American Rivers Opposes Raising Shasta Dam
Steve Rothert, California Regional Director
February 7, 2013 | Dams & Dam Removal, Wild and Scenic Rivers
Shasta Dam, Sacramento River, CA | Bureau of Reclamation
The Bureau of Reclamation has studied the feasibility of raising its 602 ft high Shasta Dam on the Sacramento River to increase the dam’s storage capacity. For several reasons including the two we outline here, American Rivers opposes the raising of Shasta Dam as proposed.
First, the Feasibility Report recommends raising the dam 18.5 ft, which would provide only an additional 63,000 acre-feet of water supply in an average year, (which is less than 0.2% of annual agricultural and urban water use in California) . The project would cost the taxpayers $1.1 billion, or $1,700 per acre-foot.
Other potential water supplies, including conservation and efficiency measures, could produce far more water at far less cost than the proposed project. At a time when Washington can’t seem to figure out how to pay its bills, the last thing the federal government should be considering is a water project that has an enormous cost to the taxpayers at a minimal benefit. It just doesn’t make sense.
Second, raising Shasta Dam would flood up to three miles of amazing wild trout waters in upper Sacramento River and McCloud River. The California legislature protected the McCloud river under the California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (W&SRA), for just this reason, finding that it “possesses extraordinary resources in that it supports one of the finest wild trout fisheries in the state” and “maintaining the McCloud River in its free-flowing conditions to protect its fishery is the highest and most beneficial use of the water.”
Given the enormous cost of this project, and the negative impact to the river, there is no justification for the federal government to charge in and override California state law to raise Shasta Dam.
The California W&SRA prohibits the construction of additional dams, reservoirs, diversions and other water impoundment facilities on the McCloud River. In addition, the federal W&SRA provides protection for the McCloud. Section 12(a) of the federal act requires the Bureau of Reclamation and the US Forest Service to protect rivers that are listed or eligible for listing under the federal W&SRA as the river was in 1994. Because the McCloud is considered eligible, the protections of Section 12(a) apply to the McCloud River and would prohibit flooding any eligible section.
Californians deserve a better set of choices than just “dam raise” or “no dam raise”. In an era of tight budgets, it’s time to step back from the old way of doing things, and start looking at a more comprehensive set of 21st Century solutions, including water efficiency, recycling, and conservation, rather than spending more than $1 billion for minimal water gain.
Post a Comment
Comment Policy: Our goal is to provide a forum for sharing and interacting with others about issues that are affecting our rivers and our clean water. All comments offered in the spirit of civil conversation are welcome! Commercial spam, obscenity and other rude behavior are not, and will be removed.
Comments List
Submitted by Kay Travis at: February 13, 2013
Keeping the dam at its present height seems to me to be the best thing. Spending big money for a minimal benefit which is either balanced by or outweighed by the benefits of the river above the dam and the recreational and ecological good it provides.
Submitted by Mary Bloxham at: February 12, 2013
Rising the height of Shasta Dam will be more expensive than it is worth, plus it will change the character of the rivers that feed into it.
Submitted by Brian Gingras at: February 12, 2013
I urge you not to raise the height of the Shasta Dam. It is too expensive in these times of huge budget deficits. And it would also be environmentally detrimental, destroying an excellent wild trout fishery.
Submitted by Janette St Pierre at: February 12, 2013
ONE PLANET ONE PEOPLE ONE CHANCE.
Submitted by ben dugger at: February 12, 2013
Be much better if you removed the thing and let the river run free.
Submitted by Pete at: February 12, 2013
Since the 1920's the big irrigators have been getting wealthy at the expense of the taxpayers. The time for fresh ideas and new thinking is well overdue.
Submitted by Janis Wilson-Pavlik at: February 12, 2013
Lets put the proposed funding for the construction project into low-interest loans extended to CA homeowners to install rainwater collection systems and grey water systems, etc . As CA has led the way in so many conservation policies and standards, let's move forward and make an investment in promotion of better living for a better healthier planet.
Submitted by Conrado Acevedo at: February 12, 2013
There are other options that would help out the environment. Follow the eligibility that is offered uner the federal @&SRA as the river was in 1994.
Submitted by Patti Moss at: February 12, 2013
We are the Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center, and we are helping lead the fight against raising Shasta Dam. Please support the protection of America's wild rivers by getting involved today! Patti Moss, Executive Director www.MountShastaEcology.org
Submitted by Marian Wells at: February 12, 2013
Please do not raise the Shasta Dam. It's too costly, not needed and the government has no right to override California state law.
Submitted by Katherine at: February 12, 2013
Filling supporters pockets is not acceptable, especially when what they want hurts the delicate eco system. These greed mongers need to be stopped as they are killing our home - Planet Earth