The Amador Water Agency (AWA) currently provides water to the Highway 49 corridor of Amador County and Ione through the Amador Canal, a Gold Rush-era open ditch that winds from Lake Tabeaud above Pine Grove to Tanner Reservoir above Sutter Creek. This year the AWA formally decided to pipe the canal, a move that has generated controversy in Amador County. The yellow signs posted in Amador in recent months are directly tied to that agency decision.

The Water Agency claims it needs to stem water losses from ditch evaporation and seepage either by performing major repairs to the ditch or by piping it. The agency is also concerned about protecting water quality and complying with state and federal regulations.

The Water Agency has contractual rights to 15,000 acre feet per year of Mokelumne River water diverted from Lake Tabeaud. (An acre foot of water is enough water to flood one acre a foot deep. In Amador County, an average household uses about one-half an acre foot of water a year.) The agency claims that it currently diverts about 12,000 acre feet of Mokelumne River water into the canal each year at Lake Tabeaud, but that only 6,000 acre feet reach Tanner Reservoir. The remaining 6,000 acre feet are lost to seepage and evaporation. After conducting an environmental impact report, the agency chose to pipe the ditch rather than improve the canal, another option analyzed in the report. The agency projects the cost for the pipeline as $12.5 million.

PG&E, which currently incurs the expense of pumping water from the lake into the ditch, has signed a contract with AWA to pay $4.4 million toward the pipeline project (the pipeline will be fed by gravity). The East Bay Municipal Utility District, which will benefit from the additional water available below Electra Powerhouse after the ditch is piped, has contracted to pay AWA $4.5 million toward the pipeline cost. In exchange, EBMUD can use the "saved" water until it is needed here in the county. EBMUD’s ability to store and divert water from the Mokelumne would remain limited to its existing water right. (Allowing EBMUD to use the water on an interim basis does not give it additional water rights.) In wet years, the saved water will continue down the Mokelumne River. PG&E and EBMUD have not shown any willingness to contribute to improving the canal.

Opponents cite adverse environmental, social, and economic effects

Those who wish to preserve the canal as a water conveyance system have sued to contest the adequacy of the agency’s environmental impact report, and have expressed environmental, social, and economic concerns. These include the effects of drying up the historical 19th century canal, adverse impacts on local ranchers and farmers, and effects on local wildlife. They are also concerned that portions of local creeks that now run year round, including the South Fork of Jackson Creek, could be dry in low precipitation years if the pipeline were built. The pipeline opponents also believe that the water agency has understated the costs of the pipeline, and that the contract with EBMUD provides that agency with water at below-market prices.

Proponents cite water quality, conservation

Those who are in favor of piping the canal cite improvements in water quality and safety that can come from a closed pipeline. They point to the water that would be conserved from stopping the canal’s leakage and evaporation and the benefits to leaving that water in the Mokelumne River system. They note that the canal lacks some of the essential components of a true ecosystem. They point out that many, if not most, creeks in the foothills are intermittent in dry years. And they note that a dry canal could still serve as evidence of Gold Rush history, much as other dry canals do today.

Conservancy takes no position

Whether to pipe the canal is ultimately a public policy question that must consider cost, environmental issues, public health and safety, state and federal water quality regulations, historic resources, and effects on local residents. Respecting the strong differences of opinion on this issue among our membership, the Conservancy has chosen not to take a position on this issue, neither supporting the pipeline nor advocating for continued use of the Amador Canal.