Assessment

* A Past View of Resources in the Lahontan Region

*Deer Creek Watershed Conservancy

* Watershed Risk Assessment

* Mercury Contamination

STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING WATERSHEDS AND AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY

CURRENT PAGE:
11 of 11

Runs of anadromous fish could be restored where feasible (e.g., to the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam and the Kings River below Pine Flat Dam) by maintaining adequate flows through altering reservoir release schedules, improving physical habitat, and improving water quality. There is also potential to restore salmon and steelhead above major dams wherever large expanses of suitable spawning habitat still exist (e.g., American River). Restoration of native species, especially amphibians, to some of their original range could be accomplished by controlling competing exotic species in carefully selected areas and avoiding new introductions. As a trade-off with recreational fishing, artificial stocking could cease in about a third of the high mountain lakes, where native frogs are under extreme threat from introduced fish, and the lakes could be allowed to revert to a fishless state.

Water-Use Payments

A possible funding source for expanded watershed and restoration activities is the beneficiaries of both the water-supply system and watershed management. A diversion tax on water is one possibility. Such a tax would be similar to severance taxes on minerals and yield taxes on timber, which have a long history in some jurisdictions. Taxes on diverted water as low as $1$10 per acre-foot would generate from $20 million to $200 million for stable long-term funding. A trust fund or conservancy could then finance watershed improvements and monitoring throughout the Sierra Nevada.

Monitoring

A major long-term commitment to collecting, analyzing, and evaluating physical, chemical, and biological indicators of the status of aquatic systems is needed. The Central Valley and Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Boards could be the coordinators of such a program. Cooperators could include the Department of Water Resources, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Biological Service, federal land-management agencies, the California Academy of Sciences, the University of California and other colleges and universities, local governments, water agencies, landowners, and citizens groups. To provide adequate geographic coverage throughout the Sierra Nevada, dramatic improvements in efficiency over current data collection efforts would be necessary.

Implications

The economy of California largely depends on high-quality water originating in the Sierra Nevada and diverted to distant locations. Hydropower generated from falling water has been extensively developed throughout much of the mountain range. Watersheds with continuous vegetative cover and healthy riparian areas provide the highest-quality water, which requires little or no treatment for human uses. The connection between watershed condition and downstream quality is rarely recognized by water users. Almost none of the high economic value of water at its end use is returned to the source area. If maintaining and restoring the conditions contributing to water availability and quality become an objective, then some of the value of water would need to be reinvested in the source areas. Other institutional changes in water allocations could lead to more efficient water delivery to higher-valued uses at lower environmental costs.
Watershed management is an alternative means of organizing agencies and coordinating between those agencies and citizens groups. Within each river basin, one existing management agency could assume leadership in organizing watershed efforts, or different organizations could cooperate in a mutually acceptable framework. The regulatory and adjudicative regional water quality control boards may be subdivided along watershed lines so as to facilitate such organization. In some cases, small changes in watershed management could create substantial improvements in aquatic systems at small cost to those who make the changes; in other cases, costly managerial changes may have little biotic effect. There is a need to identify when voluntary cooperation, compensation, and prescriptive enforcement are likely to work best.
The primary criteria for measuring success of improved water and land management are improvements in the status of imperiled species and in water quality, especially sediment. Maintenance of populations of aquatic and riparian species that are currently stable, and nondegradation of currently high water quality are other important criteria. The success of new institutional arrangements and funding mechanisms could be evaluated on an efficiency and equity basis, but the status of aquatic ecosystems should be the basis for assessing new programs.