Sacramento Threat: Shasta Dam Raise

The Shasta Dam Raise and the McCloud River,
The Threat Returns

On Inauguration Day, January 20, 2024, President Donald J. Trump signed a presidential memorandum ordering the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior to within 90 days provide a report on their progress in implementing undisclosed policies in the executive order to provide (by inference) more northstate water to Southern California and the Central Valley that (contrary to evidence) would have prevented the recent wildland wildfires that had been carried by winds into some Southern California cities located along the wildland/urban interface.

On January 24, 2024, President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order in part to designate an official to "develop a proposed plan, for review by the Secretaries, to appropriately suspend, revise, or rescind any regulations or procedures that unduly burden" "each respective water project" being reviewed. No doubt the Shasta Dam project is one of the projects contemplated in the executive order.

The President on the campaign trail had claimed that there was a giant faucet handle that could be turned to bring water from British Columbia to provide all the water that Southern California would need and prevent wildland fires as well. Engineers in Canada and the Pacific Northwest noted that no such faucet or the necessary canals, siphons, pump stations, and interstate and international arrangements exist. Fire experts were puzzled by how such water could be used to prevent the dry and windy wildland conditions that foster wildland wildfires. 

Two years ago, Rep. David Valadao introduced legislation (H.R. 215) to override the California Wild & Scenic Rivers Act to allow the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to inundate a portion of the state-protected McCloud River and authorize federal construction funding to do so by raising Shasta Dam. The measure was included in the House-passed 2023-2024 appropriations bill. Fortunately, it was not passed before the Congress reached final adjournment, but it sure to be on the agenda for the 2025-2026 Congress. 

With the return of President Trump on January 20, 2025, and GOP control of both houses of Congress, Valadao's effort will now resume. Also, the Board of Directors of the Westlands Water District at their December meeting decided that the Shasta Dam raise was their most important issue.

It's going to be a rough two to four years going forward. California's U.S. senators will need lead the effort to defeat such federal legislation or other moves by the incoming legislation. 

California's U.S. Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff (or any U.S. Senator) can be reached at the following simplified snail-mail address:

U.S. Senate
Washington D.C. 20510

The Fight Against Raising Shasta Dam, from 1989 to 2024

In 1989, California Governor George Deukmejian signed a bill protecting a significant portion of the McCloud River under the California Wild & Scenic Rivers Act, making the expansion of Shasta Reservoir (California's largest) illegal. 

Nevertheless, in 2015, the federal Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) developed a Feasibility Report and final EIS to raise Shasta Dam by 18.5 feet to enlarge its reservoir 20.5 feet while conceding it was illegal under state law. In August 2020 issued a supplemental draft EIS concluding that it was not concerned with state law — and adopted the preposterous claim that flooding the McCloud River was specifically permitted by the statute. Further, it did not concede that the dam raise would further modify flows in the Sacramento River downstream to the detriment of downstream fish and wildlife species, flood more than 5,000 acres of forest and riverside habitat, and harm several rare and endangered wildlife and plant species (including the Shasta snow-wreath, Shasta salamander, and Pacific fisher). It was not concerned that sacred cultural sites of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe along the McCloud River would be inundated.

The proposed dam raise would cost $2 billion while resulting in new deliveries of a paltry 51,300 acre-feet of water annually (Reclamation delivers 7,000,000 acre-feet annually) and cause the expensive relocation of recreational facilities, roads, and other public infrastructure.

In response, the Westlands Water District attempted to begin the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) for partnering with Reclamation on the project. Replies from state agencies called the project and the preparation of an EIR by the district unlawful. 

On May 13, 2019, in separate lawsuits, the California Attorney General, representing the people of California, and Friends of the River et al. (Friends of the River, Golden Gate Salmon Association, Pacific Coast Fishermen’s Association, Institute for Fisheries Resources, Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Natural Resources Defense Council), represented by Earthjustice, filed a complaint in Shasta County Superior Court against the Westlands Water District for violation of the California Wild & Scenic Rivers Act. The complaints sought to prohibit Westlands from undertaking the EIR, signing a cost-sharing agreement with Reclamation, and halt its assistance and cooperation with Reclamation’s Shasta Dam raise project.

On June 12, 2019, the CA Attorney General sought a preliminary injunction against Westlands. The California Attorney General's preliminary injunction request to stop Westlands' environmental impact report and other planning for the dam raise was granted on July 29, 2019.

On September 30, 2019, Westlands announced that it was terminating its the EIR and instead going to prepare an analysis on whether putting an expanded Shasta Reservoir on a free-flowing river might have an adverse effect on its free-flowing condition and wild trout fishery, presumably with the view to starting up the draft EIR once they had concluded otherwise. They have not released such an analysis — perhaps waiting for a more favorable political environment.

On November 8, 2019, the plaintiffs in the lawsuits announced a settlement with Westlands for a proposed stipulated judgment that would order Westlands to comply with the California Wild & Scenic Rivers Act. The judgment was subsequently issued by the court on November 20, 2019.

In the view of the plaintiffs, the judgment would prevent Westlands from undertaking an EIR and cost-sharing the project with Reclamation. However, in previous court filings and press interviews, Westlands has taken the view that neither it nor Reclamation are constrained by the California Wild & Scenic Rivers Act. Under the judgment, if Westlands begins to cooperate and assist Reclamation in the planning of the dam raise again, plaintiffs would be able to ask the court to enforce the judgment and a trial on the merits of the case could follow.

See below for an extensive collection of resources, documents, fact sheets, and press.

Subsequently, House Republicans have persistently sought to provide construction funding for the Shasta Dam raise and to preempt the California Wild & Scenic Rivers Act to allow Westlands to join Reclamation. 

In February 2020, Secretary of the Interior Bernhardt, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Burman, and President Donald Trump barnstormed the southern San Joaquin Valley with a message of support for the Shasta Dam raise. However, Secretary Bernhardt neglected to complete the Supplemental EIS with a signed Record of Decision.

In January 2023, Rep. David Valadao (co-sponsored by then House Speaker McCarthy) introduced legislation (HR 215) to override the California Wild & Scenic Rivers Act to allow the political subdivisions of the state of California such as the Westlands Water District to work with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to innundate a portion of the state-protected McCloud River and authorize federal construction for raising Shasta Dam. This bill did not achieve final passage in the 2023-2024 Congress.

The history for 2025 has yet to be revealed, but it is sure to be a busy and perhaps consequential one.

Contribute to this effort

How you can help the Sacramento River

Friends of the River is actively working to oppose these threats to the Sacramento River. We are coordinating a wide-ranging group of citizens and organizations to oppose the raising of Shasta Dam, participate in the State Water Resources Control Board water rights proceedings for the proposed Sites reservoir and working with other NGOs to oppose the proposed Delta Tunnel, and building grassroots support for protecting the Sacramento River and its tributaries.