Latest news with #U.S.BureauofReclamation
Newsweek
5 days ago
- Climate
- Newsweek
Lake Mead's Water Projected to Hit Lowest Point on Record
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Lake Mead's water levels are projected to be the lowest in recorded history by 2027, according to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The lake, which was first filled in 1930, is already only 31 percent full after dropping to a low of 1,041.71 feet of water above sea level in July 2022. Its levels have risen since that low in 2022, but are expected to fall again to 1,041.06 feet as of May 2027. Why It Matters Lake Mead is the nation's largest reservoir and is part of the Colorado River Basin network which supplies water to seven U.S. states, 30 tribal nations, and also parts of Mexico. Approximately 25 million people, including residents of the major cities of Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Los Angeles, rely on water from Lake Mead. Millions also rely on the lake's ability to create electricity across Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada. What To Know Lake Mead's water levels are determined by a number of factors including natural conditions and demand. A major reason is climate change, as unpredictable weather patterns, hotter summers which not only dry out the lake but also increase demand for water, and more arid winters are leaving the basin empty. Now, despite a snowy past winter in Colorado, the basin is still struggling. Kyle Roerink, executive director of the Great Basin Water Network, told 8NewsNow that the levels represent "the uncertainty we face year after year." A boat that was once submerged sits on cracked earth hundreds of feet from the shoreline of Lake Mead on May 10, 2022, near Boulder City, Nevada. A boat that was once submerged sits on cracked earth hundreds of feet from the shoreline of Lake Mead on May 10, 2022, near Boulder City, Nevada. John Locher, File/AP Photo Further Water Restrictions? The lessening levels mean that people in the states reliant on Lake Mead, predominantly, California, Nevada, and Arizona, may be put under water restrictions. These states are already under Tier 1 water restrictions, meaning people cannot use free-flowing hoses, must reduce hours for landscaping, and must have conservation plans in place. If the water levels continue to drop, they will be placed under Tier 2 restrictions, which could see the water allocations for each state being limited. Millions of people rely on this basin for water and electricity as President Donald Trump's administration has withdrawn the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement again and has opened up the country for more fossil fuel drilling. Trump has signed several executive orders to revive fossil fuel production by declaring an "energy emergency," and the Environmental Protection Agency led by Lee Zeldin has worked to remove clean air standards. The Department of Government Efficiency also laid off several Lake Mead workers during its mass-firing drive. However, many of these employees have now been reinstated. Jennifer Shoulders, center, protesting the layoffs of National Park Service employees, at the Lake Mead National Recreation Area Visitor Center on March 1, 2025, near Boulder City, Nevada. Jennifer Shoulders, center, protesting the layoffs of National Park Service employees, at the Lake Mead National Recreation Area Visitor Center on March 1, 2025, near Boulder City, Nevada. Steve Marcus/Las Vegas Sun via AP What People Are Saying Kyle Roerink, executive director of the Great Basin Water Network, told media: "This report underscores the arid shifts we are seeing across the West and the uncertainty we face year after year. Much of the Upper Colorado River region had normal to above-average snowpacks this winter. But that is not translating to water for Lake Mead. Even in good years, we are seeing bad results." What Happens Next Lake workers are working to expand surrounding recreation areas, as lowering water levels has resulted in a change in where people can enjoy time at the lake. As temperatures rise in the region and little evident action to combat climate change, residents who rely on water from Lake Mead can expect to endure more restrictions on their water access.
Los Angeles Times
5 days ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
The West's Climate Mayors call for federal help as Colorado River flows decline
A group of mayors representing cities across the West is calling for the federal government and state leaders to rally around efforts to help the region address water scarcity as climate change takes a toll on the Colorado River and other vital water sources. The bipartisan group Climate Mayors outlined a series of proposals for the Trump administration and state governments in a document released this week, saying federal and state involvement and financial support will be essential as cities seek to advance solutions including new infrastructure and water-saving initiatives. 'The Colorado River was allocated in a much wetter time period than now,' said Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego, the current chair of Climate Mayors. 'Every part of the river system has been impacted by climate change, and so we need to talk about what's the best way to address those changes, and how to spread the impact most intelligently,' Gallego said in an interview. 'Our group of Western mayors thinks this really needs to be a local, state and federal priority.' The group urged the federal government to support additional funding for infrastructure projects, including efforts to recycle wastewater and capture stormwater locally, and to maintain funding for various federal water programs. The mayors noted that drought-related disasters are on the rise. The Colorado River's average flow has declined dramatically since 2000, and research has shown that human-caused climate change is a major contributor. 'This region is facing severe challenges with charting a new future and will need regional collaboration to move forward,' the group said in the document. 'Current water use levels and patterns across all sectors cannot be maintained in the face of increasing water scarcity due to climate change.' Nearly 350 mayors across the country are part of Climate Mayors. The policy proposals were developed by a Western regional group of mayors and their representatives, among them officials from Los Angeles, Culver City, Irvine and San Diego. The mayors called for the Interior Department and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to 'ensure sustainable management of the Colorado River system,' saying that ongoing negotiations on new rules for addressing shortages after 2026 'must be based on the concept of permanent and proportionate measures for all sectors of water use.' The Colorado River provides water for cities from Denver to Los Angeles, as well as 30 Native tribes and farmlands from the Rocky Mountains to northern Mexico. Representatives of seven states that rely on the river have been negotiating new rules for managing the river after 2026, when the current guidelines expire. But the talks have been at an impasse, as competing proposals have created a rift between the three states in the river's lower basin — California, Arizona and Nevada — and the four states in the river's upper basin — Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico. Gallego, a Democrat, said water efforts in the Colorado River Basin have largely been bipartisan, and mayors hope to see bipartisan cooperation continue. 'We're very hopeful to see Washington, D.C., make this a big priority,' Gallego said. 'We need to do everything we can to stretch existing supplies further.' Failing to reach an accord, she said, could lead to 'extensive litigation and a lot of paralysis along the river system.' The federal government has previously been helpful in providing funds to support water conservation efforts, as well as scientific and legal expertise to help the region manage the river, Gallego said. The Trump administration has recently cut the staff of the Bureau of Reclamation, which oversees water management in the West. President Trump has nominated Ted Cooke, who previously led the Central Arizona Project, to be the Bureau of Reclamation's new commissioner. 'I hope he'll work hard to bring all the stakeholders together so that we can get a lot of progress on Colorado River negotiations,' Gallego said. The federal government declared the Colorado River's first water shortage in 2021. A series of subsequent agreements, supported with federal funds, have helped secure temporary water savings. (Some farmers in California's Imperial Valley, for example, have volunteered to participate in a federally funded program that pays growers who leave some hay fields unwatered for part of the year.) The meager snowpack in the Rocky Mountains this winter has again shrunk the amount of runoff, increasing the risks the river's depleted reservoirs could decline to critically low levels. The water level of Lake Powell, on the Utah-Arizona border, now sits at 34% of capacity. Downstream near Las Vegas, Lake Mead is about 31% full. Presenting their proposals, the Climate Mayors touted the progress of cities including Santa Monica, Los Angeles, Phoenix and Las Vegas in reducing water use through conservation, recycling water and becoming more locally self-sufficient. Cities have also reduced water use by offering cash rebates to customers who remove thirsty lawns, and by targeting the elimination of purely decorative grass. While the Colorado River supplies growing cities in Southern California and across the Southwest, agriculture remains the dominant user of the river's water, accounting for about three-fourths of the water that is diverted. Among their recommendations, the group of mayors called for state leaders to regularly convene representatives of agricultural water agencies, as well as tribes and other entities, to discuss goals and potential solutions. 'We think there is opportunity for collaboration in a variety of areas that allow agriculture to still succeed, but provide opportunities for cities as well,' Gallego said. Mark Gold, director of water scarcity solutions for the Natural Resources Defense Council, provided advice to the group that prepared the recommendations. He said the substantial reductions in water use that cities have achieved in recent years shows they are 'leading when it comes to sustainable water management, and agriculture is way behind.' An implicit message behind the cities' proposals, Gold said, is a call for those representing agricultural water agencies to take part in collaborative efforts to address the region's water shortfall. 'Success can't be achieved without agriculture coming up with sustainable, durable solutions,' he said. It's also important that the federal government begin to play a bigger role to help break the long impasse in the negotiations among the states, Gold said. 'I think anybody who has been a student of what's going on in the Colorado River system would say that the federal government has not been exerting their authority,' he said. 'And that leadership is just hugely important.' The proposals also underline city leaders' interest in seeing federal funding for water projects not be eliminated, Gold said. 'The transformation to a sustainable water management future is not going to be cheap,' he said, 'and it can't all fall on ratepayers, or you're going to have incredibly difficult affordability problems.'
San Francisco Chronicle
11-06-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
One way Trump's DOGE cuts could actually help environmentalists in the West
No big government infrastructure project made an imprint on the landscape and economy of the West more than the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's 20th century dam-building spree, which peppered 490 dams across the country, created an agricultural civilization dependent on federal hydrology civil engineering and brought about a welter of environmental difficulties after drying up dozens of once-healthy rivers. Today, the agency claims a $1.4 billion budget to maintain its fleet of aging dams. It was perhaps inevitable that the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, would seek to cut it down. Approximately 400 workers at the bureau — including dam tenders, emergency management specialists and hydrologists — received 'reduction in force' letters in March, raising fears that poorly monitored dams could fail, creating catastrophic flooding. This, just five weeks after President Donald Trump stoked fears of mismanagement by ordering billions of gallons of water released from two Central Valley dams, against the objections of officials, water experts and farmers. Turmoil in the federal dam management system represents potential disaster but also a prime opportunity: It offers environmentalists an opening to make a vigorous case for dam removal — a move that could save costs and please business interests while achieving a longstanding goal of getting rid of the most harmful and obsolete blockages on Western rivers. At Fossil Creek in the high country of north-central Arizona, a gorgeous waterfall now tumbles near headwaters where an Arizona Public Service hydroelectric dam stood until 2005. Ask people swimming below the falls where the dam was located, and you'll get some puzzled looks. 'There was never any dam here,' said one, unaware he was standing right next to its remnants, masonry concealed under travertine deposits that give it every appearance of a natural falls. Arizona built the dam in 1916 to run the ore-crushers at nearby copper and gold mines at Jerome and Crown King. Eventually, the dam also powered streetlights in Phoenix. But by the end of the century, the river had been killed and the antique plant was providing only .002% of Arizona Public Service's revenue. So the utility company took 14 feet off the top of the dam and let Fossil Creek flow, and a once-dead waterway sprang back to magnificent life. By 2009, Congress was impressed enough by the transformation to designate this once-tired industrialized trickle a National Wild and Scenic River. Twenty years after the removal, rare species like the Chiricahua leopard frog, southwestern willow flycatcher and yellow-billed cuckoo thrive in pools near the banks. Young cottonwood trees are growing. Algae are reblooming. About 500,000 dams stand in the United States today, and 90,000 of them are more than 25 feet high. The biggest are in the West, but obsolete remnants of 19th century and 20th century industrialization also litter New England and other Eastern regions. These dams have served many purposes — turning mill wheels, impounding water for crops, preventing floods, generating electricity and giving livestock a drink — but scientific consensus now holds that they do more collective damage than good. The stagnant pools, mounds of underwater silt, mosquito-breeding artificial ponds and detritus of long-shuttered factories do little to enhance the ecosystem or the landscape. But removing even useless dams is a complicated and often maddening process, according to Dartmouth College geography Professor Francis Magilligan. In some cases, it is unclear who owns a dam or has jurisdiction over it. Local groups may consider a dam a historic site. And even though it is almost always cheaper to remove a defective dam rather than repair it, the process involved can stymie those efforts. Only about 2,200 dams in the U.S. have been successfully removed, Magilligan notes. Decommissioning Fossil Creek was possible because it presented a unique political case. Many people at Arizona Public Service felt proud of the dam and the plant, and resisted shutting it down. Even though it was practically an antique, the flume leading down from the dam to the Childs and Irving power plants was still helping generate 4 megawatts of electricity (enough to power about 1,000 homes) and making about $500,000 per year for the Fortune 500 company. But the company was Arizona's largest utility and a powerful lobbying force in the state Legislature with a long-term interest in good public relations. There was also a personal quirk. Bill Post, the CEO of the utility's parent company, happened to be childhood friends with the outspoken environmentalist Robin Silvers, co-founder of the Center for Biological Diversity. Silvers appealed to Post's outdoorsman side in making the case for Fossil Creek. Over the objections of colleagues, Post approved the dam removal as a goodwill gesture and a concession to Silver's lobbying just before it was up for relicensing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The greatest environmental threat at Fossil Creek now comes not from stagnant water or unhealthy biomes but from a crush of human sunseekers and water hounds in the summer who create traffic and litter. Scientists are looking at the long-term implications of shutting down the dam, assessing the movement of the 90-year silt buildup behind the dam walls, and the potential reentry of nonnative fish like bass and sunfish. And Fossil Creek is not the only recent high-profile test case for Western dam removal. A coalition of Native tribes in California convinced Berkshire Hathaway Energy to transfer ownership of four dams on the Klamath River to a nonprofit organization to oversee their dismantling in the name of rehabilitating a salmon fishery. Not that science is a major concern of the federal government right now. Trump administration officials have proposed expanding the capacity of the Shasta Dam to hold back more of the McCloud River in Northern California. However, if DOGE is truly interested in saving money instead of making blind layoffs, it will take a serious look at a dam removal program and sell it to the public as a cost-cutting measure, ironically making the 'drill, baby, drill' Trump administration a champion of riparian health.
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Feds won't flood the Grand Canyon this spring. What that will mean for the Colorado river
Federal officials have rejected a plan to release floodwaters from Lake Powell to restore Grand Canyon beaches this spring, frustrating river advocates who question the government's commitment to protecting the canyon's environment. Glen Canyon Dam has impounded the Colorado River near the Arizona-Utah line since 1963, and with it the annual load of sand that natural snowmelt floods previously churned up onto beaches and sandbars in the Grand Canyon each year. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, working through a collaborative adaptive management program to make the most of what sand a smaller tributary still deposits below the dam, has flooded the canyon by opening the dam's bypass tubes 12 times since 1996. With repeated decisions not to open the floodgates even when the sand is available, some are questioning whether the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program is preserving Grand Canyon's ecology and recreation as required under the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992. 'We are failing,' said Ben Reeder, a Utah-based river guide who represents the Grand Canyon River Guides on a technical work group that considers management options for the Reclamation Bureau. 'Deeply disappointed,' said Larry Stevens, a canyon ecologist who represents Wild Arizona and the Grand Canyon Wildlands Council on the work group. Reeder and Stevens were among advocates and state agency officials who reluctantly agreed to forego a flood last fall in favor of saving the sand for a more naturally timed springtime flood. Events over the winter would interfere with that plan. Reclamation officials said in April that they would recommend that new Interior Secretary Doug Burgum not authorize the flood because a National Park Service contractor was excavating in a slough downstream of the dam to disrupt its use as a spawning bed by non-native fish, including smallmouth bass. Work on relining the bypass tubes to protect their steel pipes also interfered. On Thursday, May 22, the agency announced that the decision against flooding was final. Invasive fish: Cold water shots into the Colorado River slow a bass invasion in the Grand Canyon Those who had anticipated a rejuvenating flood said they appreciate the need to protect native fish from voracious predators like the bass, but that there's too often some reason or another to reject bypassing the dam's hydropower turbines to send water downstream, a cost to the dam's power customers around the West. In 2021, for instance, the government declined to flood the canyon to prop up Lake Powell's water level. 'It just seems like looking for any excuse not to do one,' Reeder said. The default appears to be against flooding in any given year, he said, perhaps because the team that ultimately recommends for or against does not include environmentalists or recreationalists. 'It really kind of bothers me, honestly, that we talk about the Grand Canyon in these economic terms as if it's there for human consumption,' Reeder said. Fresh off a May river trip, Reeder said beach erosion is apparent throughout the canyon. Rains from last year's monsoon particularly battered one of his preferred camping beaches, at Stone Creek. 'We have a sand-starved system,' he said. Environmentalists prefer a spring flood over fall, because it best mimics the river's natural rhythm. Angler advocates also prefer spring, as it comes at a time that can better support a tailwater rainbow trout fishery, which has suffered in recent years as low water in Lake Powell led to a warming river. More than any flood, the trout need more water in the reservoir, pushing the warm surface farther from the dam intakes, said Jim Strogen, who represents Trout Unlimited in the adaptive management discussions. 'A deeper, colder lake is the best thing for that fishery,' he said. Shortages: Hobbs says Arizona will defend its Colorado River water, wants other states to accept cuts The floods cost perhaps $1 million or $2 million in lost hydroelectric production, according to Leslie James, who represents mostly rural and tribal power consumers in the program as executive director of the Colorado River Energy Distributors Association. Last year, when there was no major flood but the dam managers regularly pulsed cold water through the bypass tubes to keep the river inhospitable to bass spawning, the agency said the cost in lost power production was $19 million. The losses deplete a fund that pays for dam maintenance and environmental programs, James noted, and drawing more from that fund this year could cause delays in maintenance. 'We weren't asked our views on (a spring flood), she said, 'but if asked we would say that we always have concerns about bypassing hydropower generation.' James said a repeat of last summer's cool releases to combat bass seems unnecessary, as bass so far are generally restricted to the 15 miles below the dam and are not showing up dozens of miles downstream at the confluence with the Little Colorado River, a haven for native humpback chubs. Reclamation officials said they will decide in June whether to pulse cold water through the canyon this summer. The agency reported that last year's cool flows appeared to have worked, preventing any detectable growth in bass numbers by keeping the river mostly below 16 degrees Celsius — the temperature at which bass reproduce successfully — as far downstream as the Little Colorado. It also projected that without bypass flows this summer, temperatures in the river likely would rise above 16 degrees. A federal biologist working on chub conservation told The Arizona Republic it would not be surprising if bass reach the Little Colorado by fall and reverse gains in the native fish population that allowed the government to downlist the chub from endangered to threatened in 2021. The floods, achieved with blasts of water that jet across the canyon below the dam, can give the erroneous impression that water is lost downstream. In reality, while the floods do temporarily reduce Lake Powell's elevation, they do not harm irrigators or municipal water providers. Lake Mead captures the water on the Grand Canyon's west end and stores it for later use in Nevada, Arizona, California and Mexico. Want more stories about water? Sign up for AZ Climate, The Republic's weekly environmental newsletter Reclamation officials initially told participants in the adaptive management collaboration that a flood was unlikely in April, when Program Manager Bill Stewart said every attempt had been made to schedule it. When the groups and agencies had agreed to put off a flood last fall, he said, it had appeared there would be a window in May when both slough modifications and dam maintenance would be done. The plan was to flood the canyon for 60 hours, with a peak flow of 40,400 cubic feet per second, compared to routine flows in May ranging from 8,000 to 13,382 cfs. During the transition in presidential administrations, work in the slough was delayed, leading to heavy equipment remaining in the river corridor throughout the month. Dam maintenance also lasted into the timeframe when a flood was envisioned, leaving some of the bypass tube capacity unavailable. 'We really did make every effort to make this happen,' Stewart told flood advocates tuning in to April's virtual meeting. Some participants, including Arizona Game and Fish Department biologist David Rogowski, said the program needs to improve its scheduling. 'We need to be better about planning for the future,' Rogowski said. 'We aren't doing (a spring flood) because of poor planning.' Stevens agreed, saying Reclamation should incorporate planned floods into its routine maintenance schedule. A river scientist who previously led the U.S. Geological Survey's Grand Canyon research team said the Reclamation Bureau's continuing trend of skipping opportunities to flood the canyon jeopardizes Grand Canyon National Park's sandbars — a feature he said is as vital to the park's natural environment as the sandstone walls looming above the river. 'It is disturbing that sand bars always come out second,' said Jack Schmidt, a Utah State University researcher and former head of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center. 'It's removing an entire landscape element.' Brandon Loomis covers environmental and climate issues for The Arizona Republic and Reach him at Environmental coverage on and in The Arizona Republic is supported by a grant from the Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust. Follow The Republic environmental reporting team at and @azcenvironment on Facebook and Instagram. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Grand Canyon advocates lament lack of environmental flows this spring
San Francisco Chronicle
12-05-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
California's largest reservoir could see controversial dam enlargement under Trump
Near the southern flank of Mount Shasta, springs and snowmelt converge to form the McCloud River. This Sacramento River tributary, held sacred by the Winnemem Wintu tribe, teemed with Chinook salmon before Shasta Dam, built in the 1940s, blocked their annual migrations. 'The winter run was the main sustenance source for the Winnemem Wintu throughout history,' said tribal member Gary Mulcahy. 'We consider them the grandfather of all salmon.' For several years, Winnemem Wintu leaders have collaborated with state and federal officials to reintroduce the critically endangered fish to this wilderness waterway in a historic effort to revitalize the McCloud and reconnect with their past. But a federal proposal to increase the height of Shasta Dam by more than 18 feet to provide more water to farmers now threatens the tribe's land and could harm salmon runs. Contemplated for decades and gaining traction among Republican lawmakers, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's proposed Shasta Dam and Reservoir Enlargement Project would boost the capacity of California's largest reservoir. Since President Donald Trump took office for his second term, the federal government has not mounted any public effort to raise the dam. But Trump has taken several steps in that direction, including signing executive orders instructing federal officials to waive environmental rules and deliver more water to California growers. Last week, the dam project appeared to get a push in the House Natural Resources Committee's budget reconciliation bill, with a designation of $2 billion 'for construction and associated activities that increase the capacity of existing Bureau of Reclamation surface water storage facilities.' Though the budget language does not name Shasta Dam, experts say it's precisely crafted to facilitate the project. 'There's no mystery here,' said Barry Nelson, policy advisor with the Golden State Salmon Association. 'That language is designed to push the Shasta raise.' Raising the dam was the 'number-one priority' water project for the first Trump administration, Nelson said. However, U.S. Rep. Doug LaMalfa, a Republican whose district includes Shasta and who helped draft the budget language, told CalMatters that while he endorses enlarging Shasta Dam, the reconciliation bill's 'funding is not for any specific project.' Last year, a bill that would have allocated funds for enlarging the dam while prohibiting state laws from obstructing the project died in the House. It was sponsored by 12 California Republicans, including LaMalfa. The Bureau of Reclamation estimated in 2014 that enlarging Shasta Dam would cost $1.4 billion — roughly $1.8 billion in today's dollars. Obtaining the array of state and federal permits for the dam could take years, and is likely to face court challenges. The project would provide an additional 51,300 acre-feet of water per year to recipients — mainly farmers — of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project, according to a federal estimate. That would increase the amount they receive on average by less than 1%, which Ron Stork, a policy expert with the group Friends of the River, referred to as 'decimal dust.' The dam project would claim some of the Winnemem Wintu's last remaining territory and could violate the state's Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, which explicitly prohibits constructing reservoirs on the McCloud's final miles before entering Lake Shasta. State officials have publicly opposed the project in the past. In 2013, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife said raising the dam would have 'significant and unavoidable impacts' on the Sacramento River ecosystem. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has similarly warned federal officials that the project would restrict high-water flows and reduce fish habitat. State officials declined to comment for this story. Bureau of Reclamation spokesperson Peter Soeth also declined to comment. Stork, a longtime opponent of the dam raise, said the Trump administration is liable to ignore the state law. Trump's January executive order directed federal officials to deliver more water through the Central Valley Project 'by increasing storage and conveyance … notwithstanding any contrary State or local laws.' 'We certainly expect some serious mischief here,' Stork said. 'The president's executive order more or less says, 'Please find ways to accomplish my agenda by trying to get around state and federal law.'' Mulcahy, the Winnemem Wintu's government liaison, said Lake Shasta flooded 90% of his tribe's historical territory. 'Village sites, sacred sites, cultural gathering sites,' he said. Increasing the dam's height will do even more damage, he said, periodically inundating many important gathering places, including the Kabyai Creek burial ground, where dozens of tribal members were laid to rest after a vicious 1854 massacre by white settlers. It would also flood a cleansing pool for Winnemem men, a riverside dancing mesa and a young women's coming-of-age ceremony site called Puberty Rock. This, Mulcahy said, will fray some of the last remaining cultural threads holding together the tribe, which he said consists of about 140 members. 'We wouldn't be able to hold the ceremonies that are necessary to fulfill our spiritual and cultural needs,' he said. The Winnemem Wintu are not included on the official list of federally recognized tribes, which could limit their influence over the project. Polarizing farmers and environmentalists Like many Delta and Central Valley water supply projects, the Shasta Dam raise has polarized farmers and environmentalists in a dispute over how it would affect Chinook salmon. Environmentalists and fishery advocates say it will imperil already declining salmon populations, while project proponents, including the Westlands Water District, say it will help the ecosystem. Westlands provides water, imported mostly from the Delta, to San Joaquin Valley farmers who grow 150,000 acres of pistachios and almonds — their main crops — as well as other fruits, grains and vegetables. But General Manager Allison Febbo said the Shasta project isn't directly about water supply. Rather, she said, it's meant to help fish. Febbo explained that increasing the reservoir's volume will keep its water colder, which is essential for spawning. If the plight of the fish improves, Febbo said, regulations on water diversions might be eased — which would amount to an indirect benefit to water users like Westlands. 'We keep getting ratcheted down as the species continues to decline, so our water supply isn't going to get any better until the species gets better,' Febbo said. LaMalfa also stressed that the project would be 'a win-win' by increasing water storage and better insulating the reservoir's cold-water pool. 'More water for people and more cold water for salmon,' the congressman said. But Nelson, at the Golden State Salmon Association, said Shasta Dam has already 'been absolutely catastrophic for salmon.' 'The idea that a Shasta raise would benefit salmon — particularly under this set of federal agencies — is absurd,' he said. Completed in 1945, the dam blocked Chinook from reaching hundreds of miles of stream habitat. For the winter-run Chinook — whose unique life cycle involves residing and spawning in freshwater through summer — the ice-cold McCloud was their stronghold. 'It can be 110 degrees in the canyon there, and you can be standing in the river in waders and your legs are so cold it hurts,' said Rene Henery, California science director with the group Trout Unlimited, as he explained the importance of the McCloud to the future survival of winter-run Chinook. Today, the fish — which enter freshwater in the winter — cling to existence in a short stretch of river downstream of Lake Shasta, surviving thanks to the release of cold water stored deep in the reservoir. However, this resource frequently runs out in the summer as the fish lay and fertilize their eggs, which can lead to complete spawning failures in lethally warm water. While a more voluminous reservoir could theoretically keep its water colder for longer, Henery said the changing climate is likely to complicate this equation. Filling the enlarged reservoir in a hotter, drier future is the main problem. 'Dams don't make water, so in a low-water year, raising the dam does nothing,' he said. In wet years, he added, the enlarged dam will harm fish by capturing water that would otherwise flood vital wetland habitat downstream, like the recently restored Yolo Bypass, west of Sacramento. 'The inundation we get on the Yolo Bypass is what's keeping salmon populations hanging on in the Sacramento,' Henery said. Jon Rosenfield, science director at the advocacy group San Francisco Baykeeper, added that 'expanding the dam will capture more of the high flows (during wet years) that are now the only lifeline those fish have.' Mulcahy said he is hopeful that the project — though currently revving with Republican horsepower — will soon run out of steam. Labor and material costs are rising, he said, and the longer the project goes unbuilt, the more expensive it gets. 'They're going to try and negate state law so that they can proceed however they want,' Mulcahy said. 'But if we can last this one out, I think it may bury itself once and for all.'
