The oyster producing giant of Humboldt Bay comes to a grinding halt for weeks each year due to sewage overflows. And while emergency aquaculture closures keep the shellfish-dining public safe, oyster farmers say the situation is putting the industry on ice.“When we are notified, everything stops,” said Todd Van Herpe, owner of Humboldt Bay Oyster Company, which farms on three acres in the north bay.Affected farms are ordered closed by the California Department of Public Health’s Preharvest Shellfish Unit, and planned harvests come to a standstill. Sometimes, shipments have to be recalled.For oyster companies, this means cancelled deliveries and triggers what Van Herpe calls a “cascading effect” that disrupts the careful timing of oyster seeds planted years in advance.A closure from one overflow can last up to 21 days. And combined with mandatory harvest shutdowns during rain events, oyster farmers can go months in a year without harvest income.Sometimes, Van Herpe said, the closures can be frustrating, especially when there’s a string of them in a row.“I’m doing everything I can to play by the rules and do a good job, and do this in an ecologically friendly way and try and be an honest purveyor of oysters. And despite all that, something out of my control can shut me down and impact my business,” he said.A California Department of Public Health spokesperson said it’s typical for Humboldt Bay to experience one to three sanitary sewer overflows per calendar year that cause a partial or full bay closure for oyster farming.But why do the spills happen?Overflows often happen during rainy weather, when sewage collection systems get inundated with water. Rain runoff and groundwater can get into aging pipes, compromised private laterals and illicit connections like rain gutters that feed into the sewage system.Jen Kalt, executive director of environmental organization Humboldt Waterkeeper, said sewage systems locally and across North America aren’t ready for abnormal weather events, which are expected to become more frequent.“The infrastructure is not built to accommodate the type of rain events that we’re seeing increasingly because of climate change,” she said.Keep Reading https://lostcoastoutpost.com/2026/apr/29/sewage-keeps-spilling-humboldt-bay-its-hurting-oys/
Pacific Seafood has spent years delaying the deployment of pollution controls at its coastal processing plants, state regulators say, allegedly harming Oregon waters and giving the company an unfair advantage over competitors that play by the rules.So the state Department of Environmental Quality said Thursday that it is levying $3.2 million in civil penalties against the Oregon company for alleged violations at three processing sites on the coast. Pacific Seafood has 20 days to appeal. The state said the company can still mitigate the penalties by installing pollution controls.“Pacific Seafood’s repeated wastewater violations are polluting Oregon’s waters,” said Erin Saylor, who manages the department’s compliance and enforcement office. She said state regulators had an agreement in 2017 for the company to install pollution controls but that Pacific Seafood hadn’t done so.Keep Reading
After three years of unprecedented closures that devastated California’s fishing industry, commercial salmon fishing is poised to reopen this spring.The return comes with a catch: Regulators at the interstate Pacific Fishery Management Council will strictly constrain fishing dates and impose harvest limits for both commercial and recreational fishing to protect the threatened California Coastal Chinook. The council is set to finalize the details this weekend.It’s not the season the fleet had hoped for after years of closures. But those who survived the shutdowns fear a graver threat: state and federal decisions could reshape California’s water systems and rivers.Keep Reading
Here along the rugged North Coast of California, there’s little to suggest that Humboldt Bay, with its eelgrass, oysters and osprey nests, will soon become a launchpad for one of the most ambitious clean energy projects in state history: a hub for floating offshore wind.The plan is for major private players to erect hundreds of wind turbines in the bay — each rising as high as L.A.’s tallest skyscrapers — then tow them out to the ocean.Some experts believe the wind project is critical to California’s goal of 100% carbon neutrality by 2045 and represents a key climate change solution. The state has a target of 25 gigawatts of offshore wind energy by that year — enough to power about 25 million homes — and nearly all of it would come from five lease areas in federal waters near Humboldt and Morro bays.Yet the technology for wind power that floats — as opposed to standard towers permanently attached to the sea floor — is just emerging, and has never been attempted in waters as deep as the Pacific off Northern California.It will require innovative engineering even as the state contends with objections from local residents and a federal administration strikingly hostile to offshore wind. President Trump canceled nearly half-a-billion dollars in federal funds for Humboldt Bay’s port project, and has repeatedly tried to block wind projects along the East Coast.The project is still in its early stages, so most of the action is with the Humboldt Bay Harbor District, which must transform its historic logging port before any work begins out on the ocean.The plans for the terminal include new wharves, cranes and barges for the assembly of hundreds of wind turbines. Some locals say they’re worried about how the project will transform the area and its fragile estuary.California must also contend with a federal government antagonistic toward offshore wind. The Trump administration last year canceled nearly half a billion dollars in federal funding for Humboldt Bay’s port project, describing offshore wind as “doomed.”Funding remains a concern. Local officials will have to replace the loss of $427 million in federal grants. A California climate bond approved by voters in 2024 carved out $475 million for offshore wind development, but there is stiff competition for that money.Private investors could be hesitant to put billions into an industry that relies so heavily on the whims of whomever is in the White House, said Arne Jacobson, director of the Schatz Energy Research Center at California State Polytechnic University in Humboldt.“It needs to be a partnership between the state, the federal government and the private sector to be able to do those kinds of projects,” Jacobson said. “And if one of those three doesn’t want to do it, it’s not here.”Humboldt Bay and the neighboring town of Eureka are home to aquaculture businesses, fisheries, environmental justice organizations, local tribes and many other residents and stakeholders whose opinions on the project differ.A recent survey from Oregon State University and the Schatz Energy Research Center found 37% of Humboldt residents in favor of offshore wind, 44% unsure and 19% opposed.Eureka has a long history of boom-and-bust cycles — ranging from gold to lumber to marijuana — and some communities are still reeling from the fallout from those industries.“There are a lot of people who say we are going to be the sacrifice zone again,” said Jennifer Kalt, executive director of the Humboldt Bay Waterkeeper, an environmental nonprofit. “This whole community is dealing with the ramifications of what was left behind from all that mess.”A draft environmental report is expected next year, and it will include plans to address potential harm to the ecosystem. Kalt worries some species, such as the eelgrass, will be destroyed by the regular dredging required to maintain a water depth of 40 feet to accommodate the ships for the new terminal.The biggest immediate impact is likely to fall on the approximately 300 residents of Samoa, a town that sits on the tiny spit of land that protects the bay. The windswept community is home to historic mill houses and a new low-income housing complex right next to where the turbine components will be stacked and assembled.The 1,000-foot turbines will tower over these homes as they are being erected. Some locals worry about noise, light and air pollution during what could be a decade of construction.Keep Reading
On January 10, 1854, a Humboldt Bay and Mad River Canal Company was incorporated for the purpose of taking the Water of Mad River in a Canal in order to open a communication between Mad River and a certain Slough well known to the Subscribers & leading into Humboldt Bay for the purpose of floating timber from Mad River into Humboldt Bay & for such other purposes as the same may be deemed practicable and profitable.By December of the same year the proposed canal was completed, and at that time it was thought that “the canal will take almost the entire stream and as there is considerable fall along the line it will become the permanent bed.”Curiously enough, no contemporary account of the construction or description of the canal could be found, albeit with the aid of an extant map of the times, plus some later descriptions, a composite approximation is feasible. As was the case with the proposed Eel River canal, the area where the river and the bay were separated by the shortest distance was chosen for the site, the declared intent of the builders being to divert the Mad River via the canal and a “certain Slough well known to the Subscribers and leading into Humboldt.”The slough in question was the present day Mad River Slough, the northwesternmost of the bay sloughs, which at its extremity came to within approximately one half mile of the Mad River at a location nearly one mile upstream from where it flowed into the ocean. We can find no reliable information on the dimensions of the canal, and can only speculate that given the intended purpose of floating logs and the relatively low capitalization a rather shallow (say six feet at the most) and narrow (perhaps double its depth, or twelve feet) would seem reasonable.Originally printed in the March-April 1986 and May-June 1986 issues of the Humboldt Historian, a journal of the Humboldt County Historical Society.Keep Reading
