Central Valley farmers press Trump to increase Shasta Dam water storage capacity
A coalition of farmers in Central Valley sent a letter to President Trump on Monday, urging advancement of the controversial Shasta Dam enlargement plan.
The development follows a series of letters sent late last year by local water agencies, state Republican lawmakers and water contractors, where they called the administration to fund the Shasta Dam raise project using money from Trump’s One Big, Beautiful Bill budget. The project is estimated to cost between $1.4 billion and $2 billion.
“You have put all of the pieces in place, and with appropriate OBBB investment in Shasta Dam enlargement, you will meet a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver the water storage our communities desperately need and create economic stability for the farms, workers, and rural communities in the Central Valley,” the letter read.
“Raising Shasta Dam just 18.5 feet will create significant new storage capacity that will increase water supply reliability in drought years.”
Monday’s letter reflects continued efforts by Central Valley farmers and their allies to revive a long-stalled proposal to raise the height of Shasta Dam, an idea that has resurfaced repeatedly during periods of drought and political turnover in Washington.
Supporters of the project, including the Trump administration, contend that recent prolonged dry periods and swings between extreme drought and flooding underscores the need for additional surface storage to stabilize the water supply.
With Shasta Lake serving as the primary reservoir at the northern end of the Central Valley Project, raising the dam would expand storage and increase the system’s operational flexibility, with much of the benefit flowing to agricultural water users downstream. And now, they see Trump’s One Big, Beautiful Bill budget as their opportunity to fund the dam raise, pitching Shasta as a flagship project under the OBBB banner.
Meanwhile, state officials and tribes and environmental groups have argued the project would threaten an already struggling salmon population and increase flood risks.
In 2019, the proposal stalled after environmental groups and California’s attorney general sued Westlands Water District — a local water agency that had agreed to partner on the project — arguing that the plan conflicted with state river-protection laws. Enacted in 1972, California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act bars projects on the McCloud River that would disrupt its natural flow or damage the fish and wildlife that depend on it.
The case ended in a settlement later that year, with Westlands agreeing to withdraw from the project.
“This unlawful project would have hurt the McCloud River, and the communities and species that depend on it,” said then Attorney General Xavier Becerra back in 2019 following securing the settlement with the water district.
This story was originally published February 9, 2026 at 1:33 PM.
