of the juvenile salmon arriving in the Delta are devoured by non-native striped bass, who also are now moving into our rivers. The Delta smelt is virtually extinct.

The state’s remedy? Add water. Our water.

But if the state wants to “save” the Delta, why not start in the Delta? Haul away the rip-rap, breach the levees and allow nature to re-create an estuary of vast mudflats and thick marsh grasses where smelt can thrive and juvenile salmon can evade predators. That such an obvious plan is well down the state’s to-do list shows what’s really going on.

Already, 20 percent of the Merced and Tuolumne rivers and 30 percent of the Stanislaus flow unimpaired to the bay. Now the state wants 40 percent from each, but is threatening to take 50 percent if improvements on the rivers don’t help.

That’s not all. The state also wants to control the “cold pools” deep behind our dams – amounting to roughly 35 percent of reservoir capacity and giving the state control of nearly four times more water than it demands now.

The SED admits to “unavoidable” negative impacts, such as fallowing thousands of acres, growing less-lucrative crops and vastly increasing groundwater pumping.

It might take years for all the impacts to be felt; but will the state care when the harm is done? No. The state’s primary concern is saving fish.

State officials at Monday’s hearing are not the enemy, and they’re brave enough to confront – and hopefully listen to – hundreds of unhappy citizens.

Perhaps they don’t realize that none of us – farmers included – want to see dead rivers. It’s clear we’ve asked our rivers to do too much; we’re anxious to do what we can to revitalize them. We’re already started. But this plan isn’t about the rivers; it’s about taking more water. When it’s gone, what will be left?

This story was originally published December 18, 2016 at 5:26 AM with the headline "With much less water, much of north Valley will suffer."