PDA

View Full Version : Important Rush Creek video



Big Bear Legal Eagle
02-24-2010, 01:10 PM
For 6 years I was the attorney who represented fishing groups that joined together to force the LADWP to re-water and restore Rush Creek below Grant Lake in Mono County. Over a quarter of a century later, despit being ordered by the Third District Court of Appeals to restore the fishery that existed prior to 1941 when the stream was illegally de-watered, all affirmative efforts to restore the stream were abruptly cancelled after one year and the lower 5 of 7 miles remains devestated and the Mammoth Flyrodders are beginning to reassemble to fight the next war...
I know this is a "report" section and you will see in the video linked below Mammoth Flyrodders President Dick Dahlgren catch fish that will make you drewl, so it's technically a "report." :-)
More importantly, it is a call to arms to everyone who has felt the throbbing of a wild rainbow or brown up to 20" from a wadable stream in our own backyard. Just like in 1984 the "professional" fishing organizations are too busy soliciting corporate donations to pay their overhead to take on a giant like LADWP so it's up to those of us who make up in determination what we otherwise lack in financial resources.
Take a look at this video, pass it on to all your fishing friends. When we started this battle in 1984, LADWP scoffed at us because we were "just fisherman." On the other hand, when Christ chose his apostles, he chose fishermen not water bureaucrats. Let's see if we can prove that it's no longer "Chinatown."

Barrett McInerney
McAttorney@aol.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgNR99UVl78

Sierra_Smitty
02-24-2010, 02:47 PM
Cool video.

I'm curious as to what specificially is required to complete the restoration aside from creating deep pools....and what effects that would have on Grant Lake.

mullet
02-25-2010, 07:05 PM
Cool video.

I'm curious as to what specificially is required to complete the restoration aside from creating deep pools....and what effects that would have on Grant Lake.

I would imagine a couple high water events would do it.
Mike

Big Bear Legal Eagle
02-26-2010, 09:42 AM
The dam on Grant Lake is subject to Fish & Game Code 5946 which requires a dam operator to release enough water to keep the fish downstream in good condition. This law was passed in the late 1800's when gold miner's using hydraulic hoses would dry up streams in order to create head pressure for their hoses. LADWP complied with 5946 until 1940 when they had the capacity to divert the water into the Mono Tunnels and into the Owens River for eventual transport to Los Angeles. The problem was created at Rush Creek because over the years, whenever heavy run-off or monsoon rains threatened to cause water to spill-over the dam, LADWP would release a torrent of water into Rush Creek that scoured the streambed and turned a natural streambed that was once 20 - 25 wide and average 3 -4 feet deep with pools to six foot into a 100 foot wide, six inch deep flood plain. Take a look at the stretch of Rush Creek between Silver Lake and Grant Lake and you'll get a pretty good idea of what lower Rush Creek below Grant Lake once looked like.
That was the damage that the Court of Appeals ordered Los Angeles to repair at its expense. For 20 years those efforts have been stalled because of "studies" that have only proved that the upper portion of the stream that has been reconstructed has fish to 20" while the impacted, unrestored portion cannot sustain the kind of larger fish that thrived in Rush Creek prior to dewatering in 1940. Without active restoration (as has been proven spectacularly successful on private streams and creeks throughout the world) and because the Grant Lake dam prevents the natural events that can re-shape a stream, the "natural approach" to restoration of Rush Creek could take literally thousands of years (think the History Channel series "The World After Man"). In the meantime LADWP keeps trying to shirk its legal responsibilities by arguing that Rush Creek (in its present condition) cannot support a significant fishery. If it cannot, it can be de-watered all over again. By keeping Rush Creek in its damaged condition, a condition that LADWP created and was order to repair by the courts, LADWP wins and the historic opportunity to reclaim a wonderful trout stream lost to lawlessness 70 years ago will be lost forever.

John Harper
02-26-2010, 10:14 AM
I've stopped and explored the area, was a bit confused where the water comes out of Grant Lake, seemed pretty brushy where I accessed it. Did not realize I probably should have started a bit further downstream, didn't want to get stuck in the soft dirt.

Thanks for the video, I'll definitely give it a try this summer, just didn't see too much access from the banks, but I was above 395 towards the Lake. Unvelievable how callous DWP is, they have plenty of money to give raises to their executives.

John Harper

Sierra_Smitty
02-26-2010, 02:28 PM
Thank you for reiterating what the problem is....

So what needs to happen? Cat Loaders creating deeper runs and more water being released to fill it? What does that mean for Grant Lake?

Big Bear Legal Eagle
02-26-2010, 05:08 PM
Just as with any trout water, larger fish need deeper holding water. During the one summer of reconstruction at the area of the stream closest to the dam, Woody Trehey (a world famous stream rehabilitator) dug a couple of pools, moved huge boulders and created a riffle, run, deep pool system where the fish are thriving naturally without a single DFG hatchery trout. He was prepared to continue that process all the way to Mono Lake, even re-creating the old duck ponds which produced ENORMOUS browns back in the good old days, but he was forced out by LADWP. Since LADWP is reimbursing the Mono Lake Committee and Cal Trout for their costs including legal fees, the "environmental" attorneys have been conspicuously acquiescent. Lawyers protecting their fees first? Hard to imagine, huh? :-)
The Grant Lake pool height will continue to fluctuate with the snowpack and seasonal demand because the vast majority of the water entering Grant Lake is destined for Los Angeles' lawns and toilets no matter how much is released down Rush Creek.

Sierra_Smitty
02-26-2010, 08:52 PM
Very interesting stuff. Any estimates on how long the project would take to complete the entire strech and the aproximate cost?

I guess DWP must figure that its cheaper to ignore it and litigate it over years than it is to just do what they were told. Similar story to the Lower O....they didn't lift a finger until they were fined for every single day it wasn't done.

And regardless of where the water that goes into Grant ends up - it's one of the best stillwater Brown Trout fisheries on the Eastern Slope. If returning Rush to its former glory would turn Grant into a mudhole I would not support any futher meddling. If a win/win was the conclusion, its a great idea to rehab lower Rush.

flytyingreloader
02-27-2010, 10:22 AM
It seems to me that Best Case Scenario would be to ration water to the toilets and lawns of Los Angeles, in order to re-water Rush Creek properly AND maintain Grant Lake as a stillwater brown trout fishery.

The water rights history of the City of Los Angeles/LADWP is deplorable, rapacious, and arrogant. I have ZERO empathy for LADWP's self-created situation. It's a shame that in addition to civil fines that some jail time for those decadent suits couldn't be arranged.

inthroughtheocean
02-28-2010, 02:09 PM
Very good video. It's amazing how fast waters can come alive after devastating conditions when the proper steps are taken.

Though, I must admit that a creek can never be brought back 100% if it is dammed and continues to be dammed... and thoughts of undamming it are just dreams when big money is involved. Still, I believe a compromise can always be met and there is hope. Thanks and I will definitely pass this on.

BishopTrouter
03-01-2010, 04:08 PM
Very informative video.. i had no idea that water contains that many trout! Is it a fly-only catch and release body of water? Hope so..

I say we get a group of FNN'ers going to roll in some boulders and stack up some beaver-like dams!

Sierra_Smitty
03-01-2010, 06:23 PM
I say we get a group of FNN'ers going to roll in some boulders and stack up some beaver-like dams!

I love that idea....I'm in.

Sierra_Smitty
03-01-2010, 06:24 PM
I say we get a group of FNN'ers going to roll in some boulders and stack up some beaver-like dams!


I love that idea....I'm in. My uncle has a Bobcat too and he lives in Chalfant, I'll bet we could have some fun making some deep runs for the big Brownies

Joshua
03-01-2010, 07:33 PM
Thanks for the video link.
LADWP are all about the money They make money by selling water to those in OC/LA that need water. We all need water to survive, it isnt about lawns and swimming pools. It is about the conveniences we are accustomed to. We are all gross consumers.
And as a bi-product of delivering water to us, LADWP generates electricity at their hydro-electric power plants. That they sell to us. Amazing
Perhaps I am too ignorant to understand this whole topic. How much water would be lost be increasing the flows to lower Rock Creek. Wouldnt most of this water eventually meander down stream and end up in the Owens drainage, Which LADWP own rights to!


I am with you guys for moving some rocks around and creating fish habitat

Sierra_Smitty
03-01-2010, 09:41 PM
How much water would be lost be increasing the flows to lower Rock Creek. Wouldnt most of this water eventually meander down stream and end up in the Owens drainage, Which LADWP own rights to!


You meant Rush Creek not Rock Creek right buddy? If so, the water that flows down Rush dumps into Mono Lake and that's where it stays...the headwaters of the Owens are further south by where Alpers ranch used to be.

Big Country
03-02-2010, 07:53 AM
I'll spend a couple of weekends rolling boulders...no problem!