Luring Fish to their Death and Loving It
by Andy Caldwell
Twitchell reservoir was created to alleviate flooding throughout the Santa Maria Valley and to store storm water to recharge the aquifer during the summer months. Regardless, the feds are proposing to release “extra water” (there is no such thing) from the normally dry Twitchell reservoir to help recover steelhead trout runs on the normally dry Santa Maria River (it is dry 90% of the time), which ultimately involves wasting the water by running it to the ocean. This is just one of many projects in California, including Lake Cachuma releases, that waste upwards of 40% of its water every year.
The proposal itself lists a slew of reasons that proves this project is not only a bad idea but doomed to fail. For instance, the proposal simply assumes the species is present because they can’t find any fish in the dry riverbed. The proposal also admits that often the water quality in the Santa Maria River is toxic to fish because, for instance, anytime the river is running it has a lot of dirt in it from storm water runoff (fish can’t breathe in turbid waters). Furthermore, the proposal admits that fish passage was “rare and episodic” even before the construction of Twitchell, as the natural conditions on the Santa Maria and lower Sisquoc rivers are not suitable for spawning or rearing habitat. Finally, the proposal rightly warns that it will most likely lure more fish to their death rather than result in spawning runs.
Steelhead trout, which thrive in the ocean, need extremely cold, clear, clean abundant waters for their return passage and rearing. The Santa Maria River provides none of these. We live in a semi-arid desert that averages only 10-12 inches of rain per year. Thus, this is the wrong place and the wrong time to try and restore something that was rare and episodic to begin with. For all these reasons, the farming and ranching communities, along with the City of Santa Maria, have been asking the feds to abandon this ridiculous plan.
A Waste of Time and Water
On top of all that, the document glosses over certain historical facts about the Santa Maria “River” itself. First, the Santa Maria River, before the construction of the Santa Maria levee and Twitchell reservoir, was nothing less than a meandering flood plain wash. That is, the “banks” of the so-called river were several miles apart, covering the area from the Nipomo bluffs to what is now Betteravia Road. Because this flood plain often flowed directly through the township of Santa Maria, the “river” ended up being redirected around the city by a comparatively narrow artificially constructed flood control channel until it got past the city, wherein the levee widens considerably all the way until it hits natural constraints west of the city of Guadalupe (the levee ends in Guadalupe) which is thereby prone to flooding.
Hence, the original morphology of the river has been changed forever. Yet, again, as the document admits, the fish runs in the river were extremely rare and episodic. Moreover, the entire length of this “river” runs through privately-owned farm and ranch lands that are currently used for agricultural purposes, including farming and grazing. We are very concerned that the document mentions none of the expected impacts to agriculture that this project will present, including restrictions on cows accessing the water, and farmers being able to plant in the river bed, which they have been doing for decades, along with the needed applications of chemicals to restrict pests and diseases and promote plant growth, as these practices could easily be restricted in the future out of deference to non-existent fish runs. There could be other significant impacts to permitted sand and gravel operations in the riverbed as well.
For all the above reasons, we believe this project is a waste of time, energy, money, and water.
Andy Caldwell, Executive Director, COLAB
As a person owning Santa Barbara property with a creek, it has been interesting to witness the extent to which the state and environmental groups go to encourage steelhead in this area. Most of the creeks in SB are dry much of the year. At other times, during major rain events (aka flooding), it is astounding that anything could survive the terrifying torrent of huge water flow pushing trees and boulders down the canyons. Also driven out to sea are the boulders placed in the creek by planners to create “ resting pools”. Another casualty of the flooding are the native plants so carefully laid out, planted and watered by trucks driving in to encourage them. Observing the massive expenditure of tax dollars to pursue the seemingly noble goal of restoring fish habitat can make one’s head spin. The regulatory burden on property owners with the creek running through their property is sobering . The fine for the unintentional or intentional “ taking “ of a steelhead , whether a 1 in or a 1 ft fish was $25,000, last time I checked. Andy has it right to describe the realities of promoting fish habitat in arid Southern California.
Thanks Andy. Hopefully the "new" feds will see the harm in trying to save a fish that, like dinosaurs, may no longer exist. My recommendation is to contact whoever will be in charge under President Trump.