PROBLEMS OF FRESHWATER INFLOW PLANNING IN CALIFORNIA 



Ken Collins 



Water and Power Resources Service, Sacramento, California 



I will divide my presentation 

 on policy into three parts. First, 

 I will address the policy of the 

 Water and Power Resources Service 

 in terms of estuarine inflow. Sec- 

 ond, I will speak of the problems 

 of implementing that policy, and 

 third, I will discuss the method of 

 implementation of that policy in 

 California. The policy of the Water 

 and Power Resources Agency is sim- 

 ple. It says that we will mitigate 

 project-caused damages to the bio- 

 logical community. A corollary to 

 that is that water resources pro- 

 jects do have an effect upon the 

 estuarine environment. That is 

 clear. If the policy is so clear, 

 you may ask, then why don't we 

 just implement it and get on about 

 our business? That brings us to 

 the problems associated with imple- 

 mentation of policy. First, there 

 is difficulty in defining the pro- 

 blem. We plan to build a dam on 

 river X and we go to the Fish and 

 Wildlife Service, in accordance with 

 the Coordination Act, and we tell 

 them of out intentions and request 

 to know exactly what the consequen- 

 ces of that action will be. The 

 Fish and Wildlife Service does their 

 best and explains that they know 

 some of the consequences but there 

 are some things they cannot predict. 

 If things were done properly, we 

 wouldn't build the dam because there 

 are many things we don't know. But 

 that is not the way it is. We 

 accept Fish and Wildlife's report 

 and build the dam. Later the Fish 

 and Wildlife Service reports to us 



that there are now certain factors 

 about the dam that were not known 

 initially but are known now. But, the 

 dam has been built and is function- 

 ing. So the information we didn't 

 have initially is now useless. That 

 brings us to problem number two. 



The Water and Power Resources 

 Services is governed by law. The 

 Congress of the United States assigns 

 tasks for us to do, and regardless of 

 how I feel morally, regardless of how 

 the Secretary of the Interior feels 

 morally, we must go by the law. As 

 an example I will site the case of 

 the United States vs California. If 

 a state requests us to do a project 

 for them, we can do it as long as it 

 does not violate a Federal law. We 

 may have to go to court in order to 

 convince the state that the Federal 

 Government is not subservient to 

 state law. We all believe that 

 certain things ought to be done, but 

 if the law doesn't provide for it, we 

 can't do it. So the only alternative 

 is to change the law and that is what 

 will have to be done in this case. 

 That brings us to problem two-and-a- 

 half. Lawyers, once they get into 

 the act, forget what the problem is. 

 So consequently, we have been going 

 around and around in the courts on a 

 problem that ought to be solved, but 

 once it is in court we are dealing 

 with the law and not the issue at 

 hand. That brings up problem number 

 three. Shasta Dam, for example, is 

 there. It isn't going anywhere, it is 

 going to be there forever. Now, what 

 we do with Shasta Dam is another 



62 



