Unlike its Trinity River subbasin, the main Klamath River Basin does not suffer from the effects of a major river diversion project exporting water out of the basin. It does, however, show the effects of years of habitat damage caused by dams permanently blocking anadromous fish runs and altering streamflow patterns and quantity.
Water-impounding dams in the Klamath River Basin were first built in the 1850s for supplying water to mining and farming operations. These early dams were small, located on tributaries, and often washed out with a flood of any magnitude (Wells 1881). Temporary dams of rock, dirt, and logs would likely block downstream migrants, but were probably not a barrier to upstream fish, depending on the autumn flows. In the 1930s, more permanent mining dams were noted as blocking passage (i.e., no ladders or ineffective ladders) in quite a few tributaries of the Klamath: Hopkins, Camp, Indian, Beaver, Dutch, and Cottonwood Creeks; Salmon River tributaries; and Scott River Tributaries (Taft and Shapovalov 1935). Since some of the old mining dams lasted long after abandonment and were still blocking access to anadromous habitat, many abandoned mining dams were dismantled by California Department of Fish and Game through an aggressive removal program in the 1950s (CDFG 1965).
A wooden dam was built on the upper Klamath River at Klamathon in about 1889 for the large lumber mill there, but it was destroyed by fire in 1902. A fisherman commented on conditions in the Klamath River near Shovel Creek in 1907: "the dams that formerly obstructed it were burned and have washed away and the badly constructed fish ladders have also disappeared, so that large fish again resort to its upper reaches" (Cumming 1907).
For many reasons, large dams were not built during this early period, but circumstances changed. As engineer J.C. Boyle commented in his personal history of Klamath River development, "at the turn of the century when irrigation and power engineers visited the area, they generally agreed that if properly conserved and utilized, there was enough water to supply every need which might locate in the Klamath Basin." The term "properly conserved," in engineering jargon, likely meant "behind a dam." About 1892, the first hydroelectric power plant was built on the Shasta River, followed by one in 1895 on the Link River to serve Klamath Falls (CDWR 1964).
Through the eyes of California Oregon Power Company (Copco) engineers, the Klamath River represented numerous power sites between Keno and the Pacific Ocean. The "most attractive" sites were in the first fifty miles of river below Keno (where the fall is about 2,500 feet) but serious exploration also occurred down river (Boyle 1976).
At least 10 dam sites were identified along the lower river between Iron Gate and the mouth at various times by various engineers. In 1910, Copco's reconnaissance favored two: Big Bend, about 4 miles upstream of Happy Camp, and at Ishi Pishi Falls, just above the mouth of the Salmon River. Since the latter site would provide the cheapest power, Copco initiated water rights in 1908, obtained rights of way, and began extensive construction work. The company, however, abandoned plans when it couldn't find a market for the power. Since projects were not always feasible for power benefits alone, Copco was also trying to find a project which would have irrigation supply benefits. Other sites were evaluated by several entities on tributaries of the Scott River (including one with a tunnel to Yreka to supply the Shasta Valley) but none was ever found to be feasible. (Boyle 1976).
1910-1925: Copco No. 1 and No. 2
In 1910, Copco (formerly Siskiyou Electric Power and Light Company) finally focused on the Ward's Canyon area northeast of Yreka for the location of its first hydroelectric power plant. In anticipation, the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries installed a salmon egg-taking station a few miles below the area at Klamathon, which was the site of an old logging dam at the turn of the century. These racks extended across the river, effectively blocking the salmon run, but were "necessary in order that the supply of salmon may be maintained in the Klamath River," later remarked California's chief fish culturist. (Boyle 1976).
Pre-dam flow records of the Klamath River were begun in May 1910 on a daily basis at Ward's bridge by Copco, with the maximum discharge at 4500 cubic feet per second (cfs) and the minimum discharge at 1,450 cfs. Over a five year period, the records indicated a "change from a uniform flowing stream to one with lower water in summer and higher water in early spring." The observed "uniform" flows, which at first would seem unnatural, may have reflected the moderating influence of the large, shallow natural lakes in the headwaters (Upper and Lower Klamath Lakes). Copco's engineer attributed the flow change to the irrigation development in the upper Klamath basin then being constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation. Although the change in river flows was not too serious at that time, "they were destined to get worse as the Reclamation Service projects progressed," according to Boyle. Water rights battles were beginning to heat up.
The power company's marketing survey showed that the project should be split into two phases. Copco No. 1 dam, completed in 1917, created a reservoir with a surface of 1,000 acres and a catchment of 77,000 acre-feet. In 1918, the first generating unit was put on-line, with a second one (Copco No. 1-A) added in 1922, following the raising of the dam to its ultimate height. Generating capacity was 20,000 KW. In 1925, Copco No. 2 plant was put into commercial operation. It consists of a powerhouse and a small reservoir (5 surface acres containing 55 acre-feet) located about 1/4 mile downstream of Copco No. 1 dam (Jones and Stokes 1976).
1924 State Initiative on Klamath River Dams
In the early 1920s, momentum was growing for more dams. The Electro-Metals Company planned two very high dams (in the lower river and at Ishi Pishi Falls) and another party wanted one in between (Bearss 1982). The California Fish and Game Commission staff claimed the lower site "will exterminate all the salmon in the Klamath, as there are no spawning grounds below the proposed dam sites." The agency finally decided to make a "determined fight against the construction of any more dams on the Klamath River," claimed an agency spokesman (Boyle 1976).
Arguing that the dams' benefits were far in excess of the value of the salmon fishery, the company convinced one local newspaper to editorialize in its favor: the Klamath salmon canneries were a "small enterprise of only local importance" and the Fish and Game Commission was a tool of the "idle rich" blocking the much needed industrial expansion of the state. The agency countered that "comparing the costs and benefits of destroying the largest remaining free-flowing river on the Pacific Coast were simply immaterial." (McEvoy 1986).
Although the Federal Power Commission (FPC) at first denied the permit for the dams, it later reversed itself because it did not want to get in the middle of a dispute between two state agencies. The State Division of Water Rights had approved the water appropriation of 8,000 cfs despite the Fish and Game Commission's recommendation for denial. Siskiyou County farmers also opposed the decision. To successfully fight the two other agencies and the power company, Siskiyou County and the Fish and Game Commission appealed directly to the people through an initiative measure on the state ballot (Proposition 11) in November 1924. As the result of the "assiduous campaigning of CFGC employees in all parts of the state," the measure passed by nearly a two to one margin. Commenting on the action, a fisheries historian noted "this was truly an extraordinary measure, and Fish and Game never tried it again" (McEvoy 1986).
The initiative created the Klamath River Fish and Game District, consisting of the Klamath River from its confluence with the Shasta River in Siskiyou County to its mouth in Del Norte County. Within the district, the construction or maintenance of any dam or other artificial obstruction is prohibited. The misdemeanor fine for violation is not less than $1,000 (increased from $500 in 1983), or 100 days in jail, or both (Fish and Game Code Section 11036).
While fish biologists and fishermen were not happy with the Copco dam construction, they were even less happy with the dams' operation. No minimum flow conditions were required of the operator. The power plants were operated to meet peak power demands (at capacity by day and shut down at night and on weekends) and the flow releases fluctuated with the anticipated demands. During one week, flows would vary from 3,200 cfs to 200 cfs while in a 20 minute period, the water level might drop or rise several feet (Jones and Stokes 1976, Taft and Shapovalov 1935).
Hazards were created for fish and fishermen with these extreme and unnatural short-term fluctuations. Complaints were common during the 1920s and 1930s and lawsuits against Copco were eventually filed. In several studies, adult and juvenile salmon and steelhead were observed being stranded along the shores of the river and stream invertebrates being killed by the exposure. Then the sudden rise in release would wash out and completely destroy recently made nests. (Snyder 1934, Taft and Shapovalov 1935). As a result, the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries recommended in 1935 that an "equalizing dam" be constructed below the Copco power plant to regulate the releases to a steady flow. In 1945, the State Legislature finally requested the Public Utilities Commission to study the effects of the artificial fluctuation and recommend a solution. The final report recommended in 1947 that a reregulating dam below Copco No. 2 be installed and operated by the company (Jones and Stokes 1976).
Studies at the time showed a phenomenal biological impact. California Fish and Game biologists calculated that, during the period from June 1948 through May 1949, the Klamath River below Copco experienced a loss of 1,862,132 salmonid fingerlings, yearlings, and adults (primarily steelhead) as a result of the power plants' fluctuating releases (Wales and Coots 1950). Multiplying this annual loss times the 45 years it took until the problem was solved indicates the magnitude of the tremendous loss to the fishery. Another impact of the dam noted by the agency at the time was the cementing of spawning gravel in the Klamath between the mouth of the Scott River and Copco dam, a factor which was (and still is) a serious impediment to successful spawning.
It was not until the 1950s, however, that Copco decided to build Iron Gate Dam. One of the big stumbling blocks to taking action was the resolution of the major water rights issues in the upper Klamath River Basin. Only after the ratification of the Klamath River Basin Compact by Oregon, California, and Congress in 1957 (see below for more discussion) was it possible for plans for Iron Gate Dam to proceed (U.S. A.C.E. 1979). A higher priority for Copco was the completion in 1958 of the Big Bend (now J.C. Boyle) dam and power plant upstream of Copco No. 1 in Oregon.
Iron Gate Dam Reregulates Flows
Obtaining the state water rights and Federal Power Commission (FPC) license for Iron Gate Dam required negotiations over the needed instream flows below this desired project. CDFG protested the initial flow release recommendation, finally reaching an agreement with Copco in 1958 (Jones and Stokes 1976). The flows were based on 1950s state-of-the-art methods, with the primary intent to improve the fall chinook run (M. Coots personal communication). This final flow schedule was added as a Protest Dismissal Clause to the FPC license (#2082) as Article 52:
The Licensee shall release to the streambed below
Iron Gate Dam no less than the flows specified in the following schedule:
| Periods | Flow (cfs) |
| September 1 - April 30 | 1,300 |
| May 1 - May 31 | 1,000 |
| June 1 - July 31 | 710 |
| August 1 - August 31 | 1,000 |
Provided that Licensee shall not be responsible for conditions beyond its control nor required to release more water than it has lawful right to use for hydroelectric purposes, and Provided further that Licensee shall restrict the changes of release rates to not more than 250 second-feet per hour or a 3-inch change in river stage per hour whichever produces the least change in stage as measured at a gauge located not less than 0.5 mile downstream from Iron Gate Dam.
A new fish hatchery in lieu of a fishway was also required by CDFG and FPC for mitigating the loss of anadromous fish habitat (the old hatchery at Fall Creek was abandoned in 1948). See below for further discussion.
Construction of Iron Gate Dam began in 1960 and was completed in 1962. Located about 7 miles below Copco No. 2, the dam is 173 feet high and the reservoir capacity is 58,000 acre-feet. Power plant capacity is 20 megawatts.
In 1955, Congress authorized two dams on the upper Trinity River, and in 1964, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation began full operation of Trinity and Lewiston Dams as a unit of the Central Valley Project. At least 80% of the historic annual flow of that part of the river was impounded for diversion out of the Trinity River Basin into the Sacramento River Basin. As a result, inadequate flows were available to flush sediments from the spawning gravels and pools, the river morphology changed, and the river's salmon and steelhead populations plummeted. While most of the impacts were localized in the Trinity Basin, the lower 40 miles of the Klamath River were impacted by the extreme decline in contributing flows from its largest tributary.
Efforts are ongoing through the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Program and others to help correct some of the problems.
Lake Shastina/Dwinnell Dam Impacts
In 1928, Dwinnell Dam was built on the upper Shasta River to hold irrigation water for the Montague Water Conservation District. It blocked access to the southern headwaters of the Shasta River. No fishway or hatchery was built for mitigation, and no minimum flows were required in the river. With a maximum storage of 41,300 acre-feet, the reservoir has a surface area of 2.85 square miles and a mean depth of 22 feet (Dong et al. 1974). Water use peaks during the irrigation season (May to October), when water is conveyed from the lake through the district's canal to its service area about 15 miles north.
While Dwinnell Dam continues to block upstream fish access, the water quality problems associated with the Lake Shastina reservoir may have the most stream habitat impact. As with most nutrient rich reservoirs, several problems occur: lack of dissolved oxygen near the bottom, heating up of the stored water, and high algal production (Dong et al. 1974). The reservoir releases downstream to the Shasta River "could and probably have significantly reduced the downstream DO (dissolved oxygen) levels by creating a high Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) loading caused by the decomposition of the algal mass." Dissolved oxygen levels as low as 4.7 mg/L were recorded in August 1981 in the river below the reservoir, a level too low for salmonid survival in warm water (CDWR 1986). Nutrient sources into Lake Shastina primarily derive from agricultural, urban, and suburban land uses (Dong et al. 1974).
Spawning gravels in the Shasta River have also been impacted by the dam, preventing the recruitment of new gravel into the reach below (CH2M-Hill 1985).
In the early 1980s, a combination of new federal policies, energy demand, and economic incentives created a boom to develop small hydro projects (30 MW or less) which resembled the early gold rush. California Department of Fish and Game noted the possible impacts to fish habitat: the partial or total dewatering of stream sections, adverse effects to aquatic and riparian resources, diversion of fish through the generation facility, and changes in stream temperature, dissolved oxygen and nitrogen levels (Smith 1982).
A total of 43 new small hydro projects, which could inundate or dewater at least 55 miles (89 km) of stream, were pending within the Klamath Basin of California as of 1982 (CDWR 1982b). The only river sections which could be automatically excluded from development, based on California's regulations, were those within the State or National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems, within federally designated wilderness areas, or on waters designated "Wild Trout Waters" by California Department of Fish and Game (i.e., Klamath River from Copco to the Oregon border).
One small hydro project built on the Shasta River north of Yreka has a long history of compliance violations regarding fish passage, minimum instream flows, and screen operations (USFWS 1989a). With lower energy prices, many small hydro proposals were postponed in the mid-1980s but incentives could change once again.
As shown in Figure 2-15, the current number of hydroelectric projects on the upper Klamath river is six. On the drawing boards are plans by the Pacific Power and Light Company to develop several more sites, depicted in Figure 2-16, (U.S.A.C.E. 1979). In the immediate future is the present application to FERC by the City of Klamath Falls, Oregon, to build the Salt Caves project above Copco Lake and below the J.C. Boyle Dam.
Figure 2-15 -- Present Klamath River Hydropower Development by Pacific Power and Light (PP&L).
Impact of Large Dams on Salmon and Steelhead
The salmonid impacts of the large dams on the Klamath River needing evaluation are:
1. Instream flow alteration.
2. Water quality.
3. Spawning gravel quality.
4. Fish passage.
Flow patterns in the middle Klamath River improved dramatically beginning with the operation of Iron Gate Dam. In Figure 2-17, the sharp average daily fluctuations of May 1 through June 30, 1948 can be contrasted with the same months in the year 1966. These months were selected because of the high mortality of steelhead fingerlings observed during this period in the 1948-49 CDFG study (Wales and Coots 1950). (The historic sharp drops in flow during each day are not shown as the data was not available).
The minimum monthly fish flow requirements have
not always been met, however. Figure 2-18 shows that they were not met
in certain years for the months of March, April, August, and September
"by agreement between PP&L, USBR, and fish and wildlife authorities
and by variance from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission" (U.S.A.C.E.
1979). What the impact of these variances was (or is) on fish and other
aquatic life is not known.
Figure 2-17 -- Comparison
of Daily Discharge, Pre- and Post- Iron Gate Dam.
Figure 2-18 -- Iron Gate Fish Flow Requirement Compared to Streamflow Data for 1961 through 1976.
While minimum monthly flows were stipulated on the Iron Gate FPC license, the net effect of the agreement is for less annual discharge in the river. The historic annual average discharge near Iron Gate was about 1,400,000 acre-feet while the current requirement totals only 832,900 acre-feet (mainly to meet future upstream irrigation demands) (U.S.A.C.E. 1979). Since 1961, however, the average has been about 1,600,000 acre-feet (CDWR 1986). What the additional 41% reduction in overall flow might do (if it ever occurred) to the salmonid population in the future is not known.
Another unknown is the effect of the release patterns on upstream and downstream migrations of each fish species. The approved schedule was primarily designed for fall chinook salmon by starting to increase flows August 1 (from 710 to 1,000 cfs), at the time the adults return to the mouth on their spawning migration (Jones and Stokes 1976). Dropping flows on May 1 (from 1,300 to 1,000 cfs) and again on June 1 (to 710 cfs), which helps to satisfy increased hydroelectric and irrigation demands, could have some effect on the spring-run and summer-run steelhead or spring chinook adult returns as well as downstream fall chinook migrants (Moyle 1976). Historically, stream gauge data shows that the month of May has sustained one of the highest flows in the undammed middle Klamath Basin tributaries due to snowmelt runoff (USGS 1989). How the current release patterns vary from the "natural" (unimpaired) flow patterns, and their relationship to fish migration needs, should be analyzed through a state-of-the-art instream flow study.
The impoundment of water in the reservoirs contributes to algal blooms and nuisance conditions (e.g., attached algae) downstream. Nutrient levels of the reservoir inflow are also quite high, with contributions coming from natural, agricultural, and industrial sources. Outflow conditions show that between Iron Gate and Seiad Valley, 79% of the nitrogen and 68% of the phosphorus in the river originate upstream of the dam (CDWR 1986).
Temperature changes directly attributable to reservoir and powerplant operations and the downstream implications have not recently been evaluated. A high temperature problem at the Iron Gate hatchery killed chinook salmon eggs at one time. CDFG believed the increased temperatures from Iron Gate releases were the result of an overall increase in water temperatures of the Upper Klamath River. Although fishermen and others have requested a cold water release from the dam, this option may not be possible "due to the type of reservoir ('run of the river') and the high exchange rate of water in the reservoir." (Jones and Stokes 1976).
Even before Iron Gate Dam, the spawning gravels below Copco Dam were observed by CDFG to be "cemented" with silt as far as the mouth of the Scott River, and too compacted for the smaller salmon of the Klamath River to make redds in (Wales 1950). The same problem was observed after Iron Gate in the 1970s and 1980s. In addition, rooted aquatic vegetation was able to take hold, creating slower pockets of water where silt could deposit. The poor gravel quality was attributed to the upstream dams blocking gravel replenishment and reducing scouring flows needed to clean existing spawning gravel. (Jones and Stokes 1976, CDWR 1981)
In 1981, the California Department of Water Resources concluded that with the present stream bed gravel composition, no bedload transport is likely to take place in the area below Iron Gate: "The bed is now armored with cobbles, requiring flows in excess of the December 1964 flood to move."
Salmon and steelhead continue to be blocked from reaching historic spawning grounds in the Upper Klamath Basin (75 miles of mainstem river, plus tributaries as far as above Upper Klamath Lake). Habitat for about 9,000 chinook and 7,500 steelhead spawners is potentially available in this area (Fortune et al. 1966).
A study was made in the mid-1960s by Oregon biologists and Pacific Power and Light Company (PP&L) to determine the feasibility of developing fish passage facilities over the power dams, which would provide for the reintroduction of salmon and steelhead to the upper Klamath (Fortune et al. 1966). Two plans were developed: Plan A, installing fish ladders on all dams and screening all diversions, would cost $3.9 million to build and $263,180 per year for O&M; Plan B, trapping and transporting fish around Iron Gate and Copco reservoirs, and laddering and screening diversions above, would cost $2.7 million initially and $207,180 per year O&M.
Arguments continue to be made in favor of renewing access, though the problems are formidable: lack of native spring chinook stock and downstream passage complications for fry and juvenile fish at impoundments seem to be the most serious (Fortune et al. 1966).
Water, Power, and Fishing Rights
Battles over water rights in the basin began with the early miners' contentions for ditch water (Wells 1881). Later the conflicts changed to those between irrigators as well as between irrigators and hydropower developers. In 1905, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation filed for water rights under Oregon state law claiming its intent "to completely utilize all the waters of the Klamath River Basin in Oregon" for the Klamath Irrigation Project.
To ensure adequate water for both, the California-Oregon Power Company and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation entered into a 50 year contract in 1917. Its provisions included: 1) using the Link River Dam to create water storage in upper Klamath Lake; 2) construction and operation of this dam by Copco to provide water for its downstream powerplants; 3) giving the Bureau first priority on all water to operate the Klamath Project, returning the water to the river above Keno; and 4) having Copco provide electricity to Klamath Project participants at greatly reduced rates. (Kuonen 1988).
Outside interests also sought rights. Filings during the 1920s on the Klamath River were proposing to divert and export water for irrigation and power in the Sacramento Valley (i.e., 4000 second feet), or to take it all the way to Southern California (Boyle 1976). Over the next few decades, many more proposals were made for water development projects on the Klamath River and its tributaries (CDWR 1960, 1965). In addition, federal water power withdrawals on federal land, under the authority of the Federal Power Act, were made above Copco Lake (USBLM 1989).
Irrigation interests in the upper basin were still very concerned about the allocation of water and protested plans by Copco for further dams. Only after the FPC conditioned its approval of Copco's Big Bend project with the requirement to extend the company's contract with the Bureau of Reclamation did negotiations become eventful. Based on this contract and following many drafts, the Klamath River Basin Compact to allocate upstream water rights was finally approved by the two states and ratified by Congress in 1957 (Kuonen 1988).
Critical to fisheries interests is the Compact's preferential rights "for the anticipated ultimate requirements for domestic and irrigation purposes in the Upper Klamath River Basin in Oregon and California." Water for fish use ("recreational use") is third in priority. A superior right is also provided for adequate water to irrigate an additional 300,000 acres of land beyond that already irrigated in 1957.
These stated rights were incorporated into the FPC's licenses for Copco's Big Bend and Iron Gate (FPC License # 2082) projects. In addition, the Iron Gate water rights permit from California stated, "water uses at Iron Gate and the river below are subject to irrigation needs of Shasta Valley, namely, until March 1, 2006 -- 120,000 acre feet annually and ultimately 220,000 acre feet annually" (Boyle 1976).
The federal power license for Iron Gate Dam, now controlled by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), will be up for renewal in the year 2006 (Boyle 1976). At this time the original fish protection conditions of the license can be reevaluated for their adequacy and changes can be proposed, if the data reveals that they are needed. Any water quantity changes in the FERC license (e.g., increased flow releases) would also require alteration of the Compact, which means reapproval by the two states and Congress.
Oregon Adjudication of the Klamath River
Since numerous water rights conflicts still exist, the Oregon Water Resources Department is in the process of adjudicating all water claims in the Oregon portion of the Klamath River Basin (USBLM 1989).
The Klamath Tribe of Oregon holds hunting, fishing, and gathering rights on its former Reservation in the Upper Klamath Basin. Federal recognition of the Tribe was terminated in 1954 and most of the tribal lands were converted to private or federal ownership. These rights survived termination and were confirmed to the Tribe in a series of court decisions in the 1970s.
A 1981 Consent Decree stemming from litigation also confirmed the Tribe's rights and responsibilities to co-manage, with federal and state agencies, resources on the former Reservation. Termination was superseded and federal recognition of the Tribe was restored in 1986 by the Klamath Tribe Restoration Act, which also recognized and protected its hunting, fishing, and gathering rights.
The Klamath Tribe actively promotes study of the anadromous fishery restoration potential of the Upper Klamath Basin above Iron Gate Dam, emphasizing the strength of pre-dam runs and explaining that the tribe "for centuries -- indeed, for thousands of years -- depended on upper basin anadromous fish runs as a mainstay of tribal existence" (Miller 1989).
Fishing and water rights are also important to the three downstream tribes: the Karuk, Hoopa Valley, and Yurok. Since fishing is at the very heart of their religion, culture, economy, and subsistence, they feel strongly about protecting their fish and water. Under the federal law concept of reserved tribal water rights, or "Winters Doctrine," the Hoopa Tribe has defended its right to instream flows in the Trinity River, with a priority date of not later than 1864 (when the Reservation was established). In addition, the Tribes claim riparian rights under California law for the Hoopa and Yurok Reservations along the Klamath River (S. Suagee, Hoopa Valley Tribal Council, personal communication).
The California Fish and Game Commission "devoted much energy" in the early part of the twentieth century to fighting new dams and rectifying the old ones. Too much salmon and steelhead habitat in the state had already been lost behind dams, and adequate flows were not being provided for maintenance of the remaining fish runs. With the help of certain state statutes, the commission was given the authority to inspect irrigation and power dams and to order their operators to build fishways or hatcheries (at state expense) if their obstructions completely blocked fish passage (McEvoy 1986). During the 1950s, CDFG also pursued an aggressive abandoned dam removal program, which opened up passage on tributaries of the Salmon and Scott Rivers (CDFG 1965).
With the construction of the first Copco dam on the upper Klamath, the California Fish and Game Commission had the option to require either a fishway or a hatchery. Copco took the position that it was willing to construct a fish ladder over Copco No. 1 dam, if the state provided the proper plans and specifications, but "was not willing to construct more than one fishway." After much discussion, the state finally decided upon a hatchery on Fall Creek, just below the dam site. (Boyle 1976).
According to W.H. Shebley, the Commission's Director of Fish Culture
at the time,
... The matter of a fishway over Copco dam was gone into thoroughly by our experts and engineers before we decided to compel the California Oregon Power Company to build a hatchery, in lieu of a fishway, as provided by our fishway law. The problem involved was whether an efficient fishway could be constructed over a dam that is 100 feet in height, and with plans for construction that would raise the dam ten or fifteen feet higher, and what would be the benefit of such undertaking.The main problem, they concluded, was "that if the Klamathon racks were removed and the salmon allowed to ascend the river, and if it were possible to build a fishway over the dam, the resultant fry would have to return to the ocean, and on their journey oceanward would be destroyed in the power wheel of the hydroelectric plant. Therefore it would be a waste of time and money to build a fishway over Copco dam .... The California Fish and Game Commission at considerable expense is maintaining this hatchery, and the people of Oregon are getting as much if not more benefit from our efforts than the people of California." (Shelby 1921, in Boyle 1976).
Not everyone upstream, where the runs of spring and fall chinook and steelhead were once quite plentiful, agreed with this decision. The Klamath Indian Reservation and the Klamath Sportsmen's Association were very dissatisfied with the hatchery solution and doggedly pursued the fish passage alternative, finally referring it to the District Counsel of the U.S. Department of Interior's Office of Indian Affairs in 1940 (Boyle 1976). With the dismantling of the Klamath Indian Tribe's status by the U.S. Government during the following years, this legal effort by the Indians faded for a period of time.
Regulations to provide adequate fish flows were not clearly in place in the first half of the century. In 1915, a new law required that adequate fish flows be guaranteed by dam operators. In 1919, a state law was passed requiring approval by the Fish and Game Commission of all water projects before construction could begin, but it was repealed in 1925 (McEvoy 1986). Why these new regulations were not used by the state for fish flow protections out of Copco No. 1 and No. 2 is not known.
In 1948, the Copco mitigation hatchery at Fall Creek was permanently closed because of its dilapidated condition and the state's apparent lack of interest at the time in artificial salmon propagation. Although the egg collecting station was maintained, no propagation facilities operated on the Klamath until 1966.
The California Department of Fish and Game's mitigation emphasis for Iron Gate was twofold: 1) a minimum flow schedule to protect the salmonids (see above) and 2) the construction and operation of a new hatchery to produce fall chinook, coho, and steelhead. The FPC license stipulated the production capacity by species: 200,000 yearling steelhead trout; 73,000 yearling silver salmon; and 6,000,000 fingerling chinook salmon and release of an additional 5,500,000 swim-up fry. The licensee Pacific Power and Light Company (formerly Copco) pays 80% of the annual maintenance costs while CDFG covers 20%.
Wild and Scenic River Acts Prohibit New Dams
To prevent the further construction of dams on the state's few remaining free-flowing rivers, the California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (SB 107) was passed by the State Legislature in 1972 after considerable debate. Those sections of river which were declared "to be preserved in their free-flowing state" in the Klamath River Basin of California include:
In 1988, Oregon citizens voted to amend the Oregon State Scenic Waterways Act to add the Klamath River from the J.C. Boyle Dam downstream to the Oregon-California border as the Klamath Scenic Waterway (USBLM 1989). Competing with the Salt Caves Dam proposal is the current recommendation by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to include the same stretch of river in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Its report finds that the trout fishing in the segment is significant, providing "an excellent trout fishery" and "reputed to be among the better fly fishing rivers in Oregon." The river is also said to be "inhabited by highly productive, genetically unique wild rainbow trout population" (USBLM 1989). The California portion of the river above Copco Lake is designated "Wild Trout Waters" by the California Department of Fish and Game.
Stream habitat protections from the effects of large dams in the Klamath Basin have not been adequate. For at least 80 years, salmon and steelhead have been blocked from their important historical spawning grounds in the river's headwaters above Copco. For 45 years, fluctuating flow releases from Copco Dam were allowed to kill millions of steelhead and salmon in the main stem Klamath River.
Habitat damage may still be occurring from downstream effects of the large dam operations in the basin. Studies of possible effects need to be made before the FERC relicensing of the Iron Gate hydroelectric project in 2006. The existing flow schedule was based on a single stock, the fall run chinook, and did not address the other runs in the river. On the Shasta River, Dwinnell Dam/Lake Shastina is contributing to the river's water quality problems and needs to be assessed.
New dams are now prohibited on certain sections of the Klamath River and its tributaries. Other portions are still vulnerable to new water storage or hydroelectric projects, such as the Salt Caves Project in Oregon.
Policies for Water and Power Projects
Objective 2.E. Protect salmon and steelhead habitat from harmful effects of water and power projects in the Klamath Basin.
2.E.1. Support the evaluation of existing large
water storage projects in the basin to determine their effect on limiting
factors for anadromous fish production, including the following:
2.E.4. Advocate inclusion and enforcement of effective conditions for salmonid habitat protection on small and large hydroelectric projects and other water storage projects.
2.E.5. Oppose further large water storage projects until habitat problems caused by existing projects are rectified, and proof is available that any proposed project will not contribute to habitat problems.
2.E.6. Oppose the additional exportation (through water marketing or other means) of water from the Klamath River or Trinity River Basins, which is necessary to restore and protect anadromous fish populations.
2.E.7. Require water flows adequate to achieve optimal productivity of the basin.
2.E.8. Seek the establishment of law that mandates minimum streamflow standards.
2.E.9. Advocate improved streamflow releases from the Trinity River Project which will better mimic the natural or pre-dam streamflow patterns.
* Habitat damage from stream diversions for irrigation and mining.
* Dewatering of some streams in sections during summer and fall.
* Potential for more water efficient irrigation practices and delivery
systems.
* Diversion of juvenile and adult fish into unscreened ditches.
* Effect of stream diversions on water quality of Shasta River.
* Status of water rights.
* Use of the Public Trust Doctrine to reallocate water rights.
* Need to work with owners of water rights in Scott and Shasta Valleys.
The most obvious stream diversions are the ones which siphon water from the stream surface through a pipe or ditch at the edge of a stream. Another form of diversion pumps water beneath the surface from the underflow contributing to the stream. These wells are today considered to be using surface water ("interconnected ground water") rather than ground water (CSWRCB 1980).
Direct diversion of water from streams into ditches by placer miners began in the 1850s (Wells 1881). Mining diversions, current and abandoned, were noted as a fish problem due to lack of screens in stream surveys in the 1930s of the Scott and Salmon Rivers. Water use was not considered by the biologists to be much of a problem as the larger mining diversions operated during the winter and most of the flow was returned directly to the river (Taft and Shapovalov 1935). In the 1950s, abandoned diversion dams were removed by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) throughout the streams of the basin, but many of the ditches remain in place (CDFG 1965). Some of the old mining ditches later became used for irrigation. (See "Mining" section for more discussion.)
Farmers in the Scott and Shasta Valleys found an immediate market for hay and grain to the burgeoning mining camps in the region. After the first gold mining boom "followed a fallow era when livestock grazed over these old-time grain fields," but by 1915 "billowing fields of wheat, oats and barley wave(d) their promises of wealth each summer" (French 1915). Originally, much of the land was dry farmed, but irrigation was much more desireable since it increased both yields and profits. Following the turn of the century, Shasta Valley was noted for having completed most of the work of diverting streams for irrigation purposes while in Scott Valley several ditches were "supplementing the generous rainfall of that region" (French 1915).
Another opportunity for improved irrigation came when affordable power (through local hydroelectric projects by the California-Oregon Power Company) became available during this period, allowing for the pumping of water directly from the rivers or from the ground water instead of by developing gravity-fed long ditches.
The amount of lands under irrigation mushroomed from 57,000 acres in Siskiyou County in 1912 to nearly 100,000 acres in 1914 (French 1915). Dry farming continued to be practiced by farmers for certain crops in both valleys.
Upper Klamath Basin: Klamath Irrigation Project
In 1905, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation began its Klamath Irrigation project near Klamath Falls, Oregon. Marshes were drained ("reclaimed") and dikes and levees were constructed. What resulted was a major transformation of the hydrology of the upper Klamath basin. As shown in Figure 2-19, Lower Klamath Lake shrank to a fraction of its former size. The level of Upper Klamath Lake was also raised in order to provide better flow regulation; its average depth is now about 12 feet (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1979).
Figure 2-19 -- Water surface areas before and after man's influence.
Irrigation water in the upper basin is primarily provided by diversion from Upper Klamath Lake (through a canal above the Link River Dam) and the Lost River system, which connects the Klamath River and Lost River through a channel about 3 miles south of Klamath Falls. Depending on demand and irrigation requirements, the water in this channel can flow in either direction (USSCS 1985).
As noted above, water in the Shasta River was developed for irrigation over 80 years ago. Between Montague and Grenada in the Shasta Valley, the Montague Land and Irrigation Company pumped water into its ditches through two centrifugal pumps lifting 16,840 gallons per minute to ditch heads 86 and 107 feet above, to be released onto 5,000 acres of adjacent lands in 1915. Water from a dozen wells near Big Springs irrigated another 10,000 acres (French 1915). By 1931, a biologist was already commenting on the decline of the Shasta River's contribution to the Klamath River's salmon population, attributing its condition to "local causes such as diversion of water for agriculture, mining, and power purposes, spearing fish on the spawning beds, and what not" (Snyder 1931).
In the 1960s, CDFG commented that "fall-run kings (chinook) will encounter complete and partial blocks to upstream migration in the (Shasta) river unless the present program of policing and providing passage over diversion dams is continued." While the Shasta River was considered a very productive stream for fish at the time, the agency found the limiting factors to be temperature and heavy use of water for irrigation: "The timing of migration and spawning is based on availability of water along with suitable water temperatures" (CDFG 1965).
At present, irrigation of permanent pasture and alfalfa fields below the ditches or near the river is primarily done by "wild flooding," with much of the return water recaptured and used on lower pasture lands (CDWR 1989). The Montague Water Conservation District provides water to about 11,000 acres of the 48,000 acres of irrigated farmland in the valley from Lake Shastina (50,000 acre-feet storage), located on the upper Shasta River (NCRWQCB 1989). The topography of the Shasta Valley is quite uneven with many small hills and shallow, volcanic soils, creating challenges in farmland irrigation practices.
Annual water demand (applied water) by agriculture
in the Shasta Valley has been estimated by the California Department of
Water Resources (C. Ferchaud personal communication):
| YEAR | APPLIED WATER (acre-ft) | IRRIGATED ACRES |
| 1970 | 130,300 | 48,000 |
| 1980 | 146,100 | 45,800 |
| 1985 | 144,000 | 46,500 |
| 1988 | 150,500 | 50,000 |
The Scott Valley has a long history of stream diversions. In a June 1934 stream survey of the Scott River, biologists from CDFG noticed that the ditch beginning at the concrete diversion dam near Etna (now known as Young's Dam) was diverting about 30 cubic feet per second (CFS) while only 2 to 5 cfs was passing through the planks in the upper half of the dam into the main river. Salmonid fry were also observed beyond the fish screen at the time (CDFG 1934). On June 9th, 1934, no surface water from Shackleford Creek was reaching the Scott River, "all of it being taken into irrigation ditches" (Taft and Shapovalov 1935).
In 1958, water use in the Scott Valley was estimated at 118,200 acre-feet which was applied to 31,300 acres through 240 miles of ditch and pipeline by about 200 diversions (CDWR 1963). Although the 1958 water year was the wettest season on record at the time, water in the Scott River was still insufficient to meet all of the late season irrigation demand (McCreary Koretsky 1967). Considerable acreage was also sub-irrigated or dry farmed.
California Department of Fish and Game concluded in 1974 that, "many of the methods and extent of diversion and irrigation currently in practice in the Scott River Basin have created a large degree of incompatibility between agriculture and fisheries. The flows required to maintain fishery values and support heavy agricultural diversions clearly are not in the system during the latter part of July, August, and often in September. Many of the streams would have critical level flows (less than minimum) during this time period even if no water is diverted."
Problem sections of the stream system noted for going dry or intermittent during the summer months were (CDFG 1974):
| Year | Applied Water (acre-feet) | Irrigated Acres |
| 1970 | 92,400 | 31,500 |
| 1980 | 98,700 | 33,500 |
| 1985 | 97,600 | 33,600 |
| 1988 | 96,400 | 34,100 |
Besides the above two major valleys, smaller water diversions for agriculture occur in several other direct tributaries to the middle Klamath River: Grider Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Horse Creek, Bogus Creek, Little Bogus Creek, and Willow Creek.
Impacts of Water Diversions on Salmon and Steelhead
Water for instream fish needs was not considered of much importance when irrigation was being developed in the basin. "A large volume of water runs to waste in the Shasta River and its tributaries but this excess is now about to be put to good use," commented a spokesman for Siskiyou County before World War I (French 1915). While the development of irrigated agriculture was certainly an asset to the economy of the area, the water removal damaged another of its valuable assets, the salmon and steelhead fishery.
Removal of water from the stream has a critical
relationship to the timing of different life stage needs of anadromous
fish. Figure 2-20 indicates the spawning, egg incubation, and migration
periods for the three salmonid species found in the Scott River (CDFG 1980a).
The time periods would probably be very similar for the Shasta River (Leidy
and Leidy 1984). While naturally low water conditions can also prove unfavorable
to salmonid fish, the problems are greatly accentuated by the numerous
diversions. The fish impacts related to stream diversions can best be discussed
within these categories:
Historically, the Scott and Shasta Rivers supported good populations of spring-run chinook and spring-run steelhead, which need adequate flows and temperatures to summer-over in the pools of the lower canyon sections of the rivers until they could spawn the following fall or winter. Now these two runs are considered extinct or relict in the Scott and Shasta Rivers because of poor summer flow conditions (West 1983). Holdover conditions for adult fall chinook and coho salmon prior to spawning are considered poor to fair (CDFG 1974).
Stream flow in certain reaches of the Scott and Shasta tributaries in the early fall months is a limiting factor in the spawning migration of the adults of each species. While flow in the main Klamath River is sustained each year by Iron Gate releases at a minimum of 1,300 cfs after September 1st, flow in these tributaries is still being strongly affected by irrigation diversions. Irrigation demand drops off towards the end of September after the final cutting of alfalfa, but some diversions continue to be made during the fall, primarily for stockwatering. In the Little Shasta River, diversions of almost the entire stream are legally made from October to mid-April to fill several small storage reservoirs (R. Dotson, CDFG, personal communication).
Lack of water creates low velocities and depths in the stream which can hinder or completely block movement by the large spawning adults, particularly the fall-run chinook salmon. This problem has been noted for some time in the Scott and Shasta Rivers (CDFG 1965). As a result, the timing of the historically early runs has been delayed until irrigation diversions stop and the river level rises to an adequate level (West 1983). During dry years, the diversion of even 10-15 cfs for stockwatering can be critical to migration access when the Scott River is only running at 35 cfs in mid-October, as it was in 1988 (USGS 1989). In the Shasta River, fall chinook only have access to the lower 10-15 miles in dry years but to over 38 miles in wet years (CH2MHill 1985). Much of the Little Shasta River is essentially considered a "write-off" for anadromous stock due to excessive winter diversions to off-stream storage reservoirs there (R. Dotson, CDFG, personal communication).
Another impact on adult migration is the physical barrier of temporary diversion dams. Over the years, these dams were the subject of complaints by CDFG biologists and wardens (CDFG 1965, CDFG 1980a). Recently, many of the dams have been replaced by wells adjacent to the stream in the mainstem Scott River. Other streams still have a problems. On Horse Creek, a 12 foot high diversion dam continues to block all spawners to 14 miles of upstream habitat (S. Fox, USFS, personal communication).
California Department of Fish and Game has recommended a flow of 150 to 200 cfs for adult chinook salmon to "navigate the Scott River safely and reach the best spawning grounds," an amount which has rarely been met in October (see discussion below) (CDFG 1980, USGS 1989).
Steelhead young and surviving adults as well as coho salmon young are very vulnerable in the spring and summer months to stream diversions (Figure 2-20). (If irrigation begins in March in dry years, then fall chinook juveniles may also be affected.) Smolts are trying to migrate downstream to the ocean during the same period as the irrigation season, from April to August. Both adequate flows and clear passage are needed but are not always found.
Unscreened or ineffectively screened diversions have caused serious losses. In one historic study on a tributary of the Scott, an unscreened ditch was drained in June and the stranded fish were counted: 1,488 young steelhead and 105 young coho salmon (Taft and Shapovalov 1935). As recently as March 1988, a major irrigation ditch was opened in the Scott Valley without the fish screen installed and an unknown amount of young fish were lost (R. Dotson, CDFG, personal communication). The fish diverted into ditches are either spread with the water onto the fields or left to die in the ditch when the water is shut off in the fall.
Downstream migrants also become trapped in pools or side channels when the streamflow drops sharply during early summer and soon die from high temperatures, lack of food, or predation. Some portions of streams often become entirely dewatered due to diversion: lower Shackleford Creek, lower French Creek, lower Etna Creek, Kidder Creek, McAdams Creek, Moffett Creek, and Scott River below Farmers' Ditch (CDFG 1965, Puckett 1982). In 1989, a near normal water year, fish rescue efforts by CDFG captured 341,428 juvenile steelhead below diversions in these dewatered streams of the Scott River system during the months of May through July (R. Dotson, CDFG, personal communication).
Steelhead eggs are still incubating in the gravels during May, June, and early July, depending on the timing of spawning and the water temperatures. Since developing eggs are very dependent on an adequate exchange of fresh water to provide oxygen and to remove metabolic wastes, inadequate flows can reduce egg survival (CDFG 1980). Fall chinook eggs and young are probably the least vulnerable to diversions, while steelhead and coho salmon juveniles are quite susceptible as they need to spend at leat one full summer in the stream.
Rearing habitat requires sufficient shelter, food, and water temperature. Reduced flows shrink the amount of shelter in pools (see Figure 2-21) as well as the quantity of streambed invertebrates available for food from the riffle areas. Lack of shelter also exposes the fish more to potential predators, such as heron and otter. All of these factors lower the number of fish the river can support (CDFG 1980).
The large numbers of young steelhead and coho rescued by CDFG from drying tributaries and the main rivers (over 300,000 per year from the Scott Basin alone) indicates the significant loss of population occurring from this deprivation of habitat (Puckett 1982).
Figure 2-21 -- Effect of lower streamflow on amount of fish habitat.
Stream temperatures above tolerable levels for salmonids have been attributed for over 20 years to low flow conditions and the return of warmed irrigation waste water to the Scott and Shasta Rivers (CDFG 1965, CSWRCB 1974, CDFG 1980a, CH2M-Hill 1985). Cooler water (about 56o F) is needed for chinook salmon spawning in the fall. As shown in Figure 2-22, temperatures below 59o F are considered optimum for rearing anadromous salmonids while lethal temperatures occur at about 78-80oF, depending on the adaptability of the local stock. Cooler water pockets can be found in the bottom of deep pools, but sedimentation will fill in pools. In the Shasta River, monitoring efforts recorded a high of 85oF in July 1982 near its mouth and 78oF at the mouth of the Scott River (CDWR 1986). Such high temperatures continue to be an annual problem (D.Maria, CDFG, personal communication).
In Figure 2-23, the relationship of water flow to stream temperature and dissolved oxygen (D.O.) levels is indicated. Oxygen levels in portions of the Shasta River have reached critically low levels for salmonids in recent years (e.g. 4.7 ppm in 8/81) (CDWR 1986). A minimum level of 7.0 mg/l (ppm) is the specific water quality objective for the Shasta and Scott Rivers of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Plan, which was designed to protect the anadromous fish populations (NCRWQCB 1989). Overall, the impacts of low flows and high temperatures have created poor to fair conditions for salmon and steelhead, as summarized below in Table 2-4 (CDFG 1974).
_____________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water Practices
Changes in agricultural water practices have generally been for the better regarding fish needs. In the past, irrigation was commonly done by the flood irrigation method in the Scott and Shasta Valleys. This practice uses excessive amounts of water in comparison to the moisture needs of the plant and low irrigation efficiencies result. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) studied agricultural water use in the two valleys in 1958 and found that an average of 6.3 acre-feet was being applied per acre yet the consumptive water use was only 2.28 acre-feet per acre, creating an overall irrigation efficiency of just 36%. Some landowners would also apply water before it was needed just to exercise their water right (CDWR 1963, McCreary Koretsky 1967).
Sprinkler irrigation was just starting in the late 1950s in the Scott Valley, a technique which has a higher irrigation efficiency (McCreary Koretsky 1967). Wheel-lines there are now common. The numerous temporary gravel diversion dams found in the mainstem Scott River during the 1950s-1970s have almost disappeared in the 1980s, largely due to the results of the 1980 Scott River Adjudication (see below). Pumping water from wells near the river, which is still legally considered surface water, is the more common practice along the river at present (though diversion dams are still frequent on the tributaries). Since such pumps do not require fish screens or diversion dams, they are less harmful to fish. The effect on surface water levels from pumping by the newer deep wells on the edges of the Scott Valley is not known.
Water loss in canals and ditches is also a serious waste. Data collected by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) for a major ditch in the Scott Valley showed that water delivery was reduced 21 to 39% as a result of seepage (USSCS 1976). One of the recently funded Task Force projects is for the Department of Water Resources to study the potential for lining (or piping) the irrigation ditches in Scott Valley to reduce the demand for diversions.
Water use also varies by crop. In Siskiyou County, grains use less water than alfalfa, for instance: 1.9 acre-feet per year (afa) applied average compared to 3.2 afa (CDWR 1986b). Actual water use for a particular site and year varies by rainfall, soil type, and other factors. Irrigated pasture today tends to be uneconomic if money has to be spent for pumping; gravity-fed water systems are the only affordable method (K. Whipple personal communication).
In addition, DWR's current study of the Scott River
will determine the potential for implementing agricultural water conservation
measures for adjudicated surface water to make more water available for
instream uses. In general, a statewide DWR drought report (1988) recommends
that irrigators can stretch their water supply if they try to follow some
or all of the following practices:
The Shasta River has Dwinnell Reservoir/Lake Shastina as the source for the Montague Water Conservation District's irrigation customers. No storage projects exist on the Scott River, though many sites have been studied for additional irrigation water and flood control (McCreary Koretsky 1967). To date, none of these potential projects (i.e., East Fork Scott River, French Creek, Kidder Creek, and Moffett Creek) have been found to be affordable.
A new storage project calls into question concerns regarding potential net benefits to the anadromous fishery of the Scott or Shasta Rivers. As demonstrated by the water quality problems of Lake Shastina, small to medium reservoirs are quite notorious for heating up the stored water, lowering dissolved oxygen levels, and facilitating algal production (CDWR 1986, Jones and Stokes 1976). Even if cold water releases could be obtained when needed, it is very difficult to mimic the instream temperature needs of the stream ecosystem. The loss of spawning and rearing habitat above an on-stream dam site would also be irrecoverable. As part of its current Scott River Flow Augmentation Study, DWR will also be examining the feasibility of a reservoir to augment instream fishery flows.
Conflicts between irrigators (and others) over
water rights to the local streams have led to the defining of their rights
under adjudication procedures. An adjudication "results in a (court) decree
specifying the amounts and priorities of diversion on a watercourse" (Goldfarb
1984). It does not necessarily mean that the stream is fully appropriated
(i.e.,, no new water appropriation permits can be issued). Adjudications
are complete for the following Klamath Basin streams (CSWRCB 1980, CDWR
1989):
| Stream | Year
Decreed |
Number of decreed users | Total decreed Water Right (cfs) |
| Scott River | 1980 | 648 | 874.29 |
| French Creek | 1958 | n/a | n/a |
| Oro Fino Creek | 1980 | 10 | 21.74 |
| Shackleford Creek | 1950 | n/a | n/a |
| Sniktaw Creek | 1980 | 15 | 10.68 |
| Wildcat Creek | 1980 | 7 | 7.49 |
| Shasta River | 1932 | 212 | 618.82 |
| Willow Creek | 1972 | (see above) | (see above) |
| Cold Creek | 1978 | - | - |
| Seiad Creek | 1950* | n/a | n/a |
(The Upper Klamath Basin's water rights for irrigation were partly resolved in the 1957 Klamath River Basin Compact, which is discussed in the previous section on "Large Water Storage Projects." The Oregon Water Resources Department is presently in the process of adjudicating all water claims in the Oregon portion of the Klamath River Basin.)
The degree to which these adjudications address the critical issues depends on how long ago they were completed. According to the Watermaster for the Shasta River, "a peculiarity of the Shasta River decree (1932) is that it defines only appropriative rights and excludes a number of riparian users on the Lower Shasta River. Owners of these riparian rights are not subject to watermaster supervision, causing considerable distribution problems during the season of short water supply" (CDWR 1989).
In the Scott River Adjudication (1980), irrigation diversions must end October 15 to protect the fall chinook salmon run, but water is entitled for stockwatering and domestic uses during the entire year for an amount "reasonably necessary."
For most of these adjudicated streams, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has just recently declared them "fully appropriated" during the period 4/1 to 11/30 (SWRCB Order #89-25). This decision means that no new applications for appropriation of water during these months will be accepted. It should also be noted that the right to use a certain amount of water does not mean that that amount is always naturally available.
Unfortunately for fish, California water law:
In the 1980 Scott River Adjudication, California Department of Fish
and Game was greatly disappointed that the State Board had "no intention
to consider the instream water needs for fish upstream from the lower end
of the Scott River Valley," despite CDFG's study which showed such a need
(CDFG 1974, CDFG 1976). In response, CDFG strongly advocated watermaster
service with the emphasis on:
The closest approximation to minimum fish flows
in the Scott River decree can be found in the instream water rights allotted
to the U.S. Forest Service as a riparian owner for its lands downstream
of the valley (CSWRCB 1980):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"These amounts are necessary to provide minimum subsistence-level fishery conditions including spawning, egg incubation, rearing, downstream migration, and summer survival of anadromous fish, and can be experienced only in critically dry years without resulting in depletion of the fishery resource." (emphasis added)
A comparison of these required flows and the actual minimum flows shows they are not always being met. Between 1980 and 1984, the base streamflow allocation cited above was not met about 40% of the time (Kesner 1984). For the period from October 1985 through September 1989, a graphical comparison is offered in Figure 2-24. It can be seen that the minimum flow requirements have most often not been met in the fall months, when fall chinook, coho, and perhaps steelhead would be coming up the Scott River to spawn in the upper reaches. The summer flow minimums were close to being met in 1986 (29 cfs vs. 30) but were not met in 1987, 1988, or 1989. The lowest flow during this period was 6.2 cfs on September 1, 1988. (The lowest flow on record was 5.0 cfs during August 18-24, 1981.)
Although the years 1987 and 1988 were quite dry, the year 1986 was a normal to wet water year and the year 1989 a near normal one, based on total discharge at the Scott River gauge (USGS 1989). According to the statement made in the water rights finding for the Klamath National Forest, the below minimum flow conditions being experienced in recent years can be said to be resulting in the "depletion of the fishery resource."
In response, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has been protesting any new application for the appropriation of water in the Scott River system if it might reduce instream flows awarded to the Service. For awhile, these protests were ignored by the State Board's Division of Water Rights but then started being upheld (Kesner 1984). Temperatures on the Scott River are also being monitored closely by the USFS to document the impact of low flows on salmonid habitat quality (J. Power, USFS, personal communication).
Besides the above minimum flows, the Adjudication reserved high flows in the winter and spring months for the functions of "flushing sediments from and renewing spawning gravels and food- producing riffles, and providing transportation flows for seaward migrant salmon and steelhead." These flushing flows in the range of 10,000 to 15,000 cfs are obtainable, on the average, after allowance for the current rights in the decree and after storage of an additional 25,000 acre-feet per year in upstream small reservoirs. Above these uses, the State Board shall include "conditions it deems necessary to protect said reserved flows" on new applications to appropriate water. CDFG commented that these peak flows have not been adequate to flush the sediment from the river, attributing a possible factor to "the diversion of large quantities of water even before the growing season and during the snowmelt runoff period which reduces the energy needed to move these sediments" (CDFG 1980).
Another argument in favor of improved agricultural
water practices is the legal use of the term "reasonable." As the Scott
River Adjudication noted,
Nothing herein contained shall be construed to allot to any claimant a right to waste water, or to divert from the Scott River stream system at any time a quantity of water in excess of an amount reasonably necessary for his beneficial use under a reasonable method of use and a reasonable method of diversion, nor to permit him to exercise his right in such a manner as to unreasonably impair the quality of the natural flow.
What water waste is now occurring, such as excessive seepage from ditches and certain forms of flood irrigation, should be evaluated (as DWR is doing in the Scott Valley in 1989-90) and corrective measures should be applied.
The purchase of water rights to improve instream flow is an alternative advocated by DWR and others (Puckett 1982). This option would allow for the state (e.g., DWR, CDFG) to purchase a portion of a water right owner's allotment in exchange for the state improving the efficiency of the owner's diversion system (e.g., lining the ditch or piping the water). In concept, everyone would benefit: the state would get more water to stay in the stream and the owner would get a more reliable water delivery system.
However, several problems exist with this approach: 1) if water can be saved through such improvements, the State Board could argue that the water was previously being wasted through an unreasonable method of diversion, and that it should be forfeited (the "forfeiture doctrine") since now it is no longer being put to beneficial use ("use it or lose it"); therefore, the right for this "excess" may not be the owner's to sell; 2) the purchased water would remain in the stream system only until a downstream user diverted the additional flow (through a new appropriation or illegal excess diversion); 3) adequate water would need to be purchased to provide a positive impact on the fish flow needs; and 4) its cost-effectiveness needs evaluation. The Department of Water Resources is currently investigating this option for purchasing private water rights from willing sellers to augment flows in the Scott River.
Because of the problem identified in #1 above, water users do not now have an incentive to improve the physical efficiency of their water delivery system or their irrigation practices. California water law is full of obstacles to water conservation and actually encourages water rights users to use the full amount of the right even when they do not need it. Changes are needed to instead provide incentives for water conservation (Governor's Commission 1978, Goldfarb 1984). During the 1980 decade, at least a half dozen laws were enacted to encourage voluntary transfers, permit water agencies to transfer their surplus water, and other changes (CDWR 1987). However, more improvements are needed and instream flows for fish life are still not allowed.
The State of Oregon can offer California at least two examples of such adopted improvements in state water law: SB 24 (1987), which allows irrigators who improve their systems and reduce historic consumptive use to market or use most of the saved water; and SB 140 (1987), which gives an in-stream water right the same legal status as any other water right, and also allows the purchase, lease or donation of private water rights for conversion to in-stream rights.
One last tool is the Public Trust Doctrine. In recent court rulings, this legal doctrine has been expanded to protect the public's rights and interests in fish habitat, among other intangible concerns. The "Mono Lake Decision" by the California Supreme Court in 1983 combined public trust issues with state water rights laws. This landmark decision concluded that: 1) state licenses to divert streams are subject to the public trust doctrine; 2) when issuing water rights permits and licenses, the state must consider public trust values; and 3) to protect public trust values, the state must continue to review and reconsider existing water rights (CACSST 1988). As a result, the state can decide to reallocate water to improve the balance between irrigation diversion and fisheries protections.
In summary, several legal alternatives may be available
to the Task Force to improve the current situation if voluntary efforts
do not succeed:
Regulations to control stream diversion impacts are primarily administered by California Department of Fish and Game and the State Water Resources Control Board.
Direct stream diversions often require the construction of a temporary diversion dam. Current CDFG rules require a "1603 Agreement" if equipment is used to alter the streambed for the dams, with removal before spawning season, usually by October 15. The State Board requires that users must breach gravel diversion dams at the end of the irrigation season each year to allow adult fish to swim upstream to their native spawning areas. Diversion structures shall also be "constructed and operated so as to pass stream flow in excess of the diversion allotment directly to the stream channel to allow passage by fish during the irrigation season prior to about June 1" (CSWRCB 1980). Who is responsible for enforcing these conditions when no watermaster service is in effect is unclear (CDFG 1980).
Screening of diversions is required by the Fish and Game Code (Sections 5980-6100) and diversion owners must keep the screens in good working order. Older diversions are screened and operated at the expense of the Department of Fish and Game while new diversion screens (since 1972) shall be constructed, operated, and maintained by the owner. Enforcement is difficult (CACSST 1988).
Enforcement of water rights adjudications can be handled by the Watermaster Service of DWR when enough water right owners request the service ("at least 15% of the owners of the conduits lawfully entitled to directly divert water from the streams ...") (Section 4050, State Water Code). Water right owners within most of the Scott River Adjudication area have declined the service due to the additional cost burden (proportional to the amount of consumptive flow allotment in cfs), but the other adjudicated areas of the Shasta and Scott Valleys have opted for the watermaster service.
Stream diversions have reduced the salmon and steelhead populations of the Scott and Shasta Rivers to a subsistence level, and may have been the primary cause of the loss of the summer steelhead and spring chinook runs in these two tributaries. Present agricultural water practices need improvement to increase their water efficiency. Through the cooperation of the farmers and ranchers in the two valleys, alternative practices could be implemented which would provide a benefit to both the water user and the fishery. The Task Force is committed to creative solutions which will not substantially decrease agricultural productivity nor pose undue hardship on ranchers and farmers.
California water law also needs to be changed to provide incentives for water conservation and to provide for instream water rights for fish, perhaps along the lines of Oregon's water law. If the voluntary effort does not succeed, legal alternatives are available. What we do not know, however, is a reasonable estimate of the amount of flows actually needed for sustainable salmon and steelhead production in each stream system.
In summary, instream flow problems for salmon and
steelhead occur during the following seasons due to these reasons:
| Season | Primary Affected Fish Run | Reason |
| Fall: Sept-Nov | Fall Chinook | End of irrigation; ditch diversion for stockwatering |
| Winter: Dec-Mar | Steelhead | Diversion for storage; water rights: "use it or lose it" |
| Spring: Mar-May | Steelhead, Coho | Irrigation begins; water rights: "use it or lose it" |
| Summer: Jun-Aug | Steelhead, Coho | Peak irrigation use; excess diversion to compensate for seepage losses in ditches |
Policies for Stream Diversions
Objective 2.F. Protect the instream flow needs of salmon and steelhead in streams affected by water diversions.
2.F.1. As a first priority, seek opportunities
for stream diverters to reduce their impact on salmon and steelhead habitat:
