[env-trinity] Environmental Water Caucus: Shasta Reservoir Study Is A Sham

[Dan Bacher]

"This project is a sham foisted once again upon the taxpayers of the  
United States to have them pay for the dam enlargement while the  
beneficiaries do not pay their share," said Tom Stokely of the  
California Water Impact Network (C-WIN). "The allocation of $654.9  
million in costs on the public because of claimed fishery benefits is  
a hoax."

Photo of Winnemem Wintu Tribe Idle No More Protest at Shasta Dam on  
September 21 by Dan Bacher.



800_img_3743.jpg
original image ( 5184x3456)

Environmental Water Caucus: Shasta Reservoir Study Is A Sham

by Dan Bacher

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation recently published a Draft  
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for a controversial plan to  
increase the storage capacity of Shasta Reservoir on the Sacramento  
River by raising the dam height 18.5 feet, a project strongly opposed  
by the Winnemem Wintu Tribe and conservation groups.

The Bureau claims the primary purposes of the project are to  
“increase survival of anadromous fish populations in the upper  
Sacramento River” and “increase water supply and water supply  
reliability for agricultural, municipal and industrial, and  
environmental purposes."

Bureau spokesman Michelle Denning and other agency officials claimed,  
in a public meeting in Redding on July 16, that the plan, the "Shasta  
Lake Water Resources Investigation," would improve the “operational  
flexibility” of the Delta watershed and increase the survival of  
salmon and other fish in the Sacramento River by increasing the  
amount of cold water pool available to be released to improve  
downstream temperature conditions for fish during critical periods.

Other “benefits” touted in the power point presentation include  
increased flood protection, providing additional hydropower supplies,  
and "improving water quality" in the Sacramento River and the Delta.

A broad coalition, including the Winnemem Wintu and other Tribes,  
business owners, fishing groups and environmental organizations,  
opposes the plan, due to the catastrophic impacts the project poses  
to salmon and steelhead populations and many of the remaining sacred  
sites of the Winnemem not already inundated by Shasta Dam. They  
disagree strongly with the Bureau's contention that the dam raise  
will "increase survival of anadromous fish populations" and "increase  
water supply and water supply reliability."

The California Environmental Water Caucus (EWC) describes the project  
as "a waste of the $1.2 billion cost, providing little additional  
water yield for an exorbitant price tag and which would be a travesty  
for American taxpayers,"in a statement released on September 30, the  
final day for public comments on the document.

"In addition, the claimed beneficial effect on salmon populations is  
illusionary and amounts to an attempt to shift part of the cost  
burden ($654 million) to the public instead of having the real  
beneficiaries pay for their water supply," according to Tom Stokely  
of the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN)

Stokely said, "The stated purpose of enlarging Shasta Dam is to meet  
the two primary project objectives of increasing water supply for  
Central Valley agriculture and to increase the survival of Sacramento  
River anadromous fish populations.The claimed benefits to salmon  
allow two thirds of the project cost to be shifted to taxpayers and  
away from the true beneficiaries – the Central Valley farming  
corporations. However, the favored alternative is based on inflated  
and illusory benefits for natural salmon production and it will not  
increase survival of anadromous fish in any substantial way."

While the preferred alternative will increase storage capacity by  
more than 600,000 acre feet (compared to the present capacity of 4.5  
million acre feet), the average supply yield will be only 47,300 acre  
feet; a very poor return for more than a billion dollar investment of  
public funds, noted Stokely.

"This project is a sham foisted once again upon the taxpayers of the  
United States to have them pay for the dam enlargement while the  
beneficiaries do not pay their share.The allocation of $654.9 million  
in costs on the public because of claimed fishery benefits is a  
hoax," he emphasized.

Steve Evans of Friends of the River pointed out, "federal law clearly  
requires consideration of Wild & Scenic protection for the McCloud  
River as an alternative to the proposed dam raise and reservoir  
enlargement; it is also required for the upper Sacramento and Pit  
Rivers and all other streams on public lands tributary to Shasta  
Reservoir. No such assessment of Wild & Scenic Rivers is provided in  
the DEIS."

Evans said raising Shasta by 6.5-18.5 feet will flood from 1,470 feet  
to 3,550 feet of the segment of the McCloud River eligible for  
National Wild & Scenic River protection.The DEIS also admits that  
this flooding will adversely affect the McCloud’s free flowing  
character, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable Native  
American cultural, wild trout fishery, and scenic values.

The raising of Shasta Dam is a threat to the very existence of the  
Winnemem Wintu Tribe and the ability to bring back the salmon and a  
way of life that the Creator gave to the Tribe. The Winnemem Wintu’s  
efforts are about preserving a beautiful natural world, with abundant  
salmon, clean water, and ecologically healthy and diverse forests,  
that has been and continues to be flooded, logged, cut up by roads,  
mined, subdivided, sold, and destroyed acre by precious acre.

"The DEIS fails to assess and acknowledge the full scope of the  
devastating and irreparable impacts this Project would have on the  
Winnemem Wintu Tribe," stated Colin Bailey, Executive Director of the  
Environmental Justice Coalition for Water.

The coalition said these findings also strongly suggest that were an  
honest and adequate Benefit-Cost Analysis performed on this proposed  
project, its ratio of benefits to costs would not be adequate to  
justify the project.

Nick Di Croce, from the Environmental Water Caucus, urges the Bureau  
to "perform an honest Benefit-Cost Analysis for the project and look  
toward more cost effective alternatives such as water conservation  
and recycling, the retirement of drainage-problem lands, reoperation  
of Shasta Dam and Reservoir, and a host of projects recommended by  
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the public which were not  
considered or rejected due to Reclamation’s bias toward justifying  
an enlarged Shasta Dam."

Di Croce requested that the Bureau "abandon this ill-conceived  
project and save the dollars, the environmental damage, and the  
affront to Native American interests that this project would generate  
if pursued by the Bureau."

The dam raise is planned in tandem with Governor Jerry Brown's Bay  
Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build twin tunnels to facilitate  
the export of massive quantities of Sacramento River water to  
subsidized agribusiness corporations that irrigate selenium-laced,  
drainage impaired land on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley.  
The construction of the peripheral tunnels will not only drive  
Sacramento River Chinook salmon and steelhead, Delta smelt, longfin  
smelt and green sturgeon over the abyss of extinction, but will  
imperil salmon and steelhead populations on the Trinity and Klamath  
rivers.

The massive opposition to the dam raise plan was evidenced by the  
2,132 signatures that the Winnemem Wintu's petition against the dam  
raise gathered. (http://www.credomobilize.com/petitions/stop-the- 
raise-of-shasta-dam-support-the-winnemem-wintu? 
sp_ref=11569539.4.698.f.0.2&source=fb_share_sp)

Over 30 people, including members of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, Hoopa  
Valley Tribe and their allies, protested government plans to raise  
Shasta Dam and build the peripheral tunnels under the Delta in front  
of the Visitors Center at the dam on Saturday, September 21, 2013.The  
protest was held as part of series of events, including several film  
showings, to counter the Bureau of Reclamation’s 75th anniversary  
celebration of Shasta Dam the week of September 15-22. (http:// 
www.counterpunch.org/2013/09/27/idle-no-more-protest-at-shasta-dam,  
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/09/26/18743827.php)

Winnemem Wintu Chief Caleen Sisk emphasized that the loss of salmon  
that would result from the raising of Shasta Dam and the construction  
of the twin tunnels would be a huge catastrophe for fish, people and  
the planet. “Who will turn over the rocks in the river when the  
salmon are gone? Who will provide the nutrients to the ecosystem?  
Without the salmon, there will be a major disaster,” she said.

For more information, go to: http://www.ewccalifornia.org/releases/ 
prshastadeis.pdf

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20131002/ac789b85/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 800_img_3743.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 278172 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20131002/ac789b85/attachment.jpg>