The "Streamway Concept" pushed by the Coastal Conservancy as a quick-fix restoration plan for the Russian River has the potential to be one of the all-time greatest fiascos ever devised by a governmental agency.
The stated purpose of the "streamway concept" is "river management." The idea is to design and create one's own version of a floodplain, then dig in, dig out, and dig up the topsoil of the river valley, cut into the banks, uproot existing riparian vegetation, and to remodel the floodplain into what they think it should look like. Their stated intent is to create a "managed river system."
The plan calls for excavation on a massive scale. In spite of the disclaimers, this proposal is yet another grandiose engineering "fix" that is fighting "natural" river processes.
Specifically, the "streamway" concept involves developing a "managed system" with a "designated" river corridor, and a "re-created channel" which "mimics a natural river system." They would excavate the existing floodplain, removing precious topsoil and gravel beneath it, hoping to get floodwaters to where the agency wats them to.
We don't need such a "managed system" that "mimics" nature, even if we could get it to work! We don't need an imitation river. We don't need to manage forever a re-created, artificial system.
Emma Mitchell, Native American basketweaver and naturalist, vehemently opposes the "streamway plan." "They put all kinds of fancy names on their destructive schemes, put a pretty name on something really ugly. They can't let the river determine its own beautiful flow. They have to sculpt it the way they think it should be: put their mark on it and re-shape, re-do, re-think, re-create, and re-form the river to their liking."
Proponents of the "streamway concept" claim they can analyze, predict, manage and control the river. But they are not wise enough to assume such authority, nor are they powerful enough to be successful. In their attempt to manage the river to suit their purposes, they will most likely cause destruction in their wake. The scary part is that this massive project is being proposed in the name of "enhancement" and "restoration." Rather than enhance, a "streamway" plan would destroy the biological complex that has developed in the soil over millenia, destroy the mature riparian growth that presently exists along the banks of the river.
The "middle reach," the stretch between Healdsburg and the Wohler Bridge, is taregeted for excavation even though the banks are covered with lush riparian growth. Forty-year-old cottonwoods overhand the river providing food and shade. Narrow trails wind through impenetrable thickets of blackberries, willows and alders. Their roots anchor the soil and are part of an equally fascinating underground complexity that defies our complete understanding. The soil created over millenia supports fungi, earthworms, insects, mammals and microbes that give life to the plants that we see. The bones of millions upon millions of fish and other creatures that died in the water become part of the river sediment which flowed onto the floodplain and became the nutrient rich valley soil that now gives life to present generations.
To excavate miles of this topsoil that took millenia to create would be inexcusable; to do it in the name of "restoration" would be a travesty.
Miles of newly excavated floodplain would have to be managed perpetually to make sure ut stayed open. All manner of aggressive, opportunistic non-natives would grow on the newly disturbed soils. It would require permanent occupation by an army of consultants and engineers. One attempted "solution" would create another problem. The result: a "domino effect" of perpetually funded projects to keep the artificial streamway under control.
Johanna Vanoni raises and breeds quarterhorses and knows the river well. "I've lived on the river for over 40 years and I might as well stand up and be counted. This 'Streamway Plan' looks like a scheme to make money for certain people. If they can convince us that something's broken, a whole bureaucracy can be built up trying to fix it. I'm now snowed by all the statistics. The Russian River isn't downcutting everywhere. In some places, it's just the opposite, the riverbed is building up."
If the river is left alone, proponents of the "Streamway" plan predict a doomsday scenario of collapsing banks and dead trees. This prediction of catastrophe justifies, in their minds, the need to rip out the existing floodplain and riverbank vegetation. In other words, kill what exists in order to save it. In fact, it would take years for new growth to mature. Excavating a "streamway" amounts to a clearcut. Years ago, the trees and bushes that grew up in the valley were cleared. Now they are proposing to attack the soil itself!
One of the newer and equally questionable versions of the "Streamway Concept" claims to be able to create the new floodway without removing existing riparian vegetation. This scenario calls for excavation behind the existing riparian zone. The plan is to try and "save" the vegetation by leaving it as an island between the new Floodway and the river! Such an island would be exposed to erosion on all sides and would probably wasxh out in the first big storm creating an unforgettable log jam downstream!
After they cut away or undermine the existing vegetation, and clear cut miles of topsoil, the plan is to mine and sell the gravel! The "Streamway Concept" has already been presented to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors as an instream gravel mining plan! The Russian River has barely had time to recover from the onslaught of past instream practices, to be faced now with a proposal for massive mining of the valley floor, only this time in the name of "restoration!" As though adding insult to injury, selling river gravel is now part of an "enhancement" plan being proposed by an agency charged with "conserving" our natural resources! Who is going along with all this?
Unfortunately, Congressman Dan Hamburg's Russian River Bill, H>R> 4408, includes millions for such "Floodway" or "Streamway" river "management." It looks as though someone came up with a "management plan" developed an agenda, and is trying to accumulate the political clout to ram it through. We should not be funding such a risky and dangerous engineering assault on the Russian River in the name of "restoration." a pilot project for "large scale stream corridor management" is what H.R. 4408 would fund, but we do not need it. Rather than attempt in vain to manage and re-do the river, we would be best advised to manage our own land and water use practices. We need incentives aimed at encouraging more sustainable practices, not more engineering. We need to ease stress on our waterways, lessen adverse impacts and allow the Russian River to restore itself.
Otto Teller, conservationist emeritus and long-time Sonoma County resident, has fished the Russian River since 1927. "There were more than 40,000 steelhead in the river in 1940. There were salmon, trout and a spring run of shad." With wisdom gained from his 86 years, Mr. Teller advises, "Stop trying to control the river. Salmon and steelhead evolved over millenia with no interference from consultants. The Mississippi is a classic example of how you can ruin a river. Stop trying to interfere."
A multi-million dollar engineering management plan for the Russian River would only serve to divert attention from real problems. The Sonoma County Water Agency has applied to develop seven new wells in the Russian River to provide an additional 20 million gallons of water a day to Sonoma and Marin County customers. Scores of applications for water diversion for private and agricultural use are pending. Diverting billions of gallons of water and draining the aquifer is a problem that bulldozing the banks of the Russian River will not solve. Until we stop or curtail wasteful land and water use practices, our problems will remain.
This is a time for independent critical thinking and common sense. Be wary of the grandiose project, even one touted as "enhancing" the resource. The "streamway" or "floodway" concept looks more like a boondoggle than real restoration. There are less invasive creative alternatives that will work. We urge Congressman Hamburg to table his Russian River Bill and take a fresh approach.
Ann Maurice is a Sebastopol resident, member of the Ad Hoc Committee on Clean Water, Trout Unlimited, and the Technical Advisory Committee evaluating Russian River restoration plans.
Copyright Mendocino Environmental Center 2004
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is cited