- Joined
- Mar 11, 2001
- Messages
- 70,011
- Reaction score
- 1,005
RUSH CREEK'S SWAN SONG -- matthews column-ONS -- 16sep09
Rush Creek has one last chance to return to former glory as premier fishery
By JIM MATTHEWS www.OutdoorNewsService.com
In the early 1980s, heavy winter rains and snowpack gave Rush Creek below Grant Lake in the Eastern Sierra Nevada a new chance at life. The river had been dewatered seasonally below the lake, sending the water through power houses and down the Owens River aqueduct to Los Angeles taps. But high runoff was more than the aqueduct could handle, which mandated release of water down the old river channel for several years running. Trout from upstream sources repopulated the "dry" stretch, creating an impressive stream fishery. But it was a tenuous existence.
A lawsuit was initiated by Dick Dahlgren and Barrett McInerney on behalf of Mammoth Fly Rodders in 1984 against the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. It eventually gave Rush Creek (along with Parker, Walker, and Lee Vining creeks) a complete new lease on life, stopping the city's dewatering of this historically productive trout river and mandating minimum flows and -- more importantly -- complete restoration to the river to what it has been in 1941, prior to any diversions.
Most people still think the 1994 lawsuit decision was about Mono Lake water levels and seagulls. It wasn't. It was about trout and minimum flows below dams to maintain fisheries. The obscure Fish and Game code had been violated by the LADWP for decades. Much to LA's surprise, they lost the lawsuit.
Yet 15 years after the court order, what should be the most productive stretch of Rush Creek still has not been restored. Initially, the city hired a stream restoration firm and the river between Grant Lake and just shy of Highway 395 was re-created to what it might have looked like before the diversions. There were deep pools, undercut banks, riffled stretches, spawning gravels recreated in a couple of seasons. It was work that had taken nature thousands of years originally. Not surprisingly, a healthy trout population developed quickly in the restored river. Many of us salivated over what lower Rush Creek would be after restoration. Below 395, Rush Creek was a full-fledged river after picking up the flows from Parker and Walker creeks.
But then the work stopped. The LADWP became financial supporters of the groups that had taken over the lawsuit (California Trout, Inc. and the Mono Lake Committee), and now 15 years later, the lower five miles of Rush Creek is a horrible fishery. This is where its flows nearly match the size of the Owens River above Crowley Lake (one of the finest fisheries in the region). There have been endless studies about how nature would take its course and fix the lower portion of Rush Creek. But everyone with an IQ higher than a hub cab knew that would only happen if Grant Lake dam was removed and no water was diverted. This is the only way enough water could carve out deep pools and undercut banks during years of high runoff.. And even then, it would take hundreds of years, at best. With diversions, which continue, it likely will never happen.
Something had been forgotten. The court order had been clear: It was required that the LADWP restore the river's fishery to 1941 levels. It didn't say to wait 2,000 years for nature to do the job. It said for the LADWP to do it.
Anyone who has read my column for some time has read versions of this story dozens of times since the mid-1980s. CalTrout and the Mono Lake Committee get a little huffy when I say they've sold out, but they've been absent in pushing for the LADWP to fulfill the terms of the court order. The Department of Fish and Game winches if you bring up Rush Creek, even though they were supposed to oversee the restoration. The U.S. Forest Service has successfully dodged being involved in the issue since day one. Dick Dahlgren has been rattling chains lately, but he no longer has any legal standing in the issue having passed it off to CalTrout. Dahlgren long ago moved to Idaho and is now in his early 70s, but he has been writing letters and has made annual trips to Rush Creek to check on its status.
Its status is tenuous. The window is closing on ever getting lower Rush Creek restored and recreating a fishery that would rival the East Walker or Upper Owens.
There's a solution, but it would take the individual members of Cal Trout and the Mono Lake Committee a little time calling those two organization's staffs and asking for them to intervene. If they tell you that lower Rush Creek will be fine or that it's coming along nicely. That is a lie. Go see for yourself. It's one, long, shallow riffle from 395 to Mono Lake. If they refuse to do anything, tell them you're not renewing your membership. They probably won't care much. They have corporate sponsors these days.
You can call the DFG and USFS and get transferred to a host of different people who won't do anything. The DFG wouldn't do anything in 1941 when Rush Creek was dried up, and they are less likely to do anything now.. So maybe calling their bosses, your local politicians, might make things happen from the top down. I know that Sacramento and Washington are dysfunctional, but these are the kinds of bones they can throw us.
The State Water Resources Control Board is where the ball currently sits. It is now overseeing the LADWP restoration work because it oversees the permits on the agency's diversions. That is where Dahlgren has been making noise. An LADWP study/report on Rush Creek flows is now with the SWRCB and open for comments until Sept. 18. If this study doesn't get contested, and diversion permits are renewed, it's likely Rush Creek will merely remain a conduit to keep a little water in Mono Lake.
But not too much. We don't want those scenic tufa towers to be submerged (like they are supposed to be); they're a tourist attraction and raise money.
Rush Creek has one last chance to return to former glory as premier fishery
By JIM MATTHEWS www.OutdoorNewsService.com
In the early 1980s, heavy winter rains and snowpack gave Rush Creek below Grant Lake in the Eastern Sierra Nevada a new chance at life. The river had been dewatered seasonally below the lake, sending the water through power houses and down the Owens River aqueduct to Los Angeles taps. But high runoff was more than the aqueduct could handle, which mandated release of water down the old river channel for several years running. Trout from upstream sources repopulated the "dry" stretch, creating an impressive stream fishery. But it was a tenuous existence.
A lawsuit was initiated by Dick Dahlgren and Barrett McInerney on behalf of Mammoth Fly Rodders in 1984 against the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. It eventually gave Rush Creek (along with Parker, Walker, and Lee Vining creeks) a complete new lease on life, stopping the city's dewatering of this historically productive trout river and mandating minimum flows and -- more importantly -- complete restoration to the river to what it has been in 1941, prior to any diversions.
Most people still think the 1994 lawsuit decision was about Mono Lake water levels and seagulls. It wasn't. It was about trout and minimum flows below dams to maintain fisheries. The obscure Fish and Game code had been violated by the LADWP for decades. Much to LA's surprise, they lost the lawsuit.
Yet 15 years after the court order, what should be the most productive stretch of Rush Creek still has not been restored. Initially, the city hired a stream restoration firm and the river between Grant Lake and just shy of Highway 395 was re-created to what it might have looked like before the diversions. There were deep pools, undercut banks, riffled stretches, spawning gravels recreated in a couple of seasons. It was work that had taken nature thousands of years originally. Not surprisingly, a healthy trout population developed quickly in the restored river. Many of us salivated over what lower Rush Creek would be after restoration. Below 395, Rush Creek was a full-fledged river after picking up the flows from Parker and Walker creeks.
But then the work stopped. The LADWP became financial supporters of the groups that had taken over the lawsuit (California Trout, Inc. and the Mono Lake Committee), and now 15 years later, the lower five miles of Rush Creek is a horrible fishery. This is where its flows nearly match the size of the Owens River above Crowley Lake (one of the finest fisheries in the region). There have been endless studies about how nature would take its course and fix the lower portion of Rush Creek. But everyone with an IQ higher than a hub cab knew that would only happen if Grant Lake dam was removed and no water was diverted. This is the only way enough water could carve out deep pools and undercut banks during years of high runoff.. And even then, it would take hundreds of years, at best. With diversions, which continue, it likely will never happen.
Something had been forgotten. The court order had been clear: It was required that the LADWP restore the river's fishery to 1941 levels. It didn't say to wait 2,000 years for nature to do the job. It said for the LADWP to do it.
Anyone who has read my column for some time has read versions of this story dozens of times since the mid-1980s. CalTrout and the Mono Lake Committee get a little huffy when I say they've sold out, but they've been absent in pushing for the LADWP to fulfill the terms of the court order. The Department of Fish and Game winches if you bring up Rush Creek, even though they were supposed to oversee the restoration. The U.S. Forest Service has successfully dodged being involved in the issue since day one. Dick Dahlgren has been rattling chains lately, but he no longer has any legal standing in the issue having passed it off to CalTrout. Dahlgren long ago moved to Idaho and is now in his early 70s, but he has been writing letters and has made annual trips to Rush Creek to check on its status.
Its status is tenuous. The window is closing on ever getting lower Rush Creek restored and recreating a fishery that would rival the East Walker or Upper Owens.
There's a solution, but it would take the individual members of Cal Trout and the Mono Lake Committee a little time calling those two organization's staffs and asking for them to intervene. If they tell you that lower Rush Creek will be fine or that it's coming along nicely. That is a lie. Go see for yourself. It's one, long, shallow riffle from 395 to Mono Lake. If they refuse to do anything, tell them you're not renewing your membership. They probably won't care much. They have corporate sponsors these days.
You can call the DFG and USFS and get transferred to a host of different people who won't do anything. The DFG wouldn't do anything in 1941 when Rush Creek was dried up, and they are less likely to do anything now.. So maybe calling their bosses, your local politicians, might make things happen from the top down. I know that Sacramento and Washington are dysfunctional, but these are the kinds of bones they can throw us.
The State Water Resources Control Board is where the ball currently sits. It is now overseeing the LADWP restoration work because it oversees the permits on the agency's diversions. That is where Dahlgren has been making noise. An LADWP study/report on Rush Creek flows is now with the SWRCB and open for comments until Sept. 18. If this study doesn't get contested, and diversion permits are renewed, it's likely Rush Creek will merely remain a conduit to keep a little water in Mono Lake.
But not too much. We don't want those scenic tufa towers to be submerged (like they are supposed to be); they're a tourist attraction and raise money.
