AgWA co-hosts Scott Valley tour with agency staff
Scott Valley Agriculture Water Alliance and the Siskiyou County Farm Bureau worked together last week to co-host a tour of Scott Valley by staff from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWB), North Coast Regional Water Board (RWB), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Our goal was to share on-the-ground knowledge with the staff who are working on the next iteration of the emergency drought regulations for Scott and Shasta valleys.
In all, there were four staff from SWB, two from RWB, and two from CDFW. About as many farmers and ranchers piled into vans and pickups with them and we toured the valley, starting with two hay farms at the north end of the valley, where the difficulties of the 30% reduction plans (“local cooperative solutions”) were discussed.
We then checked out some Chinook habitat in the Scott River at the mouth of Shackleford, and then coho habitat further up Shackleford. Our goal was to look at various stretches of the river and its tributaries to show that the blanket curtailments are inappropriate, and that a more targeted approach would do more to help fish without unnecessarily harming our farmers and ranchers. We also discussed the fact that our coho populations are strong, and that we can be equally successful in improving Chinook habitat if given the chance.
Along the tour, we pointed out the alluvial fans on tributaries such as Shackleford, Kidder, Patterson, and Etna Creek, which are naturally prone to go underground in summer months. We provided historical references to this natural phenomenon, which was documented as far back as 1851. It’s clearly not a result of diversions or pumping, as some like to say. We also pointed out that the Scott River disconnected at times in history when groundwater pumping was not prevalent.
We stopped at a cattle ranch to discuss the importance of using ditches to convey stockwater in the winter—an action that doesn’t just supply cattle with water when, in some cases, no other source is available, but also helps to recharge the aquifer. We discussed the need to slow down the Scott River and hold on to the water that leaves in great volumes during the winter and spring. This idea had surprisingly strong support from agency staff.
Dialogue opened up about the flow objectives for the Scott River, which are not achievable in a drought year—which sets us up for failure: curtailments. Instead, we asked agency staff to help us implement actual solutions, such as managed aquifer recharge and other water storage options. These are things that would actually help with flow levels and connectivity. Winter livestock watering was repeatedly given as an example of groundwater recharge, and it was pointed out that the term "inefficient livestock watering," as currently used in the regulation, is inaccurate and offensive to our ranchers.
We went up French Creek to show good coho and steelhead habitat, thanks in part to efforts by landowners. Then up to Callahan and back down Eastside, with a stop at Young’s Dam. Our last stop before dinner at 5 Mary’s was at Jim Morris’ ranch to learn about his “managed aquifer recharge” experiments. Dr. Laura Foglia, a UC Davis hydrologist who is helping conduct the research, was kind enough to join the tour. She reinforced the idea of finding positive solutions to help river flows and connectivity, such as doing purposeful groundwater recharge. She said that using ditches to convey water up-watershed when instream flows are abundant is a net positive for groundwater recharge—even in the case of winter livestock watering.
Another version of the draft regulations is expected this Friday, 6/10. We are hopeful that our discussions on the tour and our continued communication this week will help make the regulations less onerous, and that positive projects, such as increased water storage for Scott Valley, could come out of this. We’ll keep trying!
