America’s

Most

Endangered

Rivers

of 2003

W W W . A M E R I C A N R I V E R S . O R G

A O L K E Y W O R D : A M E R I C A N R I V E R S

ten rivers

reaching

the crossroads

in the next

12 months

About America’s Most Endangered Rivers

Each year since 1986, American Rivers has released the America’s Most Endangered Rivers

report to highlight rivers nationwide reaching crucial crossroads. The report highlights

acute threats rather than chronic conditions; it is not a list of the nation’s “worst” or most

polluted rivers.

American Rivers solicits nominations annually from thousands of river groups, conservation

organizations, outdoor clubs, and individual activists. Our staff and scientific advisors review

the nominations for the following criteria:

g The magnitude of the threat to the riverg A major decision point in the coming year affecting that threatg The regional and national significance of the river

This report does more than list problems; it highlights alternatives and solutions,

identifies those who will make the crucial decisions, and points out opportunities for the

public to take action on behalf of each listed river. America’s Most Endangered Rivers has

a distinguished track record of improved public policy decisions that benefit listed rivers.

Recognizing that the threats facing the listed rivers are seldom unique, each report includes

a special chapter that explores a broader issue suggested by the rivers on the list that year.

In recent years, we have examined the consequences to rivers of over-dependence on fossil

fuels, the disappearance of our freshwater biodiversity, and ill-conceived water projects built

by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This year’s report explores why drought is just one of

the reasons that rivers are running dry nationwide.

about american rivers

American Rivers, founded in 1973, is North America's leading river conservation organiza-

tion. American Rivers is dedicated to protecting and restoring healthy natural rivers, and the

variety of life they sustain, for the benefit of people, fish and wildlife.

On the Cover: A dried-up riverbed, Photo: Jack Dykinga, USDA

Inset photos left to right: The pristine headwaters of the Tallapoosa River, threatened by a water

supply reservoir, Photo: Beth Maynor Young; The Klamath basin water wars threaten migratory

waterfowl along the Pacific Flyway, Photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Drip irrigation and other

efficient technologies require less water to grow more crops, Photo: Natural Resources Conservation

Service, USDA

This publication made possible by a generous gift from Barbara B. Cohn.

Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s

Introduction: water waste and watershed destruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Watersheds at risk from Clean Water Act rollbacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Solutions: a vision for water use in the 21st century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Map: Most Endangered Rivers of 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Most Endangered Rivers (by rank)

1. Big Sunflower River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

2. Klamath River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

3. Ipswich River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

4. Gunnison River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

5. Rio Grande . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

6. Mattaponi River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

7. Platte River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

8. Snake River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

9. Tallapoosa River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

10. Trinity River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

JAC

KD

YK

ING

A, U

SDA that small share must sustain not only our

growing population but millions of otherspecies.”

The fact is that Americans waste anappalling amount of water, according toRobert Glennon in Water Follies: Groundwa-ter Pumping and the Fate of America’s FreshWaters, with devastating impacts on ourrivers, springs, wetlands, and lakes.

Water scarcity is the primary threat to fiveof the rivers on this 2003 America’s MostEndangered Rivers list. Scientists warn thatshortages will worsen as we enter a century ofincreasing demands for fresh water and cli-matic uncertainty. Left unchecked, theseproblems will threaten virtually every river inevery region of America. However, decisiveaction by the nation’s leaders now can stillprevent many future crises.

Drought: a vision ofAmerica’s future?Abnormally dry conditions affected all or partof 49 states last summer. As early as March2002, USA Today reported that at least 57rivers had reached record low levels — and asthe drought dragged on through the summer,conditions worsened.

Lack of rainfall is only part of the storybehind these falling stream flows. The contin-uing drought has been magnified by a centuryof rapidly rising water consumption, coupledwith widespread destruction of wetlands,headwater streams, and other habitats thatassure a reliable supply of clean fresh water.

Two converging trends of greater demandand shrinking supply appear likely to contin-ue, unless we make a concerted national effortto reverse course. Scientists warn of a seriousdecline in both the quality and quantity offresh water in the nation’s rivers, streams, andlakes, which has direct consequences for peo-ple as well as ecosystems. Conservationistsacross the country now cite concerns over theamount of water in their rivers more frequent-ly than the amount of pollution in them.

With below-average precipitation predictedfor much of the United States in 2003 as well,it is time to examine the untold story behindthe drought.

4 u A m e r i c a ’ s M o s t E n d a n g e r e d R i v e r s o f 2 0 0 3

I n t r o d u c t i o n : W h e n r i v e r s r u n d r y

America’s seemingly insatiable demand for fresh water is nearing nature’s limits.

“Water is the biggest environmental issuewe face in the 21st century in terms of bothquantity and quality,” wrote Christine ToddWhitman, head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in January 2003.

“I believe, as do many others, that freshwater in this century willbe as important as oil inthe 20th century,” declaredLt. Gen. Robert B. Flowers,chief of the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers, inMarch 2002.

“It may be hard tobelieve that water limitsare drawing nearer, for wehold in our minds animage of Earth as a strik-ingly blue planet—a worldof water spinning inspace,” wrote Sandra Pos-tel, in her book Last Oasis:

Facing Water Scarcity. “But this picture createsa false sense of security, because we can taponly a tiny fraction of this water wealth, and

LACK OF RAIN IS NOT THE

WHOLE STORY BEHIND DRIED-

UP CREEKS NATIONWIDE.

The continuing drought has

been magnified by a century

of rapidly rising water

consumption, coupled with

widespread destruction of

wetlands, headwater

streams, and other habitats

that assure a reliable

supply of clean fresh water.

I n t r o d u c t i o n u 5

w a t e r w a s t e a n d w a t e r s h e d d e s t r u c t i o n

Traditional interpretation and enforcementof western water law further exacerbates thissituation. Those who hold senior rights to takewater from a stream have little incentive toconserve their allocation. Rather, they feelcompelled to use all of it to avoid having tocede it to holders of more junior rights. Tenetsof western water law that prohibit waste areseldom enforced.

Two rivers on this year’s list illustrate howinefficient irrigation, lavish subsidies, andselective interpretation of water law caninflate water demands to crisis proportions:

g In the Klamath River (#2) basin in Oregonand California, more than 30,000 endan-gered salmon perished last year in thewarm trickle remaining after irrigationdemands were satisfied for high water-demanding forage crops.

g The Rio Grande (#5) dried up in stretchesand failed to reach the sea – and facesgrowing demand for water from the“oasis” cities of the southwestern desert.

Irrigation: waste much,want muchFrom 1900 to 1980, the population of theUnited States increased by a factor of four, but water withdrawals increased tenfold.Although per capita fresh water use has sinceleveled off, it remains the highest in the worldat nearly 1,300 gallons per person per day —and the population continues to grow. Only 3percent of this water is used for drinking,cooking, and bathing. The rest is used in agri-culture, businesses and industries, for powerproduction, and to water lawns and wash cars.

Irrigated agriculture is by far the largestconsumer, accounting for 85 percent of thefresh water consumed in the country – andwasting much of it. Few states meter agricul-tural water use, much less require irrigators touse water efficiently. In the arid West, water isstill often delivered from rivers to farms inopen ditches, with the result that much of thewater never reaches a crop. In addition, irriga-tion techniques that super-saturate the soilreturn water to the river laden with pesticidesand fertilizer.

Federal irrigation water is often so extrava-gantly subsidized that farmers have littleincentive to use it efficiently. For example,the federal Bureau of Reclamation’s CentralArizona Project, completed in the early 1990s,charges irrigators just 1 percent of the actualcost of delivering the water. The Bureau’sCentral Utah Project charges just about 2 percent of the water’s real cost, well belowwhat farmers have been willing to pay on theopen market.

DELIVERING IRRIGATION

WATER IN OPEN DITCHES IS

WASTEFUL AND POLLUTING.

AM

ER

ICA

NR

IVE

RS

IMA

GE

LIB

RA

RY

NO

RT

HC

OA

STE

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

LC

EN

TE

R

LEFT: SUBSIDIZED IRRIGA-

TION HELPED KILL THESE

KLAMATH RIVER SALMON.

6 u A m e r i c a ’ s M o s t E n d a n g e r e d R i v e r s o f 2 0 0 3

I n t r o d u c t i o n c o n t i n u e d

Sprawl development:increasing demand whilereducing supplyAt present, public water systems account foronly about 12 percent of the country’s wateruse, but their use is growing faster than any

other sector. A chief culprit: low den-sity sprawl development. One

study in Seattle found thatnew suburban “estate”style homes with largelawns can consume asmuch as 16 times thewater of a home on a more

traditional urban grid.Indeed, one-third of municipal

water use on average in this coun-try is dedicated to outdoor purposes, and

that figure is much higher in the West. Between 1982 and 1997, the top 20 land-

consuming cities grew their land bases by 25 to105 percent, frequently outpacing populationgrowth by a factor of two to three. Denudingwatersheds by replacing wetlands, forests, andother natural habitats with concrete, asphalt,and turf grass profoundly affects streams andtheir interrelated aquifers. Water tables fall andsprings dry up as less water soaks through the

soil, leading to lower aver-age stream flows. In addi-tion, flash floods increasebecause roofs, roads, andparking lots channelstormwater into streamsin sudden, polluted surgeswhen it rains.

A snapshot of the Char-lotte, N.C. area reveals much about the dualimpacts of sprawl on watersheds. According toestimates prepared by American Rivers, theNatural Resources Defense Council, and SmartGrowth America, 13 to 31 billion gallons ofwater fail to reach the Charlotte area aquiferseach year because of the sprawl developmentthat occurred there from 1982 to 1997. In addi-tion, The Charlotte Observer reported inDecember 2002 that the number of municipalwater customers grew by 45 percent since1990, but water use soared by 71 percent.

Growing municipal use fuels demand for

more damaging water projects. This is illustrat-ed by another river on this year’s list:

g The sprawling cities of Virginia’s Tidewa-ter region seek to satisfy speculativedemand by constructing a reservoir in theMattaponi River (#6) watershed that wouldinundate a remarkably pristine wetlandscomplex.

Law and policy: overlook-ing the surface andgroundwater connectionOn average, half of the water found in riversand streams comes from underground sources,and about half comes from rain and meltingsnow. Sprawl-fueled habitat destruction revealsthe connection between surface and groundwa-ter, but our laws, regulations, policies andwater plans routinely treat them as separatewater sources.

Two rivers on this year’s list illustrategroundwater’s physical connection to surfacewater, a hydrological fact almost whollyignored in law and policy:

g In northeast Massachusetts, consumerspump so much water from the aquifersunderlying the Ipswich River (#3) that itperiodically flows backwards in placesbefore drying up completely.

g In the Platte River (#7) basin of Wyoming,Colorado and Nebraska, failing groundwa-ter reserves are the impetus behind pro-posed new dams and reservoirs thatthreaten a crucial wetland stopover formigratory birds.

America can take steps today to reverse thedual trends of wasting water and denudingwatersheds. It’s not too late to avoid manyfuture water shortages,conflicts, and degradedhabitats. The droughtthat is ushering in the21st century shouldserve as a wakeup call.For future generationsto enjoy abundantclean water and freshwater habitat, the nationmust not ignore this warning.

STREETS AND ROOFS

CHANNEL WATER INTO

STORM DRAINS INSTEAD OF

AQUIFERS.

USD

A/N

RC

S

From 1900 to 1980, the

population of the United

States increased by a factor

of four, but water with-

drawals increased tenfold.

RIGHT: THE IPSWICH

RIVER ILLUSTRATES THE

CONNECTION BETWEEN SUR-

FACE AND GROUNDWATER.

IPSW

ICH

RIV

ER

WA

TE

RSH

ED

ASS

N

when as little as 10 percent of a given water-shed has been developed.

Agency spokespeople argue that the Januaryannouncement was in response to a SupremeCourt ruling that struck down a legal test forapplying federal law to “isolated” waters andwetlands. However, the agencies went considerably further than the court required,abandoning several other legal rationales forprotecting these vital habitats. Under the newrules, even waters that are home to endangeredspecies are no longer automatically protected by the Clean Water Act.

The Jan. 10 notice launched a comprehensivereview of howfar upstreamfrom navigablerivers the CleanWater Actapplies, suggest-ing that evenmore naturalinfrastructure isat risk of losing federal protections.

For updates and to take action to protect theClean Water Act visit www.AmericanRivers.org.

I n t r o d u c t i o n u 7

Although best known for regulating pollutants from industrial facilities, the

Clean Water Act also protects the natural infra-structure that stores, filters, delivers, and other-wise provides freshwater. On Jan. 10, 2003 theEnvironmental Protection Agency and U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers announced a dramatic re-interpretation of the Clean Water Act that willaccelerate destruction of wetlands and smallstreams nationwide and may worsen the watershortages that fuel many of the crises described inthis report.

The agencies effectively withdrew federalClean Water Act protections from manymarshes, swamps, bogs, prairie potholes, andother waters too small to be navigated by boatand not directly connected to streams orrivers. Many of these waters are under con-stant threat from developers, mining interests,oil companies, and agribusiness.

According to some news reports, as muchas 20 percent of the wetlands left in the lower48 states may no longer be protected by these

agencies. Wetlandsand small streamsare indispensablenatural aquatic infra-structure becausethey capture rainand snowmelt quick-ly and release itslowly. Riparianwetlands purify thiswater and release it

over time into adjacent streams. Even watercaptured by so-called “isolated wetlands” canreach local streams after an undergrounddetour. Wetlands also recharge the groundwa-ter that supplies roughly one-half of our drink-ing water, and half of the water in the nation’srivers and streams.

Draining, filling, or paving over wetlandsand small streams sets off a chain reactionthat eventually reduces the water available inrivers to meet ecological and human needs. Aswetlands are lost, flash floods increase but lessrainfall soaks into the ground. As groundwaterlevels fall, springs dry up and dry-weatherstream flows drop. Research shows adverseeffects on stream flows and wildlife habitat

WETLANDS LOSS

EVENTUALLY LEADS TO

LOWER STREAM FLOWS.

U.S

. FIS

HA

ND

WIL

DL

IFE

SER

VIC

E

Wa t e r s h e d s a t r i s k f r o m C l e a n Wa t e r A c t r o l l b a c k s

NO

AA

Research shows adverse

effects on stream flows and

wildlife habitat when as little

as 10 percent of a given water-

shed has been developed.

8 u A m e r i c a ’ s M o s t E n d a n g e r e d R i v e r s o f 2 0 0 3

America’s

industrial

sector has

cut its

water use

almost

40 percent

from its

height in

1979.

DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEMS GROW THE SAME AMOUNT

OF CROPS WITH LESS WATER.

USD

A/N

RC

S

S o l u t i o n s : A v i s i o n f o r

The policy, scientific, and technologicalsolutions required to solve America’s

growing water crisis exist today; the missingingredient has been the will to employ them.In the 21st century, the nation must not onlyuse water much more efficiently, it must com-mit to returning those savings to its rivers.The reward will be a better quality of life —more fish and wildlife, cleaner water and lessflooding, recreational opportunities and therevenue they bring to riverfront communities.

Reducing water waste Improved efficiency can reduce water usewithout lowering the public’s standard of liv-ing. The World Water Council recently namedthe United States the most inefficient wateruser of 147 countries studied, including Euro-pean countries that enjoy standards of livingcomparable to ours. But while inefficientwater use landed many rivers on this year’slist, it also can be viewed as an opportunity tocut use without cutting standards of living.

Recent history demonstrates that it is pos-sible to break the link between growth andwasteful water consumption. In fact, Ameri-ca’s industrial sector has cut its water use

almost 40 percent from its peak in 1979. Atthe same time, the U.S. has enormouslyincreased its industrial output. America’sagricultural sector can also reduce its wateruse by replacing antiquated irrigation sys-tems with modern technologies such asdrip systems and micro-sprinklers. Suchsystems can increase crop yields whileusing up to 70 percent less water—and havethe added benefit of greatly reducing thepesticide and fertilizer-laden runoff thatflows back into streams and rivers.

Although a number oflaws and policies cur-rently encouragewasteful water useand fuel destruc-tion of freshwaterhabitats, relativelymodest reforms wouldallow the nation to meethuman needs and prevent the types offreshwater crises illustrated in this report.

CURBING AGRICULTURAL

WATER WASTE

Key policy reforms that will help curbwater waste in the agricultural sectorinclude:

g Enforcing prohibitions on illegal wateruse;

g Requiring all water use to be metered,to ensure informed allocation deci-sions;

g Charging progressively higher rates forwater when farmers use more waterthan would be needed with moderntechnologies;

g Providing low-interest loans, grants,and other incentives to help farmersacquire modern irrigation equipment;

g Ending subsidies for growing low-value, thirsty crops in arid areas, andfor producing (and irrigating) cropschronically in surplus, such as rice,cotton, and corn;

USD

A/N

RC

S

S o l u t i o n s u 9

OPEN SPACES PROTECT

RIVERS WHILE PROVIDING

OTHER AMENITIES.

PE

DB

IKE

IMA

GE

S.O

RG

(DA

NB

UR

DE

N)

w a t e r u s e i n t h e 2 1 s t c e n t u r y

g Ending the federal practice of providingprice supports and subsidized water forcrops in one part of the country, whilepaying farmers not to grow the same cropelsewhere; and,

g In the West, removing barriers to ecologi-cally-sound water transfers, while takingcommunity effects into account.

CURBING METROPOLITAN

WATER WASTE

Many of the reforms necessary to reduce agri-cultural water waste have counterparts thatcan be implemented in metropolitan areas:

g Measuring all water use and prohibitingillegal use;

g Pricing water rationally to discourageexcessive use, yet providing for basichuman needs;

g Encouraging widespread replacement ofolder toilets and shower heads to meet1992 federal standards for new construc-tion;

g Creating incentives for homes and busi-nesses to recycle water by capturing roofrunoff for yard watering, and reusing“gray” water from washing, bathing,industrial cooling; and,

g Fixing leaking water supply and sewageinfrastructure that annually wastes bil-lions of gallons of water.

Protecting watersheds from sprawlReducing water waste alone will not ensurehealthy stream flows. Land use and stormwa-ter management practices in urban and subur-ban areas also must be changed so thatstormwater is treated as the valuable resourceit is instead of as a waste product. Sprawling

RATIONAL WATER PRICES

REMIND USERS TO TURN OFF

THE WATER WHEN THEY’RE

DONE.

USD

A/N

RC

S

1 0 u A m e r i c a ’ s M o s t E n d a n g e r e d R i v e r s o f 2 0 0 3

GE

OR

GE

AN

DR

EJK

O

A v i s i o n f o r w a t e r u s e c o n t i n u e d

development not only drives up water con-sumption but also paves over watershedlands, blocking the replenishment of ground-water. Smart growth policies further water

efficiency, and also benefit residentsby reducing traffic congestion

and air pollution, ensuringadequate open space forrecreation, and reducingtaxes for constructing andmaintaining infrastructure.

State and local levelreforms that can protect

watersheds and water suppliesinclude:

g Encouraging new developments to maxi-mize groundwater recharge and reducepolluted stormwater runoff from parkinglots and roads, by creating walkableneighborhoods with a mix of residentialand business uses;

g Requiring new and redeveloped existingneighborhoods to install “green infra-structure” such as permeable pavement,

green roofs, and rain gardens that captureprecipitation and recharge the watertable; and,

g Redirecting a significant portion ofstormwater infrastructure fundingtowards preserving land in critical aquat-ic areas, such as groundwater rechargezones, wetlands, streamsides, floodplains,and small tributary streams.

Guaranteeing sufficientriver flowsImproving water efficiency is critical to ensur-ing sufficient supplies into the future. But thatalone will not guarantee sufficient water forhealthy rivers. Scientists warn that withoutan ecological water reserve protected in law,improved efficiency will simply be soaked upby excessive human use.

HOW MUCH WATER DO RIVERS NEED?The first step is to develop scientific standardsfor healthy river flows, moving beyond outdat-ed standards of “minimum flows” that estab-

FIRM COMMITMENTS TO

MAINTAIN RIVER FLOWS

SHOULD GUIDE CONSERVA-

TION EFFORTS.

POROUS PAVEMENT AND OTHER

“GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE”

PROTECT STREAM FLOWS BY

INCREASING GROUNDWATER

RECHARGE.

ER

ICE

CK

L

s o l u t i o n s u 1 1

CONGRESS SHOULD REFORM

POLICIES THAT DRIVE WATER

WASTE AND WATERSHED

DESTRUCTION.

lish static water levels designed at best to provide the bare minimum for fish survival.Instead, rivers should receive the quantity,quality and timing of flows needed to supporttheir ecological functions and their services to society.

PROTECTING THE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE

IN LAW

The second step is to protect the reserve fromwithdrawals and other degradation. Currentlaws and policies provide some level of protec-tion for instream flows through voluntary pro-grams such as water trusts, and regulatoryrequirements such as federal and state mini-mum stream flows below regulated dams. Butthis piecemeal approach has resulted in onlyincremental improvements to select stretchesof rivers, failing to guarantee healthy, variableflows. Instead, the nation must have an inte-grated national policy to protect ecologicalwater reserves.

A group of internationally recognized fresh-water ecologists and public policy experts,writing in a recent issue of the journal Issuesin Ecology, has called on the nation to estab-lish a permanently protected water reserve in

its rivers, streams, wetlands, and lakes. Theseexperts warn that the nation cannot protectfreshwater habitats, and the human and eco-logical needs they fulfill, without taking thisstep.

Mustering the political will to create sucha water reserve would go a great distancetoward solving the nation’s freshwater prob-lems and ensuring adequate supplies into thefuture — for both ecological and human uses.American Rivers supports the call to integratethe nation’s water resource laws and policiesand to set aside a water reserve to meet theneeds of future generations.

SCE

NIC

HU

DSO

N: A

LP

OE

LZ

LA

ME

RIC

AN

RIV

ER

SIM

AG

EL

IBR

AR

Y

9

3

7

10

8

5

64

America’s Most Endangered Rivers of 2003

2

1. BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER

2. KLAMATH RIVER

3. IPSWICH RIVER

4. GUNNISON RIVER

5. RIO GRANDE

6. MATTAPONI RIVER

7. PLATTE RIVER

8. SNAKE RIVER

9. TALLAPOOSA RIVER

10. TRINITY RIVER

1

B i g S u n f l o w e r R i v e r u 1 3

M I S S I S S I P P I

THREAT: WETLAND DESTRUCTION, R IVER DREDGING

B i g S u n f l o w e r R i v e r

THE YAZOO PUMPS WOULD

DRAIN AND DAMAGE 200,000

ACRES OF PRECIOUS

WETLANDS TO INCREASE

PRODUCTION OF SUBSIDIZED

CROPS.

LO

UIE

MIL

LE

RU

.S. F

ISH

AN

DW

ILD

LIF

ESE

RV

ICESummary

Mississippi’s Big Sunflower River is threat-ened by a pair of misbegotten flood controlprojects cooked up by the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (Corps) and rashly supported by itsCongressional patrons. Unless the Bushadministration’s Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) vetoes the YazooPumps, the Corps will drain

seven times more wet-lands than private devel-opers damage in a yearnationwide. Withoutfirm opposition fromthe EPA and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice (FWS), the Corps

will also scour 100miles of the Big Sun-

flower’s riverbed, destroy-ing even more wetlands and

stirring up a toxic stew of pesti-cides that has accumulated at the bottom ofthe river.

The riverThe Big Sunflower is a lazy, serpentine riverthat meanders through the ecologically richand sparsely populated lowlands of northwestMississippi. Near Vicksburg, the Big Sun-flower joins the Yazoo River, which emptiesinto the Mississippi River shortly thereafter.Despite extensive clearing for agriculture, thebasin retains vast areas of rich wetlands andbottomland hardwood forests that teem withwildlife and are an important destination forwintering waterfowl and other migratorybirds. The Big Sunflower is home to one of theworld’s most abundant native mussel beds andsome 55 species of fish. The endangered pond-berry, one of the world’s rarest shrubs, isfound on the river’s banks.

Agriculture drives the region’s economy,but in recent decades farms have consolidatedinto fewer and fewer hands. Soybeans and cot-ton are the primary crops, but due to chronicsurpluses they are profitable only with gener-ous federal price supports. In just one countyalong the river, 330 recipients received morethan $64 million in federal farm subsidies

between 1996 and 2001. Recognizing the area’s importance for

migratory birds in particular, the public hasalso made a substantial investment in con-serving the area’s remaining wetlands andother natural resources. Lands have beenacquired for the Panther Swamp NationalWildlife Refuge, the Yazoo National WildlifeRefuge, and the Delta National Forest, andsome $30 million has been spent to enroll private lands in voluntary conservation programs.

The riskIn February 2003, Congress approved a $10million down payment on the $181 millionYazoo Pumps without bothering to wait forthe Corps to complete the necessary environ-mental and economic studies. The YazooPumps would be the largest hydraulic pump-ing plant ever built, siphoning up to 6 milliongallons of water per minute out of the basinthrough which the Big Sunflower, three otherrivers, and their tributaries flow.

The massive suction of the Pumps wouldbe felt in every creek and stream within a1,450-square-mile area with catastrophicresults. More than 200,000 acres — 300 squaremiles — of ecologically significant wetlandswill be drained and damaged. With this single

U.S

. FIS

HA

ND

WIL

DL

IFE

SER

VIC

E

1 4 u A m e r i c a ’ s M o s t E n d a n g e r e d R i v e r s o f 2 0 0 3

project, the Corps will damage more wetlandsthan private developers harm across the

entire nation in seven years. The economic rationale for

this ecological catastrophedefies logic. The Pumpswould effectively undodecades of effort and tens of

millions of tax dollars spentrestoring and protecting habitat

in the region, to increase the pro-duction of crops that already are heav-

ily subsidized and in surplus.Among the habitat in harm’s way are more

than 31,000 acres of private wetlands enrolledin voluntary conservation programs. Theseproperty owners have received more than $30million from the federal government in returnfor their commitment to protect the very wet-lands that the Corps now proposes to drain. Ina stunning reversal of the old adage “youbreak it, you buy it,” the taxpayer-fundedpumps also will siphon water out of wetlandsthat the public acquired to protect as part ofthe national forest and wildlife refuges.

Although proponents loudly tout residen-tial flood protection as the rationale for theproject, the Corps acknowledges that morethan 80 percent of the purported economicbenefits would come from increased soybeanand cotton output. An independent studycommissioned by EPA concluded that thePumps would do nothing more than “helplandowners grow crops on land that is farmed

only to earn farm sub-sidy payments.” Thissame study concludedthat the Corps over-stated just the agricul-tural benefits by $144million — more than75 percent of the esti-mated cost to buildthe Pumps.

The Yazoo Pumpsare not the only Corpsboondoggle endanger-ing the Big SunflowerRiver. The agencyplans to spend another

$62 million to dredge 104 miles of theriverbed to further accelerate drainage in thewatershed. This dredging would devastate theriver’s instream habitat, destroy at least 43percent of the river’s abundant mussel beds,and damage more than 3,600 acres of wetlandsthat are also in harm’s way from the Pumps. Itcould also potentially increase flooding prob-lems downstream.

The dredging also will stir up a toxic stewof pesticides that has accumulated at the bottom of the river, including DDT andtoxaphene, endangering the health of local residents who eat fish caught from the river.Despite theserisks, dredgingthe Big Sun-flower River willnot spare a sin-gle acre fromflooding. It willmerely reducethe frequencyand duration offloods that will continue to occur on 55,000acres of sparsely populated farmland.

Effective flood damage reduction could beachieved at far less cost to taxpayers and theenvironment through the purchase of conser-vation easements and targeted flood protec-tion for the few residences and businesses inthe area.

What can be done in thenext 12 monthsAlthough Congress and the Corps appeardetermined to proceed with the Yazoo Pumps,the funding bill passed earlier this year did notexempt the project from environmental law.The Bush administration, which has talkedtough about the need for fiscal discipline andsays it is committed to protecting wetlands,should fully support the exercise of EPA andFWS authorities that would spare the Big Sun-flower River and the nation’s taxpayers fromthis senseless scheme.

EPA should use its authority under theClean Water Act to veto the Yazoo Pumps.Although EPA has asserted this prerogativeonly 11 times, the tremendous ecological

B i g S u n f l o w e r R i v e r c o n t i n u e d

WITH CONGRESS AND THE

CORPS DETERMINED TO PRO-

CEED, IT MAY FALL TO EPA TO

VETO THE YAZOO PUMPS.

AM

ER

ICA

NR

IVE

RS

IMA

GE

LIB

RA

RY

U.S

. FIS

HA

ND

WIL

DL

IFE

SER

VIC

E

U.S

. FIS

HA

ND

WIL

DL

IFE

SER

VIC

E

SITE OF THE PROPOSED

YAZOO PUMPS.

B i g S u n f l o w e r R i v e r u 1 5

damage, the ready availability of alternativesto protect homes, and the misuse of publicfunds provide ample rationale. The Pumpswould affect more than 25 times the totalamount of wetlands spared by all previousEPA vetoes.

With endangered species living in the areaharmed by both projects, including in twonational wildlife refuges, and the incrediblediversity of other fish and wildlife at risk,FWS should assert its Endangered Species Actand other authorities to the fullest extent tohelp ensure that these destructive projects donot proceed.

The state of Mississippi also should denythe necessary Clean Water Act certificationsfor both the Yazoo Pumps and the dredging ofthe Big Sunflower River. One certificationgranted for the Big Sunflower dredging projectalready has been thrown out by the Mississip-pi Supreme Court.

During the next 12 months, Corps officialsin Vicksburg will accept public comments onboth the final Yazoo Pumps proposal and arevised draft proposal for the Big Sunflowerdredging project. Members of the publicshould use these and other opportunities inthe coming months to speak out and encour-

THE CORPS ALSO WANTS TO DREDGE 104 MILES OF

RIVER BOTTOM, WHICH WOULD DESTROY ALMOST HALF OF

A WORLD-CLASS MUSSEL BED.

FOR MORE INFORMATION OR TO TAKE ACTION:WWW.AMERICANRIVERS.ORG/MOSTENDANGERED/BIGSUNFLOWER2003.HTM

LO

UIE

MIL

LE

R

age state and federal agencies to protect theBig Sunflower River, and to call on Congressto exercise fiscal restraint with regard to theseprojects.

ContactsMelissa Samet, American Rivers, (415) 482-8150, msamet@americanrivers.orgLouie Miller, Mississippi Chapter of the Sierra Club, (601) 352-1026, lmillersc@earthlink.netDavid Conrad, National Wildlife Federation, (202) 797-6697, conrad@nwf.orgCynthia Sarthou, Gulf Restoration Network, (504) 525-1528, cyn@gulfrestorationnetwork.org

The riskIn 2002, BOR adopted a new 10-year operatingplan for its massive Klamath Irrigation Pro-ject. The plan signaled a political decision tomaximize irrigation deliveries at any cost andabandoned flow targets that had been set toprotect endangered fish. Agency leaders havesuppressed biologists’ calls for more water inthe river and studies substantiating those rec-ommendations. A federal economic analysisconcluding that water in the river had eighttimes the value of water on farm fields wasreleased only after a copy was leaked to themedia.

The consequences of allowing politics totrump science were immediately apparent. InSeptember 2002, poor river conditions killedmore than 33,000 salmon and steelheadreturning to spawn, including hundreds ofimperiled coho salmon. This was the worstsalmon die-off in thebasin’s history,including tribaloral historiesgoing backmore than1,000 years.

The dam-age is morethan ecological.Thousands ofcommercial fishingjobs and $75 million inannual income have already disappeared, andthe BOR operations put the remaining jobs atrisk. BOR’s failure to honor treaty rights thatpredate the construction of the irrigation project has imposed enormous cultural andeconomic hardship on the Native Americantribes.

Ecologically-abusive irrigation practices inthe river’s headwaters are compounded by thepresence of five hydropower dams between theagricultural basin and the coast. The damclosest to the river mouth lacks fish ladders orother passage devices and blocks access tomore than 100 miles of salmon and steelheadspawning habitat.

1 6 u A m e r i c a ’ s M o s t E n d a n g e r e d R i v e r s o f 2 0 0 3

U.S

. AR

MY

CO

RP

SO

FE

NG

INE

ER

S

SummaryThe federal Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) isirresponsibly maximizing irrigation in the Klamath River basin, depleting the river, wreak-ing havoc on imperiled wildlife, and imposingtremendous hardships on Native American andfishing communities. Unless Congress and federal agencies bring water commitments backinto balance with what nature can sustain, thenation can expect more tragedies like the stag-gering die-off of more than 33,000 salmon thatoccurred last September.

The riverThe Klamath River flows from a broad patch-work of lakes and marshes at the foot of theCascade Mountains straddling the California-Oregon border, and winds southwest into Cali-fornia. After passing through five hydropowerdams, the river reaches the Pacific Oceansouth of the fishing community of CrescentCity. More than 75 percent of birds migratingon the Pacific Flyway feed or rest in the upperbasin, and the largest population of bald eaglesin the lower 48 states winters in severalnational wildlife refuges there.

The upper Klamath basin has been calledthe “Everglades of the West.” However, almost80 percent of the upper basin’s wetlands havebeen converted to grow thirsty crops such aspotatoes, alfalfa, and hay, including nearly23,000 acres on the Tule Lake and Lower Kla-

math National WildlifeRefuges. Irrigation with-drawals and polluted farmrunoff combine to makeportions of the watershedamong the most degradedin Oregon. Diversions fromthree Klamath River tribu-taries, the Trinity, the Shas-ta, and the Scott, exacerbatethe river’s water shortages.Klamath River salmon runswere once the third-largest

in the nation, but have fallen to just 8 percentof their historic numbers. Coho salmon are sodiminished that they are protected under theEndangered Species Act.

C A L I F O R N I A , O R E G O N

K l a m a t h R i v e rTHREAT: IRRIGATION WITHDRAWALS, HYDROPOWER DAMS, POLLUTION

OR

EG

ON

NA

TU

RA

LR

ESO

UR

CE

SC

OU

NC

IL

U.S

. FIS

HA

ND

WIL

DL

IFE

SER

VIC

E

THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN

IS A CRITICAL WETLANDS

STOPOVER FOR BIRDS

MIGRATING ALONG THE

PACIFIC FLYWAY.

What can be done in thenext 12 months More fish kills, the river’s continued decline,and further hardship for coastal fishing com-munities and Native American tribes areinevitable unless the nation’s leaders make aconcerted effort to manage irrigation sensiblyand return water back to the Klamath River.

The White House-appointed Klamath RiverBasin Federal Working Group is due to presentproposals for resolving this conflict by Septem-ber 2003. The group should recommend thatthe federal government help bring water supplyand demand back into balance by offering fairprices for water to willing sellers. The WorkingGroup also should call for the end of commer-cial farming on the national wildlife refuges.These two measures would free up water forthe lower river.

The September fish kill revealed the funda-mental flaws in BOR’s 10-year water plan. BORshould scrap it and start over, basing new oper-ations on the Hardy and Addley Phase II study.This report, prepared by the Department of theInterior in cooperation with state and tribalbiologists, recommends more water for salmonbut has thus far been suppressed by the Bushadministration.

Congress also should pass Rep. MikeThompson’s (D-CA) Klamath River BasinRestoration and Emergency Assistance Actinto law. This bill would authorize funds forwater conservation and habitat restoration pro-jects and provide compensation for communi-ties affected by the salmon kill of September2002. The bill also would establish a KlamathBasin Restoration Task Force of conservation-ists, fishermen, tribal representatives, andfarmers to oversee water conservation andrestoration activities.

The future of the dams on the KlamathRiver rests on the outcome of a relicensingprocess by the Federal Energy Regulatory Com-mission, which is already underway. Pacifi-Corp, the utility that owns these dams, shouldcommit to installing fish passage or removingdams to open up blocked spawning habitat,and should also implement other measures toimprove water quality in the river when it filesits formal license application this year.

ContactsSTEVE ROTHERT, American Rivers, (530) 478-5672, srothert@americanrivers.org

K l a m a t h R i v e r u 1 7

EXCESSIVE IRRIGATION

WITHDRAWALS COST THESE

FISH THEIR LIVES, AND COST

FISHING COMMUNITIES THEIR

LIVELIHOODS.

NO

RT

HE

AST

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

AL

CE

NT

ER

FOR MORE INFORMATION OR

TO TAKE ACTION: WWW.AMERICANRIVERS.ORG/MOSTENDANGERED/KLAMATH2003.HTM

JIM WALTMAN, The Wilderness Society, (202)429-2674, jim_waltman@tws.orgSUSAN HOLMES, Earthjustice, (202)667-4500,sholmes@earthjustice.orgWENDELL WOOD, Oregon Natural ResourcesCouncil, (541) 891-4006, ww@onrc.orgGLEN SPAIN, Pacific Coast Federation of Fish-ermen’s Associations, (541) 689-2000,fish1ifr@aol.comSTEVE PEDERY, WaterWatch of Oregon, (503) 295-4039, steve@waterwatch.org FELICE PACE, Klamath Forest Alliance, (530) 467-5291, klamath@sisqtel.netTIM MCKAY, Northcoast Environmental Center, (707) 822-6918, nec@northcoast.com.LARRY LAITNER, Riverhawks, (541) 482-1672,larry@riverhawks.org

1 8 u A m e r i c a ’ s M o s t E n d a n g e r e d R i v e r s o f 2 0 0 3

PORTIONS OF THE IPSWICH

RIVER RUN DRY EVERY YEAR.

U.S

. GE

OL

OG

ICA

LSU

RV

EY

M A S S A C H U S E T T S

I p s w i c h R i v e rTHREAT: GROUNDWATER PUMPING AND EXCESS IVE WATER CONSUMPTION

SummaryBecause of excessive groundwater pumpingand municipal water consumption, especiallyin the summer, portions of Massachusetts’Ipswich River run dry every year. If the stateof Massachusetts fails to enforce existing regu-lations and act on opportunities to improvewater conservation in the coming months, theIpswich faces a future in which it will morefrequently resemble a dirt road than a river.

The riverThe Ipswich River drains a 155-square-milewatershed on the coastal plain of northeasternMassachusetts. The spring-fed river windsmore than 40 miles through maple forests,swamps, and rapidly urbanizing areas from itsheadwaters to the Atlantic Ocean. CaptainJohn Smith, an early explorer, praised theIpswich River for its abundant runs of smelt,herring, shad, Atlantic salmon, and otherspecies.

Those fisheries were largely decimated by

three fish species that can tolerate these harshconditions — redfin pickerel, American eel,and pumpkinseed.

Despite the river’s failing health, severalrare and endangered species still call theIpswich home, including the bridle shiner,least tern, piping plover, and four species ofsalamanders. Massachusetts’ Great Marshembraces the mouth of the Ipswich, and is animportant stopover for migratory birds alongthe Atlantic Flyway. Shellfish beds in theIpswich estuary produce the well-knownIpswich clams and other valuable shellfish.

The riskDue to excessive municipal water with-drawals and excessive pumping of nearbygroundwater, the Ipswich is widely regarded asthe most flow-stressed river in the Northeast.More than 330,000 residents and thousands ofbusinesses withdraw up to 35 million gallonsper day from the Ipswich River. Because two-thirds of these consumers live outside of theIpswich River basin, between 20 and 25 mil-lion gallons never return to the Ipswich Riverwatershed, producing a major water deficit.

Municipal withdrawals in the basin dewa-ter the river in two ways: By interceptinggroundwater that would otherwise flow intothe river, and by sucking water out of theriver directly. This causes the river to actuallyflow backwards in some locations, as water ispulled upstream. Water levels throughout thebasin are perpetually low in the summer, andsome stretches of the river run dry every sin-gle year, resulting in fish kills and other eco-logical damage.

The Ipswich River and several of its tribu-taries are listed as “impaired waters” by theMassachusetts Department of EnvironmentalProtection (DEP), which cites low flows, highnutrient concentrations and counts of disease-causing bacteria. Low levels of dissolved oxy-gen in the summer make the river unsuitablefor most aquatic life, and may contribute toelevated levels of the toxin methyl mercury.

These problems are compounded by thefact that the Massachusetts DEP is not satisfy-ing its responsibility under the Water Manage-ment Act to “ensure an appropriate balance

dam construction in the 1800s. In more recentyears, excessive withdrawals of the river’swater for municipal consumption regularlyleave portions of the river dry, while otherreaches are plagued with low water levels,unnaturally high temperatures, and low levelsof dissolved oxygen. Brook trout and fallfishhave largely disappeared from the upper basin,and the Ipswich is currently dominated by just

IPSW

ICH

RIV

ER

WA

TE

RSH

ED

ASS

OC

IAT

ION

I p s w i c h R i v e r u 1 9

FOR MORE INFORMATION OR

TO TAKE ACTION: WWW.AMERICANRIVERS.ORG/MOSTENDANGERED/IPSWICH2003.HTM

among competing water withdrawals anduses, as well as preservation of the waterresource itself.” The Department has yet tocomplete a review of water use permits thatwas due in 1999, allowing continued waterwithdrawals without regard to the conse-quences for the river system.

In September 2002, all-time lows werenoted on stream gauges in the river. Flows had fallen to less than 1 percent of the recom-mended levels. Much of the upper IpswichRiver more closely resembled a dirt road thana river. Adding insult to injury, there was documented use of the riverbed as a trail byoff-road vehicles, inflicting damage to theriverbed itself.

What can be done in thenext 12 monthsThe outlook for the Ipswich is bleak unlessthe state of Massachusetts takes action nowto reduce consumption and leave more waterin the river. As a first step, MassachusettsGovernor Mitt Romney should direct theMassachusetts DEP to complete its overduereview of water withdrawal permits. Theagency should ensure that water users meetstringent permit conditions that comply withthe state’s Water Management Act and theanti-degradation provisions of Massachusetts’water quality standards.

The next step toward returning flow to theIpswich River is for municipalities to act on aproposal from the Ipswich River WatershedManagement Council to adopt more effectivewater conservation measures. These includeprohibiting lawn watering and limiting theuse of certain wells during extreme low-flowperiods, and reducing the amount of water“exported” from the basin via sewers. TheCouncil also recommends capturing roofdrainage in cisterns for irrigation use, andaltering the region’s storm sewers to increase

groundwaterrecharge. Waterconserved throughthese measuresshould be left inthe river.

The third step isfor the Massachu-setts legislature topass S. 2040/H.2211 — “An Act

Establishing a Water Resources Conservationand Efficiency Program” — in the upcomingsession. This legislation would give priority tothe Ipswich River in a new statewide programthat provides funding, technical assistance,and guidelines to improve water efficiency.

ContactsPeter Raabe, American Rivers, (202) 347-7550 ext. 3006, praabe@americanrivers.orgKerry Mackin, Ipswich River WatershedAssociation, (978) 356-0418, kmackin@ipswichriver.org

LO

UW

AG

NE

R

LO

UW

AG

NE

R

MASSACHUSETTS IS NOT

ENFORCING THE TERMS OF

ITS PERMITS TO TAKE WATER

FROM THE RIVER.

2 0 u A m e r i c a ’ s M o s t E n d a n g e r e d R i v e r s o f 2 0 0 3

C O L O R A D O

THREAT: UNNATURAL FLOW, WATER EXPORTS

G u n n i s o n R i v e r

A WATER-RIGHTS GIVEAWAY

THREATENS THE FUTURE

OF THE GUNNISON RIVER

AND THE BLACK CANYON

NATIONAL PARK.

SummaryIn drought-plagued Colorado, pressure isgrowing to use more water from the Gunni-son River to fuel sprawling development nearDenver on the Front Range of the RockyMountains. Unless the Department of theInterior (DOI) asserts the public’s right to anadequate flow of water, the roar of the rivermay soon cease to echo off the walls of thespectacular Black Canyon of the GunnisonNational Park.

The riverFrom its headwaters along the ContinentalDivide to its confluence with the ColoradoRiver near Grand Junction, the GunnisonRiver drains nearly 8,000 square miles of rural

western Colorado. The Gunnison River’ssignature feature is the awe-inspir-

ing Black Canyon. Thecanyon’s whitewater rapids

and “gold medal” troutfishery draw visitorsfrom across the country.To protect “the roar ofthe river,” PresidentHerbert Hoover declared

the Black Canyon anational monument in

1933. In 1999, it became anational park.

The river, though beautiful andpartially protected, is not pristine. Severalspecies of its fish are listed under the Endan-gered Species Act. Three dams operated by theBureau of Reclamation (BOR) just upstream ofthe park have severely altered the naturalflow of the river. The Aspinall Unit, as thedams are collectively known, inundated morethan 40 miles of prime native trout waters toallow more consistent control of the river’swater for irrigation and to generate hydropow-er. Although the Aspinall Unit also is chargedwith protecting fish and wildlife and provid-ing recreation, the dams seldom have support-ed the river or its fishery with appropriateflows of water when they are most needed.

The riskThe Aspinall Unit’s operations already havedamaged the Gunnison River, and Colorado’srecord-breaking drought is prompting stateofficials and water suppliers to look for newsources of water for the growing Front Rangesuburbs. Secretary Gale Norton’s InteriorDepartment is signaling that it will reverse aClinton-era effort to protect river flowsthrough the Black Canyon and instead openthe door for substantial new withdrawals fromthe Gunnison River upstream of the park.

The issue has a tangled legal history. In1978, a Colorado water court ruled that thefederal government is entitled to a “federalreserved water right,” but did not specify howmuch water was included in that right.Instead, the court charged the governmentwith determining the flow needed to “con-serve and maintain in an unimpaired condi-tion the scenic, aesthetic, natural, and historicobjects of the monument, as well as [its]wildlife.”

In January 2001, the Clinton administra-tion’s DOI opened proceedings to quantifythat right, calling for more natural river flows,including year-round minimum flows andperiodic higher flows in spring and early sum-mer. These flows would protect the scenic,ecological, and recreational values of thenational park, and help preserve four endan-gered fish species in the Gunnison River andthe Colorado River farther downstream.

DOI is continuing these proceedings with

AM

ER

ICA

NIR

IVE

RS

IMA

GE

LIB

RA

RY

MA

RK

LA

NC

E

AM

ER

ICA

NIR

IVE

RS

IMA

GE

LIB

RA

RY

G u n n i s o n R i v e r u 2 1

lished prior to the construction of the dams,and under Colorado law the park’s water rightis entitled to priority over the dams.

ContactsBrett Swift, American Rivers, (503) 827-8648, bswift@americanrivers.orgDrew Peternell, Trout Unlimited, (303)440-2937, dpeternell@tu.orgBart Miller, Land and Water Fund of theRockies, (303) 444-1188, bmiller@lawfund.org Wendy McDermott, High Country Citizens’ Alliance, (970) 349-7104,wendy@hccaonline.org

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

SHOULD CLAIM ENOUGH

WATER NOW TO PROTECT THE

PARK – WITHOUT HAVING TO

BUY OR BEG FOR MORE

LATER.

FOR MORE INFORMATION OR

TO TAKE ACTION:WWW.AMERICANRIVERS.ORG/MOSTENDANGERED/GUNNISON2003.HTM

substantially different priorities. Although thepark’s water right is retroactive to 1933, DOIofficials have signaled they will subordinatethe claim for the park to irrigators and munic-ipalities with more junior rights, includingsome rights that have yet to be established.DOI has also indicated that it may not reducetotal deliveries from the Aspinall Unit to pro-vide water for the Black Canyon, although thepark’s rights are more than 20 years senior.This concession is of particular concernbecause municipalities outside of Denver arehoping to purchase as much as 240,000 acrefeet of Aspinall Unit water for delivery acrossthe Continental Divide to fuel sprawl develop-ment.

Though legally the park’s water right isentitled to precedence over the Aspinall Unit,under the scenario suggested by the Bushadministration, the water that is so importantto the health of the park could be removedfrom the Gunnison River before it ever reach-es the Black Canyon. The Gunnison Rivercould end up with even less water than it hasnow. The precedent could be far reaching.There are dozens of national parks, forests,wildlife refuges, and Indian reservations in theWest with reserved rights yet to be quantified.

What can be done in thenext 12 monthsIn the coming months, DOI will finalize itsposition in Colorado water court to quantifythe Black Canyon National Park’s federalreserved water right.

The American people are entitled by law toenough water to fulfill the vision of the BlackCanyon as a scenic and rewarding destination.The public should urge the Bush administra-tion to claim enough water now to perma-nently protect the park, without having to buyor beg for more water later. An insufficientclaim from DOI would squander the park’slegal rights and clear the path for suburbs out-side Denver to grab the river’s water.

DOI should base its claim on the samebody of science that supported the initial 2001quantification application. Although this mayrequire a modification of traditional opera-tions at the Aspinall Unit, BOR can do this fortwo reasons. First, the purposes of theAspinall Unit specifically include enhancingfish, wildlife, and recreation. Second, theBlack Canyon National Monument was estab-

MA

RK

LA

NC

E

2 2 u A m e r i c a ’ s M o s t E n d a n g e r e d R i v e r s o f 2 0 0 3

river have run dry in four of the past five years,and the river failed to reach the Gulf of Mexicofor the first time in 2001. The river’s tragicstory is perhaps best told from the perspectiveof the endangered Rio Grande silvery minnowin New Mexico, the final survivor of a suite ofsmall native minnow species once foundthroughout the river. Reduced to just 5 percentof its former range, the last minnow may soonbe driven from the river by the growingdemand for water in the face of drought.

The riskAlbuquerque and Brownsville are poised toincrease water withdrawals from the RioGrande to augment their existing municipalsupplies. Albuquerque has, until recently,relied entirely on groundwater — and its wateruse is among the highest in the Rio Grandebasin at 209 gallons per person per day. Bycomparison, El Paso residents consume 159gallons per day. Albuquerque intends to get upto 75 percent of its water from the Rio Grandeand San Juan rivers by 2006, removing up to100,000 acre-feet of water per year and return-ing only half to the river as effluent. If neces-sary, New Mexico’s political leaders havevowed a full court press to push the endan-gered silvery minnow out of the city’s way.

Further downstream, the city of Brownsvilleintends to build a dam that would create a newreservoir near the river’s mouth. If completed,the dam would damage commercial fisheries inthe Gulf of Mexico by reducing freshwaterentering the estuary and would flood habitatfor the endangered ocelot and jaguarundi.

Finally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineersand Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) are preparinga new joint operations plan for their dams andreservoirs that control water levels throughoutthe upper Rio Grande basin. Although the lawobligates both agencies to protect endangeredriver species while providing irrigation andflood control services, agricultural interests arelobbying hard against any reductions in irriga-tion water deliveries. BOR has refused to con-sider one of the most degraded stretches of theriver in some of the restoration proposals nowunder consideration.

C O L O R A D O , N E W M E X I C O , T E X A S

THREAT: EXCESS IVE DIVERSION AND OVER-CONSUMPTION OF WATER

R i o G r a n d e

SummaryAlthough the Rio Grande has failed to reachthe Gulf of Mexico for much of the past twoyears, this troubled river could take a furtherturn for the worse in coming months, as Albu-querque, N.M., and Brownsville, Texas, closein on new withdrawals, and federal agenciesdetermine how to manage their dams that con-trol water levels throughout much of the river.If the cities succeed in securing more riverwater and federal agencies stick with statusquo operations, more stretches of the rivercould run dry and the last of the Rio Grande’ssmall native minnow could disappear forever.

The riverFrom its headwaters in the mountains ofsouthern Colorado, the Rio Grande flowsthrough nearly 2,000 miles of the arid South-west and much of America’s national mytholo-gy. On its way to the Gulf of Mexico atBrownsville, Texas, the Rio Grande drains 11percent of the continental United States.Despite its name, the Rio Grande averagesonly about one-fifth as much water as itsneighbor, the Colorado River, and experiencesmore frequent droughts.

Will Rogers once called the Rio Grande“the only river I know of that is in need of irri-gating.” Diversions for municipal and agricul-tural use already claim nearly 95 percent of theRio Grande’s average annual flow. Parts of the

BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS WANTS

TO BUILD A DAM THAT WOULD

FLOOD HABITAT USED BY THE

ENDANGERED OCELOT AND

OTHER SPECIES.

PAT

MU

NO

Z

U.S

. FIS

HA

ND

WIL

DL

IFE

SER

VIC

E

R i o G r a n d e u 2 3

FOR MORE INFORMATION OR

TO TAKE ACTION: WWW.AMERICANRIVERS.ORG/MOSTENDANGERED/RIOGRANDE2003.HTM

mit that includes a full analysis of alternativesto the dam, such as conservation, water re-use,desalinization, and purchasing irrigation waterfrom willing sellers.

The Corps, BOR, and FWS should resistpressure to preserve water deliveries at theexpense of the river and its endangeredwildlife. Before finalizing new operations fortheir Rio Grande basin projects, the agenciesshould review the forthcoming 10-year plan forsilvery minnow recovery from the multi-agency ESA Collaborative Program. This groupshould provide recommendations that are spe-cific enough for the Corps and BOR to imple-ment immediately.

ContactsSerena McClain, American Rivers, (202) 347-7550 ext. 3004, smcclain@americanrivers.orgSteve Harris, Rio Grande Restoration, (505) 751-1269, unclergr@laplaza.orgKaren Chapman, Environmental Defense, (512) 478-5161, kchapman@environmentaldefense.orgKara Gillon, Defenders of Wildlife, (505) 248-0118, kgillon@defenders.orgBrian Shields, Amigos Bravos,(505)758-3874, bshields@amigosbravos.orgRichard Barish, Sierra Club, (505) 232-3013, rdbarish@aol.comLetty Belin, Land and Water Fund of theRockies, (505) 983-8936, belin@bs-law.comBEATRIZ VERA, Rio Grande/Rio Bravo Coali-tion, (915)532-0399, beatrizvera@msn.com

What can be done in thenext 12 monthsWith expectations for Rio Grande water farexceeding the actual supply, conflict and crisiswill continue to hang over the river for theforeseeable future. Nevertheless, several keydecisions will be made in the coming 12months that could dramatically improve — orworsen — the outlook for the river. Citizensshould take advantage of opportunities to voicetheir concerns during these procedures.

The city of Albuquerque must obtain per-mits from BOR, the Corps, the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (FWS), and the New MexicoState Engineer before tapping the Rio Grandefor municipal supplies. These agencies shouldresist arm-twisting from New Mexico’s politi-cal leaders and strictly enforce the provisionsin federal law that set a high bar against fur-ther burdening such a degraded resource. Thepublic should urge Congress to reject any effortby the New Mexico delegation to secure anexemption from the Endangered Species Act(ESA) for the city’s municipal water with-drawals.

The city of Brownsville will seek a permitfrom the Corps for its proposed dam this year.In lieu of a cursory Environmental Assess-ment, the Corps should prepare a detailedEnvironmental Impact Statement for the per-

RA

ND

YB

LA

NK

INSH

IP, T

EX

AS

PAR

KS

AN

DW

ILD

LIF

ED

EP

T.

THE RIO GRANDE FELL

SHORT OF THE GULF OF

MEXICO FOR THE PAST TWO

YEARS, BUT SEVERAL CITIES

WANT TO TAKE EVEN MORE

OF ITS WATER.

The risk Since the early 1990s, the city of NewportNews has been seeking authorization to con-struct the King William Reservoir on CohokeCreek between the Mattaponi and Pamunkeyrivers. The project would pump up to 75 million gallons of water per day from the Mat-

taponi River, store it in the reservoir, and then pipe it to the cities of Newport News,Hampton, Poquoson and Williamsburg, andthe counties of York and James City.

The King William Reservoir would destroyat least 437 acres of sensitive wetlands — thelargest permitted wetland loss in Virginia sincepassage of the 1972 Clean Water Act — alongwith 21 miles of free-flowing streams andnearly 1,100 acres of upland habitat. Morethan 100 cultural and historical sites, as wellas several traditional tribal hunting, fishing,and gathering areas, would be flooded. Themassive water withdrawal could impede shadrecovery by raising salinity levels and alteringthe river’s ecology. The U.S. Fish and WildlifeService (FWS) concluded that “the KingWilliam Reservoir...will result in substantialand unacceptable impacts to aquatic resourcesof national importance.”

Projections of the region’s future waterneeds are based on estimates and growth pre-dictions prepared in the 1980s. Two indepen-dent studies and the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers determined that the city of NewportNews had significantly overestimated its needfor water and the actual needs could be met bygroundwater supplies, desalination, conserva-tion, and use restrictions already planned bythe city.

2 4 u A m e r i c a ’ s M o s t E n d a n g e r e d R i v e r s o f 2 0 0 3

V I R G I N I A

THREAT: PROPOSED WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIR

M a t t a p o n i R i v e r

THE MATTAPONI RIVER IS

ONE OF THE HEALTHIEST

RIVERS ON THE EAST COAST –

FOR NOW.

Summary A proposed new water supply reservoir for thesprawling cities in Virginia’s Lower Peninsularegion threatens the ecological integrity of theMattaponi River, one of the most pristinecoastal river systems on the eastern seaboard.Unless state and federal agencies resist politi-cal pressure to rubber-stamp permits for thisflawed project, the King William Reservoir willinundate hundreds of acres of wetlands andtribal sites, and up to 75 million gallons ofwater per day will be siphoned out of the river.

The river The Mattaponi River flows 85 miles acrossVirginia’s coastal plain, draining the northern-most portion of the upper York River water-shed. The Mattaponi joins the PamunkeyRiver at the town of West Point to form theYork River, which empties into the Chesa-peake Bay some 60 miles later. According toThe Nature Conservancy, the confluence of

these rivers forms the “heart ofthe most pristine freshwatercomplex on the Atlantic coast.”The Mattaponi passes numerouslush tidal wetlands on its way tothe bay, providing prime spawn-ing and nursery habitat formigratory fish species, such asstriped bass, American shad, andblueback herring. The river sup-ports healthy sport, commercial,

and subsistence fisheries. Archeological sites abound in the area,

which has been home to American Indian peo-ple for thousands of years and was among thefirst to be settled by the English in the NewWorld. The reservation of the Mattaponi Indi-an Tribe, one of the original member tribes ofthe Powhatan Confederation that Pocahontasbelonged to, lies along its namesake river andis one of the oldest in the United States. Eventoday, the Mattaponi Tribe regards the river asthe lifeblood of its nation and relies on itswaters, its fisheries, and native plants alongthe shore for its economic, cultural, and reli-gious well-being. The tribe operates a shadhatchery on the river to restore and replenishshad populations.

U.S

. GE

OL

OG

ICA

LSU

RV

EY

CL

AY

BE

RN

ICK

U.S

. GE

OL

OG

ICA

LSU

RV

EY

M a t t a p o n i R i v e r u 2 5

G. W

AR

RE

NM

OU

NT

CA

STL

E,

JR.

THE KING WILLIAM

RESERVOIR WOULD DROWN

WETLANDS AND TRIBAL

SITES TO PROVIDE WATER

FOR CITIES THAT HAVE

OTHER OPTIONS.

FOR MORE INFORMATION OR

TO TAKE ACTION:WWW.AMERICANRIVERS.ORG/MOSTENDANGERED/MATTAPONI2003.HTM

The Corps’ Norfolk District recommendeddenial of the permit for the reservoir in March2001, concluding that Newport News “has notdemonstrated a sufficient need for the project,”and that “other less environmentally damagingpracticable alternatives to the proposed KingWilliam Reservoir are available.” If then-Gov-ernor James Gilmore had not intervened andappealed the decision to the top brass at theCorps’ North Atlantic Division, this wouldhave been the final permit decision. In October2002, the North Atlantic Division reversed theNorfolk District’s decision to deny the permit.It determined that the permit process shouldcontinue, that Newport News should pursueits final state permits, and that the city shouldsubmit additional information.

What can be done in thenext 12 months The proposed project must clear several hurdlesin the next 12 months before construction ofthe reservoir can begin. The public should takeadvantage of several upcoming opportunities toprovide input to the Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA), FWS, and state agencies.

If the Corps does ultimately issue a permitfor the project, EPA should veto the project.The permit is currently under review at theEPA’s regional headquarters in Philadelphia.

The Virginia Marine Resources Commissionhas yet to issue a permit for the project’s waterintake structure, and should deny the applica-tion based on adverse impacts to the fisheries

and alterations in the river ecology. Finally thestate’s Department of Environmental Qualitymust still determine whether the project is incompliance with the Coastal Zone Manage-ment Act.

ContactsElizabeth Maclin, American Rivers, (202)347-7550 ext. 3014, emaclin@americanrivers.orgKaren Westermann, Alliance to Save the

Mattaponi, (804) 779-7574, k.westermann@att.netChuck Epes, Chesapeake BayFoundation, (804) 780-1392 x 311,cepes@cbf.orgTyla Matteson, Sierra Club —Virginia Chapter, (804) 275-6476,tmatteson1@mindspring.comDeborah Murray, SouthernEnvironmental Law Center, (434)977-4090, dmurray@selcva.org Henry Broaddus, Save OurRiver, (804) 405-8042,henry@saveourriver.org

2 6 u A m e r i c a ’ s M o s t E n d a n g e r e d R i v e r s o f 2 0 0 3

W Y O M I N G , C O L O R A D O , N E B R A S K A

THREAT: IRRIGATION AND WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT

P l a t t e R i v e r

BELOW: MILLIONS OF BIRDS,

INCLUDING SANDHILL

CRANES, MIGRATE THROUGH

THE BIG BEND REACH OF

THE PLATTE RIVER.

SummaryAcross the drought-stricken plains ofWyoming, Colorado, and Nebraska, the questfor more irrigation water is threatening toundermine an agreement to secure adequateflows in the Platte River and to protect itsadjacent wetlands. Unless the Interior Depart-ment and state governments stick to theircommitments and resist pressure for recklessnew water development, migratory birds ofthe Central Flyway may lose their mostimportant stopover, and the Platte River basincould become the scene of water conflicts thatrival those along the Klamath or the RioGrande.

The riverOriginating high in the Rocky Mountains ofWyoming and Colorado, the North and SouthPlatte rivers meet in western Nebraska toform the mainstem of the Platte, which thenflows east roughly 300 miles to empty intothe Missouri River near Omaha. The Big BendReach of the river in Nebraska is the heart ofthe Central Flyway for migratory birds. Sever-al hundred species of birds use the river andadjacent Rainwater Basin wetlands, including8 to 10 million ducks and geese, a half millionsandhill cranes, and the largest remainingflock of endangered whooping cranes. Twoimperiled birds, the piping plover and interiorleast tern, nest along the Platte’s sandy chan-

nels. Flows in the central Platte are alsoimportant for the endangered pallid sturgeon,which are believed to spawn in the lowerriver.

The river flows through farm country andsacrifices much of its water to irrigate cornand soybeans. Three large reservoirs and manyother smaller impoundments have reducedriver flows to less than half of historic levels,and robbed it of sandy sediment that oncebuilt sandbar habitat. The river was oncedescribed by pioneers as being“a mile wide and an inchdeep,” but today thechannel is seldom one-fifth of a mile across.Spring pulse flows havebeen eliminated, and veg-etation is taking over manyparts of the active channel thatonce provided ideal migratory habitat forcranes and nesting habitat for terns andplovers.

The riskThe severe drought that has gripped the west-ern United States during the last two yearshas been particularly harsh in the Platte Riverbasin. Municipal water utilities and irrigationinterests have responded with a number ofshort-sighted proposals that would furtherdegrade the Platte River.

Compacts signed by the three states giveWyoming and Colorado the authority to con-struct new water development projects.Momentum is building towards new surfaceand groundwater withdrawals that would fur-ther deplete river flows. Irrigation agencieshave dusted off old plans for new dams andreservoirs.

In addition, the state of Nebraska continuesto allow unchecked drilling of irrigation wellsin most of the Platte River basin, which hasfurther depleted flows in the river. Despitethis, some agricultural interests believe thatan additional 1 million acres of farmlandcould be made more productive by beginninggroundwater irrigation. One pro-irrigationgroup has gone so far as to openly call for thethree basin states to scrap ecological flow tar-

NA

TIO

NA

LPA

RK

SER

VIC

E

BU

RE

AU

OF

LA

ND

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

BR

EN

TB

LA

CK

WE

LD

ER

ABOVE: CONFRONTING

DROUGHT AND FAILING

GROUNDWATER RESERVES,

IRRIGATORS ARE SEEKING TO

WITHDRAW MORE WATER

FROM THE PLATTE RIVER.

AL

AN

BL

AC

K

P l a t t e R i v e r u 2 7

COLORADO, WYOMING, AND

NEBRASKA SHOULD CEMENT

THEIR CONSERVATION

COMMITMENTS ALONG THE

PLATTE BEFORE CONTEM-

PLATING NEW WATER DEVEL-

OPMENTS.

gets in the Platte River.Officials from all three basin states, most

notably Colorado, have called for additionalwater contributions from “forest manage-ment.” This is a euphemism for clearcuttinglarge swaths of the national forests along theriver’s headwaters to increase the amount ofrunoff reaching the river. This theory has beenwidely discredited, as it increases floodingwhile reducing the amount of water reachingthe river through groundwater. Not onlywould increased clearcutting damage the eco-logical health of the forest, any extra waterreaching the river would carry a heavy sedi-ment load that could smother many ofWyoming and Colorado’s “gold medal” troutstreams.

What can be done in thenext 12 monthsThis fall, the Department of the Interior (DOI)is expected to release a Draft EnvironmentalImpact Statement (DEIS) on a $150 millionplan for managing the tri-state Platte Riverbasin. This forthcoming document is animportant step towards executing a Coopera-tive Agreement signed by DOI and the threePlatte River basin states in 1997. DOI and thethree states should cement their commitmentto full implementation of the goals of thatagreement before allowing new agriculturalwater projects to go forward in the PlatteRiver basin.

Some steps called for in the CooperativeAgreement, such as protecting and restoring10,000 acres of riparian habitat and establish-ing a research and monitoring program forimperiled river species, are straightforward.However, the persistent drought will test thestates’ continued commitment to other steps,such as annually securing up to 150,000 acre-feet of water to better meet instream flows,and offsetting any new water uses in the basinwith conservation measures to maintain riverflows.

The release of the DEIS will be followed bya series of hearings that will push the Cooper-ative Agreement plan into the public spotlightand spur substantial debate in all three statesover its provisions. With the parties commit-ted to developing a final plan under the Coop-erative Agreement in 2004, the public shouldtake advantage of the public comment periodto alert the federal and state leaders that they

FOR MORE INFORMATION OR

TO TAKE ACTION: WWW.AMERICANRIVERS.ORG/MOSTENDANGERED/PLATTE2003.HTM

want strong measures to protect the PlatteRiver enshrined in the final agreement.

ContactsChad Smith, American Rivers, (402) 477-7910, csmith@americanrivers.orgDuane Hovorka, Nebraska Wildlife Federa-tion, (402) 994-2001, duanehovorka@alltel.net

2 8 u A m e r i c a ’ s M o s t E n d a n g e r e d R i v e r s o f 2 0 0 3

S n a k e R i v e rTHREAT: HYDROPOWER DAMS

I D A H O , WA S H I N G T O N , O R E G O N

FISH LADDERS AND OTHER

TECHNOLOGICAL “FIXES”

HAVE FAILED TO REVERSE

THE DECLINE OF SNAKE

RIVER SALMON.

SummaryThe fate of the Snake River and its wildsalmon runs is increasingly in doubt as federalefforts to recover the imperiled fish falter andhydropower operators put short-term revenuesahead of salmon protection. Unless federalagencies and Congress step up their commit-ment to restore the endangered fish and IdahoPower Company improves operation of itsHells Canyon hydroelectric dams, it may soonbe too late to save the salmon first document-ed in Lewis and Clark’s journals.

The riverFrom its headwaters in the Rocky Mountainsof Wyoming, the Snake River arcs throughsouthern Idaho before it turns north intoHells Canyon, the deepest canyon in NorthAmerica. For 100 miles, the river separatesIdaho from Oregon before entering the state ofWashington where it flows into the ColumbiaRiver. As the Columbia’s largest tributary, theSnake once produced more salmon than anyother in the basin. Historically, approximately2 million salmon and steelhead trout returnedeach year to spawn in the river, traveling upto 900 miles from the ocean.

Today’s Snake River bears little resem-

blance to the river explored by Lewis andClark in 1805. The upper reaches of HellsCanyon have been inundated behind threemassive dams owned by Idaho Power Compa-ny, and 140 miles of the lower Snake Riverhave been submerged behind four federaldams. The Hells Canyon dams completelyblock salmon passage to upstream spawninggrounds, and each federal dam kills between 5and 15 percent of the fish attempting to pass.Today, all remaining Snake River salmon runsare listed under the Endangered Species Act(ESA).

The riskThe 2000 Federal Salmon Plan committed fed-eral agencies to hundreds of actions to restorepopulations of imperiled salmon, but imple-mentation has been stalled by poor coordina-tion and lack of funds. Internal documentsobtained from federal agencies reveal that theBush administration’s budget requests andcongressional appropriations have been inade-quate. A recent analysis by the Save Our WildSalmon Coalition found that less than 30 per-cent of the steps have been completed.

Although the Salmon Plan prescribed fish-friendly dam operations, such as higher springflows that hold down water temperatures andhelp flush young salmon out to the sea, riverconditions in the lower Snake River haveactually gotten worse since the plan wasreleased. In 2001, citing drought and the Cali-fornia energy crunch, federal dam operatorslargely abandoned their salmon commitmentsand wrung every possible kilowatt out of theriver. The survival rate for juvenile salmonfell to the lowest level since salmon were list-ed under the ESA.

With recovery efforts falter-ing and river conditions hostileto salmon survival, the federalgovernment continues to pourmillions of dollars down thedrain on a bizarre and unsuc-cessful scheme to transportyoung fish around the dams in trucks andbarges. While this approach reduces the num-ber of salmon forced through the dam tur-bines, fish carried downriver in trucks and

U.S

. AR

MY

CO

RP

SO

FE

NG

INE

ER

S

TIM

PAL

ME

R

TO

MQ

UIN

N

S n a k e R i v e r u 2 9

RIVER CONDITIONS FOR

MIGRATING SALMON HAVE

ONLY GOTTEN WORSE

SINCE A FEDERAL PLEDGE

IN 2000 TO IMPROVE DAM

OPERATIONS.

FOR MORE INFORMATION OR

TO TAKE ACTION:

WWW.AMERICANRIVERS.ORG/MOSTENDANGERED/SNAKE2003.HTM

barges don’t return to spawn in sufficientnumbers to prevent further populationdeclines.

Federal dams aren’t the only ones killingsalmon. Idaho Power’s Hells Canyonhydropower complex completely blocks hun-dreds of miles of their historic habitat. Thedams also harm fish downstream by alteringthe Snake’s natural flows and changing thetemperature of the river.

At this rate, Trout Unlimited forecasts thatwild Snake River spring and summer chinooksalmon runs will be functionally extinct by2016. Praying for rain and loading fish ontotrucks will not prevent this tragedy, much lessrecover populations to a level that will sup-port robust commercial, tribal, and recreation-al fisheries.

What can be done in thenext 12 monthsTime is running out for the Snake River andits wild salmon runs. Several decisions loom-ing in the next year will determine whetherrecovery efforts get on track.

Congress should provide suffi-cient funding to the agen-

cies to satisfy theirrecovery plan obliga-tions, and shouldhold oversight hear-ings on their

progress when thoseagencies release their

2003 “check-in” thisSeptember. Congress also

should prepare for the likely failure of the cur-rent salmon recovery strategy, and pass theSalmon Planning Act to create a “safety net.”This bipartisan bill would authorize federalagencies to remove the four Snake River damsif current recovery efforts fail, and commis-sion studies on how to best remove the damswhile protecting local communities andeconomies.

Federal agencies will be tempted to aban-don the practice of releasing higher spring andsummer flows from the dams to help juvenilesalmon migrate out to sea. Instead of rejectingthis scientifically-supported salmon recoverypractice, the agencies should work harder tosatisfy the flow and temperature standards inthe Federal Salmon Plan.

Idaho Power Company, which is seeking anew federal license to operate the three-dam

Hells Canyon Complex for the next 30 to 50years, will file its application with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission. The utilityshould commit to building fish passage andtemperature control structures, release flowsto help fish migrate downstream, and mitigatefor habitat inundated by its dams.

ContactsMICHAEL GARRITY, American Rivers, (206)213-0330 ext. 15, mgarrity@americanrivers.org NICOLE CORDAN, Save Our Wild Salmon,(503) 230-0421 ext. 12, nicole@wildsalmon.orgBILL SEDIVY, Idaho Rivers United, (208) 343-7481, bsedivy@idahorivers.org

TIM

PAL

ME

R

TIM

PAL

ME

R

3 0 u A m e r i c a ’ s M o s t E n d a n g e r e d R i v e r s o f 2 0 0 3

A L A B A M A , G E O R G I A

THREAT: HYDROPOWER AND WATER SUPPLY DAMS, OVERALLOCATION

Ta l l a p o o s a R i v e r

During periods of low consumer demandfor electricity, water levels below Harris Damdrop to the point where the river is no morethan a collection of rocky pools. Parents areill-advised to let their children hunt for cray-fish in these puddles — when APC can chargetop dollar for each kilowatt, it opens the gatesand unleashes a torrent. According to localresidents, the roar of the approaching riverresembles that of an oncoming train, so loudthat it can be heard for several minutes beforethe water actually arrives.

This daily back and forth between floodand drought has devastated the river’s popula-tions of fish and wildlife and continues to eataway at landowners’ property along the riverbelow the dam. In the dry language of regula-tion, Alabama state officials designated thisreach of the Tallapoosa River as “impaired” in2000. Others have more bluntly called theriver below R.L. Harris an “ecological desert.”

Upriver, the Tallapoosa is threatened by adifferent kind of dam. The Tallapoosa’s head-waters are within reach of the sprawlingAtlanta metropolitan area, and Georgia offi-cials are now pushing to build a new watersupply dam on a small tributary. The WestGeorgia Project would pump water out of theTallapoosa River into the tributary reservoir,which could then be piped to Atlanta. Notonly would the project flood out a freshwaterecological wonder, it also would badly depletewater levels in the Tallapoosa by channelingreturn flows into another river basin.

TOP: ATLANTA WANTS TO

DROWN SOME OF THE

TALLAPOOSA'S BIOLOGICALLY-

RICH HEADWATER STREAMS

UNDER A MUNICIPAL

RESERVOIR.

SummaryAlthough Alabama Power Company's R.L.Harris dam already has transformed a sectionof the Tallapoosa River into an ecologicaldesert, more dams could be on the way as thesprawling Atlanta metro area seeks to developmunicipal water supplies in the river's pris-tine headwaters. Unless Alabama Powerreforms abusive hydropower operations andGeorgia and Alabama take up the call to usetheir water more efficiently, the river's unpar-alleled assortment of aquatic wildlife is atrisk.

The riverThe Tallapoosa River has its origins as a col-lection of streams that drains the southernAppalachian mountains in Georgia before

braiding together to form the river’smainstem southwest of Atlanta.

These upper reaches of the Tal-lapoosa River basin are a true

freshwater wonderland andamong the most biological-ly rich in the world. Thestreams boast a remarkablecollection of aquatic

wildlife, particularly sala-manders, freshwater mussels,

and small, colorful fish known asdarters.

After crossing the Alabama border, theriver winds south and west, passing through aseries of hydropower dams before joining withthe Coosa River near Montgomery. Here, theriver has been subdued, and is now a work-horse for the Alabama Power Company.

The riskR.L. Harris Dam, built and operated by Alaba-ma Power Company (APC), is arguably themost ecologically abusive hydroelectric pro-ject in the nation. Since its construction in1980, this facility has turned a 47-mile stretchof the Tallapoosa River on and off like afaucet, subjecting the river and downstreamcommunities to increases in river flow fromas low as zero to as great as 16,000 cubic feetper second — as much water as 24,000 fire-hoses — in just minutes.

BE

TH

MA

YN

OR

YO

UN

G

D. D

UN

N, U

.S.F

ISH

AN

DW

ILD

LIF

ESE

RV

ICE

D. D

UN

N, U

SFI

SHA

ND

WIL

DL

IFE

SER

VIC

E

Ta l l a p o o s a R i v e r u 3 1

states should commit to preserving appropri-ate flows in their shared river basins, andexhausting opportunities for water conserva-tion and efficiency, before allowing the devel-opment of new water supplies such as theWest Georgia Reservoir.

ContactsDAVID SLIGH, American Rivers, (423) 265-7505, dsligh@americanrivers.org BRAD MCLANE, Alabama Rivers Alliance,(205) 322-6395, bmclane@alabamarivers.org CURTIS MCGILL, Middle Tallapoosa RiverConservation Association, (256) 395-6502,mcgillranch@earthlink.net

What can be done in thenext 12 monthsThe abusive operations of the R.L. Harris Damviolate the terms of the operating licenseissued to Alabama Power Company by theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission(FERC). Other harmful consequences of thedam's operations were not foreseen when the

license was issued.After four years ofnegotiation withgovernmentalagencies, lakegroups, and riverconservation inter-ests, APC has yetto commit toimproved opera-

tions. A coalition has set a deadline for thesuccess of these negotiations as July 4, afterwhich time, they will formally petition FERCto enforce the current license requirementsand rewrite other license provisions.

By reconsidering the license terms, FERCwould provide the public with a formal oppor-tunity to speak up for the river, and enablestate and federal resource agencies to requiremodifications to these drastic operations inthe event that negotiations fail. Negotiation orFERC intervention are the only opportunitiesto restore more natural flows to the river andensure that the Tallapoosa downstream of R.L.Harris Dam meets state water quality stan-dards until 2030, when APC's current licenseexpires.

The fate of the West Georgia Project isintertwined in the outcome of trilateral nego-tiations between the states of Georgia, Alaba-ma, and Florida. These states are facing adeadline to propose a new formula for waterallocation in two shared river basins, includ-ing the Tallapoosa, by June 30, 2003, followedby a 60-day period for public comment. The

ALABAMA POWER COMPANY'S

R.L. HARRIS DAM ON THE

MIDDLE TALLAPOOSA IS ONE

OF THE MOST ECOLOGICALLY

ABUSIVE IN THE NATION,

ALTERNATELY FLOODING

AND DRYING UP THE RIVER

DOWNSTREAM.

FOR MORE INFORMATION OR

TO TAKE ACTION:

WWW.AMERICANRIVERS.ORG/MOSTENDANGERED/TALLAPOOSA2003.HTM

TH

RE

EP

HO

TO

S, A

MY

LE

WIS

SID

ES

BE

TH

MA

YN

OR

YO

UN

G

3 2 u A m e r i c a ’ s M o s t E n d a n g e r e d R i v e r s o f 2 0 0 3

T E X A S

THREAT: FLOOD CONTROL AND FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT

T r i n i t y R i v e r

THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF

ENGINEERS IS POISED TO

UNLEASH ITS BULLDOZERS

ON A REMARKABLE URBAN

OASIS ALONG THE TRINITY

RIVER.

Summary The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and thecity of Dallas are poised to unleash their bull-dozers along the Trinity River, intending toknock down 34,000 trees to construct newlevees, drainage swales, and toll roads thatmany ostensible beneficiaries don’t want.Unless the public can persuade civil servantsand elected officials to revise their vision forthe city’s riverfront, a remarkable urban oasiswill be transformed into just another concretecacophony.

The river The Trinity River gathers together smallerforks from the north and west in the vicinityof Fort Worth and Dallas, then turns south toreach the Gulf of Mexico near Houston. Thefederal government has built more than adozen dams on the Trinity and its tributariesupstream of Dallas, but the river is an impor-tant source of freshwater for Galveston Bayand drinking water for nearly 10 million resi-dents in the river basin.

The 8,500-acre Great Trinity Forestembraces much of the river as it flowsthrough Dallas. Bur oaks, American elms,pecans, green ash, and cottonwoods reachheights of 100 feet along the riverbank, andmuch of the area has the illusion of being

unchanged since the Caddo Indians camped,fished, and hunted there 1,000 years ago. Dal-las has plans to acquire approximately 2,500acres of the forest as parkland. Although littlemoney has been spent, the city envisionseventually developing walking footpaths, biketrails, and put-ins for canoes along the river.

The riskFollowing high waters in 1989 and 1990, theCorps dusted off a proposal from 1965 totransform Dallas’ down-town riverfront. Thoseplans have since evolvedinto the $140 million Dal-las Floodway Extension,which proposes rerouting aportion of the riverbed intochannels, extending the lev-ees that protect the busi-ness district to protect residentialneighborhoods, and cutting down 34,000 treesfrom the riverbank to develop flood drainageswales.

Once the Dallas Floodway Extension iscomplete, the city of Dallas and the NorthTexas Tollway Authority intend to constructeight lanes of toll road within the TrinityRiver’s floodplain. Although the Corps justi-fies the Dallas Floodway Extension in part toprotect minority neighborhoods along theriver, residents of these neighborhoods haveindicated that their preferred solution to peri-odic flooding is a voluntary buyout ratherthan new levees and freeways on theirdoorstep.

The plans have been touted for economicdevelopment and traffic relief, but the agen-cies have yet to make a convincing argumentfor either. If completed, these two projectswould have a number of adverse consequencesfor the Trinity River and the communitiesalong it.

In addition to destroying 34,000 trees in theGreat Trinity Forest, realigning the river chan-nel would damage much of the instream habi-tat. Further degradation of the forest and riverwould be caused by water exiting the flood-way at high velocities, resulting in increasederosion and siltation. New levees could create

DA

VID

GR

AY

DO

UG

TA

YL

OR

DO

UG

TA

YL

OR

T r i n i t y R i v e r u 3 3

a false sense of flood security and lure moreresidents and businesses into flood-proneareas. The floodway toll roads would trans-form a large portion of a remarkable urbanrefuge of peace and quiet into just anothercongested and polluted transportation artery.

What can be done in thenext 12 monthsAn alternative to the Dallas Floodway Exten-sion exists and has been endorsed by conserva-tion organizations, taxpayer watchdog groups,and minority representatives. Key featuresinclude raising the current levees that protectthe Dallas Central Business District, offering avoluntary buyout to flood-prone residents andbusinesses, and relocating the planned tollroads out of the floodplain. However, theCorps and the city of Dallas are determined toproceed, and the last remaining opportunitiesto stop the Dallas Floodway Extension andspare the Trinity River will come during thenext 12 months.

The first opportunity will come in thespring when the Corps is expected to finalize acourt-ordered review of the project. Althoughthe Corps is not expected to make substantialchanges to its previous conclusions, a judgemust approve the study before constructioncan begin. The new document also will pro-vide an opportunity for public comment, andcitizens should exercise their right to urge theagency to pursue a more ecologically and eco-nomically sensitive approach.

The city of Dallas is assessing the environ-mental impacts of building the toll road in thefloodplain and will submit its conclusions tothe city council and the public in 2003. Earlysignals suggest that the report will recom-mend construction in the floodway. City resi-dents should let their council members knowthat they oppose this project and want to seethe Great Trinity Forest protected from suchdevelopment.

The public should alert their representa-tives in Congress that they do not want to seetax dollars wasted on such an environmentallydestructive project. They should urge the Bushadministration, which has been critical of theproject, to continue to resist efforts by theTexas congressional delegation to secure feder-al funding for the Dallas Floodway Extension.

MANY RIVERFRONT RESIDENTS

PREFER HELP MOVING OUT

OF HARM'S WAY TO LEVEES

AND TOLLROADS ON THEIR

DOORSTEPS.

FOR MORE INFORMATION OR

TO TAKE ACTION:

WWW.AMERICANRIVERS.ORG/MOSTENDANGERED/TRINITY

2003.HTM

ContactsKELLY MILLER, American Rivers, (202) 347-7550 ext. 3008, kmiller@americanrivers.org David Gray, Texas Committee on NaturalResources, (214) 342-2019, dgraytconr@aol.comJohn Hannah, National Wildlife Federation,(512) 476-9805, hannah@nwf.org Joe Wells, Dallas Group of the Sierra Club,(214) 948-3406, jwells@volunteernorthtexas.orgDr. Marcy Brown Marsden, AudubonDallas, (972) 721-5245, biomarcy@earthlink.net Bill Seaman, Dallas Historic Tree Coali-tion, (214) 739-5886, treesavers@yahoo.com

U.S

. AR

MY

CO

RP

SO

FE

NG

INE

ER

S

A M E R I C A N R I V E R S

1025 Vermont Avenue, NWSuite 720

Washington, DC 20005

PHONE: (202) 347-7550TOLL FREE: 877-4RIVERS

amrivers@americanrivers.org

www.AmericanRivers.orgAOL Keyword: American Rivers

NO R T H W E S T RE G I O N A L OF F I C E

SEATTLE PORTLAND

150 Nickerson Street 320 SW Stark StreetSuite 311 Suite 418

Seattle, WA 98109 Portland, OR 97204PHONE: (206) 213-0330 PHONE: (503) 827-8648

arnw@americanrivers.org bswift@americanrivers.org

CA L I F O R N I A FI E L D OF F I C E S

WATER RESOURCES PROGRAMS DAM AND HYDROPOWER PROGRAMS

6 School Street 409 Spring StreetSuite 200 Suite E

Fairfax, CA 94930 Nevada City, CA 95959PHONE: (415) 482-8150 PHONE: (530) 478-5672

msamet@americanrivers.org srothert@americanrivers.org

SO U T H E A S T FI E L D OF F I C E MID-AT L A N T I C FI E L D OF F I C E

1807 Taft Highway 130 Locust StreetSuite 7-D Suite 201

Signal Mountain, TN 37377 Harrisburg, PA 17101PHONE: (423) 265-7505 PHONE: (717) 232-8355

dsligh@americanrivers.org snicholas@americanrivers.org

MO N TA N A FI E L D OF F I C E NE B R A S K A FI E L D OF F I C E

215 Woodland Estates 650 J StreetGreat Falls, MT 59404 Suite 400PHONE: (406) 454-2076 Lincoln, NE 68508

malbers@americanrivers.org PHONE: (402) 477-7910csmith@americanrivers.org

NO R T H E A S T FI E L D OF F I C E SOUTH DA K O TA FI E L D OF F I C E

20 Bayberry Road P.O. Box 1029Glastonbury, CT 06033 Aberdeen, SD 57402PHONE: (860) 652-9911 PHONE: (605) 229-4978

lwildman@americanrivers.org pcarrels@americanrivers.org