danbacher “The Fisheries Forum is the primary opportunity in California for those involved in fishing and aquaculture to come together and speak directly to the Legislature about issues of critical importance to them,” said Assemblymember Wesley Chesbro (D – North Coast) . “California’s fisheries and aquaculture industry are vital to the state’s economy and serve as an indicator of the health of our entire aquatic environment.”
Photo of Caleen Sisk courtesy of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe.
caleen-bio-pic-300×200.jpg
by Dan Bacher
Caleen Sisk, the Chief and Spiritual Leader of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, will speak during a four person panel on the state of salmon in California at the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture’s 39th Annual Fisheries Forum scheduled for today, Feb. 22, from 9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. in Room 4202 in the State Capitol in Sacramento.
Sisk’s Tribe is opposing the Obama administration’s plan to raise Shasta Dam and state/federal plans to build the peripheral canal. Sisk recently slammed as a “dehumanizing document” the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s controversial draft report claiming that a $1.07 billion plan to raise Shasta Dam by 18-1/2 feet is “feasible” and “economically justified” because it would flood the Tribe’s sacred sites on the McCloud River and pave the way for more water exports to corporate agribusiness and southern California.
“How do they justify flooding the Winnemem Wintu people out twice?” asked Sisk. “They still haven’t fulfilled the 1941 Act of Congress that said they are to provide like lands and pay for all the allotment and communal lands. They still haven’t fixed the cemetery problems as it’s still illegal for us to bury our people in the cemetery they set up, because it is held by the Bureau Land Management instead of the Bureau of Indian Affair like the Act called for. And the Shasta Dam is still not paid for by the public.”
The dam raise occurs in the context of Obama and Brown administration plans to export more water from northern California, including the McCloud River, to southern California water agencies and the “Corporate Agribusiness Welfare Kings” on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. Delta advocates believe the construction of the canal will lead to the extinction of Central Valley steellhead, Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta and longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail, green sturgeon and southern resident killer whales, which feed on the salmon.
Sisk and the Tribe are working on an ambitious project with the New Zealand government, Maori Nations and NOAA Fisheries to restore winter run chinook salmon, now thriving in the Rakaira River in New Zealand, to the McCloud above Lake Shasta.
Appearing on the salmon panel with Sisk will be Dave Bitts of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association, Linda Sheehan from the Earth Law Center and Victor Gonella from the Golden Gate Salmon Association.
Assemblymember Wesley Chesbro (D – North Coast), who chairs the Fisheries Committee, explained the reason for the annual forum.
“The Fisheries Forum is the primary opportunity in California for those involved in fishing and aquaculture to come together and speak directly to the Legislature about issues of critical importance to them,” said Chesbro. “California’s fisheries and aquaculture industry are vital to the state’s economy and serve as an indicator of the health of our entire aquatic environment.”
After opening remarks by Chesbro and other legislators who serve on the Committee, the agenda includes presentations from Charlton Bonham, director of the state Department of Fish and Game; Sonke Mastrup, executive director of the California Fish and Game Commission and Rod McInnis, regional administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The forum will also feature reports from the California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout, the California Salmon Stamp program, the California Dungeness Crab Task Force, the Sea Urchin Commission and the Aquaculture Development Committee.
“We will also hear from many of our hardworking fishing men and women, members of the aquaculture community, and conservation groups,” Chesbro said.
Former Senate Majority Leader Barry Keene started the annual hearing, formerly known as the Fishermen’s Forum, in 1973. Initially established to address issues confronting North Coast commercial fishermen, the Forum has since expanded to cover issues statewide concerning commercial and sport fisheries, aquaculture and fisheries research. Since 1981 the Forum has been hosted by the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture. Many laws protecting fisheries, aquaculture and marine interests were developed as a result of information gathered at past Forums.
The public is welcome to attend the Forum. There is no cost. There will also be time for public comments.
Record fish kill and exports, MLPA Initiative are not on agenda
While many good topics will be covered at the forum, inexplicably missing from the agenda are specific panels covering three of the biggest, most controversial fishery issues in California in 2011 – the record fish kill and record water exports at the Delta pumps, the Brown administration’s decision to forge ahead with Arnold Schwarzenegger’s privately-funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative, and the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to build the peripheral canal.
Hopefully, these huge issues will be covered during the other panels, but it would have much better to feature these issues as specific agenda items to be discussed by speakers from different perspectives.
Today I reiterate my call to DFG Director Chuck Bonham, who will speak first on the agency panel, to show some courage and take the following crucial actions to save our imperiled fish populations and fishing communities.
1. Bonham should call for an investigation into the record “salvage” of over 11 million fish, including 9 million imperiled Sacramento splittail, during 2011, a export record pumping year, and direct staff to find a way to stop or at least reduce the carnage at the predatory state and federal export pumping facilities in the South Delta. Scientists estimate that the actual amount of fish lost in the pumps is 5 to 10 times the “salvage” numbers.
2. He should support the call by anglers, grassroots environmentalists and advocates of openness and transparency in government to suspend the corrupt Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative, including the so-called “marine protected areas” created under the leadership of South Coast MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force Chair Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the president of the Western States Petroleum Association. The initiative creates so-called “marine protected areas” that fail to protect the ocean from oil spills and drilling, pollution, military testing, corporate aquaculture, wind and wave energy projects and all human impacts on the ocean other than fishing and gathering.
The DFG wardens would be very happy to hear that they don’t have to enforce new “marine protected areas” when they don’t have enough staff or boats to patrol the existing ones. That’s why the California Fish and Game Wardens Association has repeatedly called on the Fish and Game Commission not to approve any new marine protected areas until the Department has enough staff and money to enforce the existing MPAs.
3. He should urge the Brown and Obama administrations to halt the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build the peripheral canal, a project that will lead to the deaths of more Central Valley chinook salmon, steelhead, striped bass, American shad, Sacramento splittail, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, largemouth bass, white and green sturgeon and other species than all of the poachers in the state combined could possibly kill.
Below is the final agenda for the forum. The California Channel will webcast the entire forum live, and archive the broadcast at its website,http://www.calchannel.com.
39th Annual Fisheries Forum
Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture
State Capitol, Room 4202
February 22, 2012 9:30am – 5pm
I. Welcoming Remarks
Chairman Wesley Chesbro
Opening Statements by Members of the Joint Committee
II. Agency Updates – Priorities for 2012
Charlton Bonham – Director, Department of Fish and Game
Sonke Mastrup – Executive Director, Fish and Game Commission
Rod McInnis – Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service
III. Committee Reports
California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout – Vivian Helliwell
California Salmon Stamp Committee – Mike Ricketts
California Dungeness Crab Task Force – Mike Cunningham
California Sea Urchin Commission – Tom Trumper/Bob Bertelli
Aquaculture Development Committee – Tony Schuur
IV. Ocean Science and Monitoring
Dean Wendt Ph.D. – SLOSEA, Center for Coastal Marine Sciences, CPSU
Dave Rudie – San Diego Oceans Foundation
V. Tuna/Herring/Abalone
Wayne Heikkila – Western Fishboat Owners Association
Ernie Koepf – California Herring Association
Jim Martin – Sonoma County Abalone Network
LUNCH
VI. California Fisheries – Permits, Sustainability and Fishermen Initiatives
Ronnie Pellegrini – Humboldt Fisherman’s Marketing Association
Pete Halmay – San Diego Fishermen’s Working Group
Stephanie Mutz – Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara, Inc
Mike McCorkle – Southern California Trawlers Association
Kenny Belov – FISH Restaurant
VII. Groundfish
Zeke Grader – Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations
Roger Thomas – Golden Gate Fishermen’s Association
VIII. Marijuana Cultivation Impacts on Watersheds and Fish
Nancy Foley/TBD – Department of Fish and Game
Greg Giusti – UC Forest Advisor
Scott Greacen – Friends of the Eel River
Break
IX. Salmon
Dave Bitts – Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations
Linda Sheehan – Earth Law Center
Victor Gonella – Golden Gate Salmon Association
Caleen Sisk – Winnemem Wintu Tribe
X. Aquaculture Development
Ken Beer – The Fishery
Greg Dale – Coast Seafood Oyster Co.
Mark Drawbridge – Hubbs SeaWorld Research Institute
Don Kent – Hubbs SeaWorld Research Institute
XI. Public Comment (2 minutes each)
XII. Closing Comments by Committee Chair
danbacher “The bottom line is Californians have a right to know what’s in the food we eat and feed our children,” says Pamm Larry, founder of the Committee For the Right to Know.
by Dan Bacher
Thousands of volunteers will fan out throughout the state today, February 18 to launch a petition drive to get the “California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act” on the ballot in November. In the thick of the grass-roots initiative is the California State Grange, one of the leading partners in this historic effort.
“The California State Grange has long supported the idea that GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in the food supply should be adequately tested and that consumers are entitled to know what’s in food they eat,” according to a news release from the Grange. “The American people agree. Yet despite overwhelming support for GMO labeling, for over a decade regulators and legislators at the national and state level have largely ignored public concerns.”
In fact, not only has the Food and Drug Administration ignored these concerns, but the agency is now fast-tracking the approval for human consumption of the first-ever genetically engineered animal, AquaBounty Atlantic salmon, better known as “Frankenfish.”
That’s why the Committee for the Right to Know is taking the issue directly to the voters of California. Now, with petitions in hand, over 1,500 volunteers will be gathering signatures at stores and farmers markets up and down the state.
“The bottom line is Californians have a right to know what’s in the food we eat and feed our children. It’s time to send a strong, direct message to those who govern us, whether they be agency or elected, that we want genetically engineered foods labeled,” says Pamm Larry, founder of the Committee For the Right to Know.
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are often called genetically engineered (GE). The correct scientific term is “transgenics.” This is a process whereby the genes of one species are inserted into another species. For the purposes of this initiative, the term does not include hybrids, selective breeding, grafting or MAS (Marker Assisted Selection).
The main reason why initiative advocates want them labeled is because they see enough independent data to suggest possible health risks. “We don’t want to eat them, but we can’t know which foods they are in if they aren’t labeled,” according to http://www.labelgmos.org. “It’s a basic consumer right we are asking for. Given the conflicting data and our mistrust in an industry that has been proven to hide negative findings, we have the right to know what we are buying and putting in our children’s mouths.”
Fifty countries with over 40% of the world’s population already label genetically engineered foods, including the entire European Union. China also labels genetically engineered foods. California should lead on this important issue – now’s the time to label “Frankenfoods” in California!
Check the website, http://www.labelgmos.org, for more information on this issue or contact: (916) 454-5805, pr [at] CaliforniaGrange.org,http://www.CaliforniaGrange.org
GMOs – the ultimate in privatization
Genetically modified foods are the ultimate form of corporate privatization, the privatization of life itself. They are being pushed by Monsanto and the Obama administration as part of the campaign by the corporations, Wall Street banksters and corrupt government officials to “privatize everything.”
The petition drive to put the “California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act” on the ballot occurs as the Brown and Obama administrations are fast-tracking the privatization of water resources in California through the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP to build the peripheral canal.
The peripheral canal would facilitate the export of northern California to subsidized corporate agribusiness interests and southern California – and would result in the extinction of Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta and longfin smelt, green sturgeon, Sacramento splittail and southern resident killer whales, which feed on salmon.
At the same time, the Brown administration, under the “leadership” of California Natural Resources Secretary John Laird, is forging ahead with the privately funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative to create so-called “marine protected areas” on the California coast. On January 1, a network of “marine protected areas,” overseen by a big oil industry lobbyist, went into effect in Southern California waters in a deplorable example of the privatization of ocean “conservation.”
Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the President of the Western States Petroleum Association and an avid advocate of new oil drilling off the California coast, the Keystone XL pipeline and hydrofracking, served as Chair of the “august body” known as the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Blue Ribbon Task Force that developed the questionable “marine protected areas.”
Reheis-Boyd and her cohorts on the task force, including a marina developer, real estate executive and other political hacks with numerous conflicts of interest, made sure that these “marine protected areas” failed to protect the ocean from oil drilling and spills, pollution, military testing, corporate aquaculture, wind and wave energy projects and all other human impacts on the ocean other than fishing and gathering. The corrupt initiative is backed not only by the Western States Petroleum Association, but by Safeway Stores, the Walton Family Foundation (Walmart) and the shadowy Resources Legacy Foundation, the funding source for the process.
danbacher “Take the Keystone XL pipeline, for example,” gushed Catherine Reheis-Boyd, a strange type of “marine guardian.” “We continue to debate and delay a project that would bring more of Canada’s vast oil resource to U.S. consumers, improve our nation’s energy security, and put an estimated 20,000 Americans to work immediately. And while California and other western states won’t directly benefit from the Keystone pipeline, it’s a project with such obvious and urgently needed benefits that it should have been approved and embraced long ago.”
Photo of Indigenous Leaders protesting the Keystone XL pipeline in front of the White House in September courtesy of stoptarsands.org.
6106789270_5ff5d7fa09_z.jpg
by Dan Bacher
A network of so-called “marine protected areas,” created under Arnold Schwarzenegger’s privately-funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative, went into effect off the Southern California coast on January 1, 2012.
As state officials and representatives of corporate “environmental” NGOs heralded these closed zones as “Yosemites of the Sea” and “underwater parks,” Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the President of the Western States Petroleum Association, was touting the “jobs” that would be provided by the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline to deliver tar sand oil at enormous cost to indigenous communities in Canada and the U.S. and the environment.
In an overt conflict of interest that could only happen in the corrupt politics of California, Reheis-Boyd served as the Chair of the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force for the South Coast, the panel that oversaw the creation of the so-called “marine protected areas.” The “oil industry superstar” also served on the MLPA task forces for the North Coast and North Central Coast.
Reheis-Boyd and the other MLPA officials, including a marina developer, coastal real estate executive, agribusiness hack and other political operatives with numerous conflicts of interest, made sure that these “visionary” marine reserves fail to protect the ocean from oil spills and drilling, pollution, military testing, corporate aquaculture, wind and wave energy projects and all human impacts on the ocean other than fishing and gathering.
On January 4, just four days after the “marine protected areas” went into effect, Reheis-Boyd wrote an article on the Western States Petroleum Association website extolling the “virtues” of building the Keystone XL pipeline and expanding hydraulic fracking in order to “put the unemployed to work.”
“I know it’s customary to start the New Year off with an upbeat assessment of the many blessings and opportunities we share,” she wrote. “But with more than 3 million people unemployed in the six states WSPA covers, it’s hard to find much to celebrate. In California alone, 2.1 million men and women who want to work can’t because the economy remains stuck in neutral.”
“It’s good the jobless rate in the WSPA states – California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii – has been inching down in recent months. But there is so much more that could be done , especially in the energy sector, to put people back to work,” she said.
Ironically, she failed to mention the impact that the creation of the so-called “marine protected areas” she oversaw will have on sustainable recreational and commercial fishing businesses that, prior to the January 1 closures, already were operating under the strictest, most prohibitive fishing regulations found anywhere on the planet
“Take the Keystone XL pipeline, for example,” Reheis Boyd gushed. “We continue to debate and delay a project that would bring more of Canada’s vast oil resource to U.S. consumers, improve our nation’s energy security, and put an estimated 20,000 Americans to work immediately. And while California and other western states won’t directly benefit from the Keystone pipeline, it’s a project with such obvious and urgently needed benefits that it should have been approved and embraced long ago.”
However, the Oglala Sioux Tribe and thousands of members of tribes from Canada and the U.S. don’t share Reheis-Boyd’s assessment of the “obvious and urgently needed benefits” of the pipeline and tar sands drilling. “More than 100 people attending the Oglala Sioux Tribe’s rally against the Keystone XL Pipeline on Feb. 11, 2012 voted by consensus to support a resolution appealing for the Great Sioux Nation Treaty Council to demand U.S. President Barack Obama oppose the tar-sands crude-oil project because it violates the 1868 Ft. Laramie Treaty,” according to the Native Sun News (http://64.38.12.138/News/2012/004628.asp).
“The resolution calls for enforcement of the peace treaty’s Article I, which states, “If bad men among the whites, or among other people subject to the authority of the United States, shall commit any wrong upon the person or property of the Indians, the United States will … proceed at once to cause the offender to be arrested and punished according to the laws of the United States, and also reimburse the injured person for the loss sustained,” the publication noted.
Fracking doesn’t cause any environmental harm?
Reheis-Boyd then went on to tout how “green” hydraulic fracturing is. “In California, we’re hearing more and more discussion about hydraulic fracturing, a technique used to release oil and natural gas from shale formations deep underground. Hydraulic fracturing has been controversial in other parts of the country but in California, where it is used to produce oil, not natural gas, it has never been linked to any environmental harm,” she claimed.
“Yet we’ve seen a growing chorus of groups and individuals call for more regulation and even outright bans on hydraulic fracturing in California,” she complained.
“These activities will make it more difficult to put Californians to work sustaining and expanding California’s energy resources. And all of this is being done because of misunderstandings about the level of existing regulation and oversight that governs drilling activities and despite the fact that hydraulic fracturing has never been shown to be a credible threat to the environment,” she stated.
Not only did Reheis-Boyd tout the pipeline and fracking as a way to “create jobs,” but she complained about the increasing regulations that the “poor, little old” petroleum companies have to face in California!
“The refining, distribution and retail side of the petroleum business also is facing a whole new series of regulations that make it very unattractive for companies to expand their operations and their employment in California,” she claimed.
“Even though a federal judge recently ruled the Low Carbon Fuel Standard violated the U.S. Constitution, refiners are facing plenty of other climate change related regulations that will make it far more costly to produce transportations fuels in California – costs that surrounding states and even other nations do not impose making California less competitive in the global marketplace,” she said.
Pitting one worker against another
While Reheis-Boyd’s touting of the environmentally devastating Keystone XL pipeline and hydraulic fracking are certainly alarming, her claim that “We should renew our resolve in 2012 to make job growth for Americans our top priority – no matter where in the economy those jobs are located” is absolutely appalling, considering that she presided over a process designed to kick sustainable fishermen and seaweed harvesters off the water!
“California and other western states should resolve to pursue their climate change objectives in ways that don’t put people out of work and don’t pit workers in one industry against workers in other industries,” the oil industry superstar concluded.
Actually, Reheis-Boyd and her cohorts on the Blue Ribbon Task Force went out of their way to “pit one worker against another” in the MLPA process.
Rather than protecting the ocean in a wholistic manner and protecting workers in the fishing industry, she and the task force went out of their way to create fake “marine protected areas” that let the oil industry, municipal polluters, corporate aquaculture, wind and wave energy companies and all other users of marine waters other than fishermen “off the hook” in their bizarre conception of “marine protection.”
Unfortunately, the Jerrry Brown administration, like the “green” Schwarzenegger administration before it, is completely subservient to the whims of oil industry lobbyists such as Reheis-Boyd.
Late last year Brown pushed for Derek Chernow, then head of the Department of Conservation, to ease key requirements for companies seeking to tap California’s oil through underground injection. When the official refused, Brown fired him, along with Deputy Director Elena Miller, under pressure from the oil industry.
“Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Assn., a lobbying group, said regulators began requesting so much information about every project — “an infinite do-loop” — that they effectively halted production for some operators,” according to an article in the LA Times on January 29 (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/29/local/la-me-oil-20120129).
Pushing the “gospel” of “Drill, Baby, Drill!”
Of course, pushing for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, the expansion of hydraulic fracking in California and the weakening of California environmental laws is not the only lobbying for the oil industry that Reheis-Boyd has done in recent years. Reheis-Boyd is a strong advocate for new oil drilling off the California coast, in spite of the tremendous threat that new oil rigs pose to fish, other marine life and human health.
“There are more than 10 billion barrels of crude oil reserves located off the California coast and huge reserves of natural gas,” Reheis-Boyd said in “A Message from WSPA” on the oil industry group’s website in early 2010. (http://www.wspa.org/wspa-message.aspx?id=17). “Our industry has demonstrated over the past 40 years it can and does operate safely in the marine environment.”
Reheis-Boyd also told the Santa Rosa Press Democrat on April 1, 2010 that she was “disappointed” by Obama’s decision to continue excluding California’s “resource-rich” waters from energy development. “Without added offshore oil development, the state would have to bring in more oil by tanker, and ‘we don’t want that,’” Reheis-Boyd said, according to the Press Democrat (http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100401/NEWS/4011015?p=4&tc=pg).
Since then, Reheis-Boyd has touted the “need” to open up the West Coast to new oil drilling many times in an array of publications – and grassroots environmental leaders remain strongly opposed to any efforts to drill.
“Catherine Reheis-Boyd was part of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative process that denied access to the ocean for sustainable food providers and opened the path for offshore oil drillling off the Northern California Coast,” said John Lewallen, co-founder of the Ocean Protection Coalition and the North Coast Seaweed Rebellion. “The people of the North Coast are determined to prevent offshore oil drilling and defend our access to the ocean.”
For more information about the Keystone XL Pipeline, Alberta tar sands drilling and hydrofracking, go to: http://www.honorearth.org/stop-tar-sands or http://www.earthjustice.org
MLPA Initiative Background:
The Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) is a law, signed by Governor Gray Davis in 1999, designed to create a network of marine protected areas off the California Coast. However, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2004 created the privately-funded MLPA “Initiative” to “implement” the law, effectively eviscerating the MLPA.
danbacher “HR 1837 turns upside down 150 years of California water law and the allocation of water,” said Representative John Garamendi. “The bill removes all environmental protections for the Delta and Central Valley rivers while allowing destructive exports of water from the Delta to San Joaquin Valley water districts.
Photo of Congressman John Garamendi speaking at the “Farms & Salmon Summit” on Wednesday, April 27, 2011 in Antioch by Dan Bacher.
by Dan Bacher
The House Natural Resources Committee on Thursday approved H.R. 1837, a bill that would eliminate environmental protections for the Delta and Central Valley rivers, secure more water for corporate agribusiness on the San Joaquin Valley’s west side and upend water rights in California.
The bill’s author, Congressman Devin Nunes (CA-21), claimed in a statement that the legislation, the “Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act,” “will restore the flow of water to farms and rural communities, while protecting the property rights of all Californians. It will also make unnecessary the construction of a $12 billion peripheral canal to bypass the Bay-Delta.”
“I commend the hard work of Chairman Doc Hastings, Subcommittee Chairman Tom McClintock, and Rep. Jeff Denham. Their efforts are greatly appreciated by the people who have suffered under government-imposed water shortages,” said Nunes.
“This action sends a strong message to the people of California that House Republicans are fighting to deliver water, jobs, and security to their communities. Our work today comes after years of negligence by Democratic super-majorities and is the first step in keeping our promise to Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley residents,” Nunes contended.
“This bill is a remarkable North-South compromise that will protect all water users. Those who continue to obstruct the bill are being exposed for their extreme views. This is particularly true of California’s Senators who have yet to offer any alternatives to H.R. 1837,” Nunes claimed.
Following the markup of HR 1837 in the House Natural Resources Committee, Congressman John Garamendi (CA-10), a former Deputy Secretary of the Interior, blasted the bill’s passage in a statement.
“HR 1837 turns upside down 150 years of California water law and the allocation of water,” said Garamendi. “The bill removes all environmental protections for the Delta and Central Valley rivers while allowing destructive exports of water from the Delta to San Joaquin Valley water districts.”
However, he noted that “one section of the bill, Title 4, has merit in that it affirms existing water rights and area of origin rights in Northern California. Unfortunately, this section was combined with too much bad policy for the bill to receive my support.”
“The Committee refused to accept my amendment that would have authorized an expedited process to construct Sites Reservoir, a critical off-stream reservoir. Instead, a substitute amendment prohibits the Bureau of Reclamation from working with the Sites Project Joint Powers Authority, a regional consortium of local water agencies and counties united to develop the project,” stated Garamendi.
“I will continue working with my colleagues at the federal, state, and local levels to craft a water policy that carries out the twin goals of California law, water reliability and ecosystem restoration,” he concluded.
In a letter to the Committee on Natural Resources prior to the vote, Garamendi and Representatives Mike Thompson (CA-1), George Miller (CA-7), Doris Matsui (CA-5), Jerry McNerney (CA-11), Jackie Speier (CA-12), Mike Honda (CA-15) and Lynn Woolsey (CA-6) wrote that the bill “grossly dismisses the best available science, would cause job losses, repeals environmental protections, damages local tourism, hurts fishers and farmers, and should be rejected.”
“This legislation is nothing more than an attempt by well-funded south-of-Delta water contractors to steal water from the North with no regard for the fishers, farmers, families and businesses who depend on the Delta for their livelihoods,” said Thompson. “This bill puts politics ahead of a half-century of established science, guts environmental protections and kills local jobs. It should be rejected, and solutions to California’s water challenges should be based on sound science so that our Delta communities, wildlife and environment are not harmed.”
“Last summer, we said that this bill would do serious damage to California’s water future,” stated Miller. “Republicans took their extreme bill behind closed doors for the rest of the year, tinkered with it, and emerged with an equally radical and damaging bill. Their bill undermines water policy throughout the west, including state policy, federal policy, and court approved settlements.”
Delta advocates were outraged by the passage of the bill through the Committee. “Congressman Devin Nunes and Congressman Jeff Denham will not be happy until they have grabbed each and every last drop of water from the Delta for their 1% corporate agribusiness masters,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of Restore the Delta. For more information, go to: http://www.restorethedelta.org.
The bill will next go to the Full House for a floor vote. If the House approves it, it will then will go to the Senate where it would face strong opposition, since both of California’s Senators are opposed to the bill.
The legislation was passed as the Brown and Obama administrations are fast-tracking the construction of the peripheral canal through the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). The peripheral canal or tunnel is designed to facilitate increased exports of water from the Delta to corporate agribusiness and southern California.
The canal is likely to lead to the extinction of Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta and longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail, green sturgeon and southern resident killer whales, which feed on the salmon.
danbacher “Congressman Nunes’ HR 1837 is specifically designed for a full on water grab from the Delta,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Executive Director of Restore the Delta.
Photo of Representative Devin Nunes courtesy of Nunes’ office.
img1.png
Rep. McNerney, Delta advocates denounce Nunes bill as water grab
The water wars ramped up on Tuesday, February 14 with the announcement of the markup of federal legislation designed to divert more Delta water to corporate agribusiness and to sabotage the historic San Joaquin River Restoration Agreement.
Representative Devin Nunes (CA-21) said the House Natural Resources Committee has scheduled a markup for H.R. 1837, the “Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act,” a bill that Representative Jerry McNerney and Delta advocates denounced as a “water grab” conceived behind closed doors.
“I am pleased that after four years of inaction by Democratic super-majorities in Congress, we are now – under Republican leadership – able to move forward with a solution to California’s government-imposed drought,” claimed Nunes.
“This legislation is a comprehensive regional solution to water shortages that have been caused by failed government policies, not actual shortages of water. We have crafted a good bill that not only restores the flow of water but will ultimately make unnecessary the construction of a $12 billion canal to bypass the Bay-Delta,” he concluded.
The markup for HR 1837 will take place on Thursday, February 16, 2012 and consideration by the full House is expected in the coming weeks.
Representative Jerry McNerney (D-11) reacted to the pending committee markup of H.R. 1837 by blasting the bill for being “yet another example of a water scheme created behind closed doors and without the input of the Delta communities.”
“Any legislation that will forever affect the Delta must include the input of the people who reside there and rely on a healthy Delta for their livelihoods,” said McNerney.
“This bill is deeply-flawed, and it will rob the Delta of clean water and reduce the quality of the water that remains. To steal water from one community to benefit another is unconscionable and would have disastrous consequences for the Delta communities,” he noted.
“This is yet another example of how greedy water exporters and their allies will stop at nothing to achieve their goals with total disregard for the disastrous consequences for the Delta,” said McNerney. “I will continue to call for fair solutions that include the input of all stakeholders, and to stand with the families, farmers, and small business owners who rely on the Delta for their economic security.”
Restore the Delta also denounced the bill. “Congressman Nunes’ HR 1837 is specifically designed for a full on water grab from the Delta,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of Restore the Delta. “It not only over rides the public trust as defined in the California Constitution and state water laws, it seeks to promote a large corporate agribusiness economy, all at the expense of Delta family farmers.”
“If you want any striped bass in the Bay/Delta or anywhere else in California, or any other anadromous fisheries for that matter, you had get in touch with your Congressional Representative because H.R. Bill 1837 is out to kill the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) and its fisheries restoration objectives, as well as sucking Northern California dry,” according to Mike McKenzie of the Allied Fishing Groups. “This is a classic example of self-serving greed by Southern San Joaquin Valley corporate agribusiness.”
You can read the bill at: http://thomas.gov/home/gpoxmlc112/h1837_ih.xml.
Nunes announced the legislation’s mark-up as the Obama and Brown administrations are fast-tracking the construction of the peripheral canal or tunnel to export more water to southern California and corporate agribusiness interests on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. The construction of the peripheral canal would likely result in the extinction of Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta and longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail, green sturgeon and southern resident killer whales (that feed on salmon).
On the same day, the S.F. Chronicle published an article entitled “Bay Delta Conservation Plan is best option” by Natural Resources Secretary John Laird. Laird claimed,”This robust public stakeholder process was developed to hear all sides and understand issues.” (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/15/EDTP1N81IT.DTL)
In fact, officials in the water contractor-dominated process have gone out of their way to exclude Delta residents, recreational and commercial fishermen, California Indian Tribes, family farmers, grassroots conservationists and environmental justice communities from the BDCP “Management Committee” and to marginalize opposition to plans to build the peripheral canal.
Between the assault on the Delta and fish populations by the Brown and Obama administrations through the BDCP process, on one hand, and by Devin Nunes and Congressional Republicans through HR 1837, on the other hand, advocates of the Delta and fish restoration really got their work cut out for them in 2012!
SEC. 108. COMPLIANCE WITH ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973.
(a) Compliance-
(1) IN GENERAL- All requirements of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) shall be considered to be fully met for the protection and conservation of the species listed pursuant to the Act for the operations of the Central Valley Project and the California State Water Project, if the Central Valley Project and the California State Water Project are operated in a manner consistent with the `Principles for Agreement on the Bay-Delta Standards Between the State of California and the Federal Government’ dated December 15, 1994.
(2) BIOLOGICAL OPINIONS AND MODIFICATION- The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce shall issue biological opinions for coordinated operations of the Central Valley Project and the California State Water Project that are no more restrictive than provisions of the `Principles for Agreement on the Bay-Delta Standards Between the State of California and the Federal Government’ dated December 15, 1994. Such biological opinions may be modified only with the consent of the signatories to the `Principles for Agreement on the Bay-Delta Standards Between the State of California and the Federal Government’ dated December 15, 1994.
(b) Preemption of State Law-
(1) STATE LAW PREEMPTION- Neither the State of California, an agency of the State, nor any political subdivision of the State shall adopt or enforce any requirement for the protection or conservation of any species listed under the Endangered Species Act for the operations of the Central Valley Project or the California State Water Project that is more restrictive than the requirements of this section. Any provision of California State law that authorizes the imposition of conditions or restrictions on the operations of the Central Valley Project or the California State Water Project for the protection or conservation of a species that is more restrictive than this section is preempted.
(2) NATIVE SPECIES PROTECTION- Any restriction imposed under California law on the take or harvest of any nonnative or introduced aquatic or terrestrial species that preys upon a native fish species that occupies the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries or the Sacramento-San Joaquin Rivers Delta shall be void and is preempted.
danbacher The water in Central Valley rivers and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is being privatized though the Obama and Brown administration Bay Delta Plan (BDCP) to build the peripheral canal, designed to increase water exports to corporate agribusiness interests, including Beverly Hills billionaire Stewart Resnick and the Westlands Water District, and Southern California.
by Dan Bacher
I wrote this song, “Privatize Everything,” back in 2000. The song was meant as political satire, but unfortunately, many of these lyrics have already become reality in recent years.
The oceans are being privatized under NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco’s “catch shares” program that concentrates ocean fisheries in fewer, increasingly corporate hands.
Ocean conservation management has been privatized under the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative’s creation of so-called marine protected areas in California that fail to protect the ocean from oil spills and drilling, pollution, military testing, corporate aquaculture, wind and wave energy project and all other uses of the ocean other than fishing and gathering. Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the President of the Western States Petroleum Association, chairs the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force that imposed the “marine protected areas” that went into effect in Southern California waters on January 1, 2012.
The water in Central Valley rivers and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is being privatized though the Obama and Brown administration Bay Delta Plan (BDCP) to build the peripheral canal, designed to increase water exports to corporate agribusiness interests, including Beverly Hills billionaire Stewart Resnick and the Westlands Water District, and Southern California. Habitat “restoration” and infrastructure “improvements” under this corporate water grab will be funded through the $11.4 billion Water Bond.
Monsanto and Obama’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are leading the charge to privatize the food supply and life itself by fast-tracking the approval of genetically engineered foods. The Food and Drug Administration is currently considering an application by Aqua Bounty Farms to permit sales of genetically engineered salmon, “Frankenfish,” for human consumption in spite of the tremendous risk these fish pose to imperiled salmon populations and public health.
When you add the current campaign to privatize the prisons, public education, health services, military operations and public services in the U.S. and around the world, it is so clear that the Wall Street 1 percent and corporate leaders, in collaboration with corrupt government officials, are indeed well on their way to “privatizing everything.” To save the country and the planet, everybody who cares about democracy, human rights and the environment must resist and stop the insane plan to “privatize everything!”
To resist the privatizers, help to stop the Corporate Water Grab in California by opposing the $11.4 billion Water Bond for three reasons.
(1) The bond, scheduled for the November ballot, would sink California’s budget. California is already facing a $13 billion budget deficit that has resulted in huge cuts to public schools and other essential services, according to Food & Water Watch.
(2) It will establish corporate control of water. Corporate agribusiness giants would get more taxpayer-subsidized water that they could resell to developers for huge private profits.
(3) It is bad for the environment. The bond busts the budget for local water projects and degrades the San Francisco Bay Delta ecosystem. In tandem with state and federal plans to build the peripheral canal, the bond will lead to the extinction of Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento river chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon, Sacramento splittail, southern resident killer whales (that feed on salmon) and other imperiled species.
Take action now by going to:
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/take-action/in-your-community/western-region/california/stopthecorporatewatergrab/
Privatize Everything in the Universe (by Dan Bacher)
We’ll privatize the water, we’ll privatize the air
We’ll privatize the oceans, we’ll privatize your hair
We’ll privatize the world as we sing this verse, we’ll privatize everything in the universe!
We’ll privatize fish in the sea, we’ll privatize the whales
We’ll privatize sea turtles, we’ll put ‘em up for sale
We’l lprivatize the world as we sing this verse, we’ll privatize everything in the universe!
We’ll privatize the corn and wheat, we’ll privatize all seeds
We’ll privatize all life forms, we’ll privatize all weeds
We’ll privatize the world as we sing this verse, we’ll privatize everything in the universe!
We’ll privatize the prisons, We’ll privatize the schools
We’ll privatize the highways, we’ll privatize car pools
We’ll privatize the world as we sing this verse, we’ll privatize everything in the universe!
We’ll privatize your secret thoughts, we’ll privatize your genes
We’ll privatize your emotions, we’ll privatize your schemes
We’ll privatize the world as we sing this verse, we’ll privatize everything in the universe!
We’ll privatize the sun so bright, we’ll privatize the moon
We’ll privatize the Galaxy, we need more living room
We’ll privatize the world as we sing this verse, we’ll privatize everything in the universe!
We’ll privatize religion, we’ll privatize all souls
Instead of God, we’ll appoint, One Big, Bad CEO!
We’ll privatize the world as we sing this verse, we’ll privatize everything in the universe!
danbacher “This is a great day for the California coast, which is far too precious a resource to be used as a dumping ground,” said Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto). “This ‘No Discharge Zone’ – the largest in the nation – protects our coastal economy, our environment and our public health.”
Photo of the beach off Crissy Field in San Francisco courtesy of the U.S. EPA.
by Dan Bacher
The federal government on February 9 approved a landmark California proposal banning the discharge of more than 22 million gallons of treated vessel sewage to shorelines and shallow marine waters in California every year, drawing praise from environmental and shipping industry groups alike.
U.S. EPA’s Pacific Southwest Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld signed a rule that will finalize EPA’s decision and approve a state proposal to ban all sewage discharges from large cruise ships and most other large ocean-going ships to state marine waters along California’s 1,624 mile coast from Mexico to Oregon and surrounding major islands.
The action established a new federal regulation banning even treated sewage from being discharged in California’s marine waters.
“This is an important step to protect California’s coastline,” said Governor Jerry Brown. “I want to commend the shipping industry, environmental groups and U.S. EPA for working with California to craft a common sense approach to keeping our coastal waters clean.”
“By approving California’s ‘No Discharge Zone,’ EPA will prohibit more than 20 million gallons of vessel sewage from entering the state’s coastal waters,” said Jared Blumenfeld. “Not only will this rule help protect important marine species, it also benefits the fishing industry, marine habitats and the millions of residents and tourists who visit California beaches each year.”
This action strengthens protection of California’s coastal waters from the adverse effects of sewage discharges from a growing number of large vessels, according to an announcement from the the U.S. EPA.
“Several dozen cruise ships make multiple California port calls each year while nearly 2,000 cargo ships made over 9,000 California port calls in 2010 alone,” the EPA stated. “EPA estimates that the rule will prohibit the discharge of over 22 million of the 25 million gallons of treated vessel sewage generated by large vessels in California marine waters each year, which could greatly reduce the contribution of pollutants still found in treated vessel sewage.”
Senator Joe Simitian authored Clean Coast Act
State Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) authored Senate Bill 771, the Clean Coast Act that prohibits all commercial ships from dumping hazardous waste, sewage sludge, oily bilge water, “gray water” from sinks and showers, and sewage in state waters. Simitian’s SB 771 also required California to petition the federal government for a ‘No Discharge Zone’ to enforce the bill’s anti-dumping provisions.
“This is a great day for the California coast, which is far too precious a resource to be used as a dumping ground,” said Simitian. “This ‘No Discharge Zone’ – the largest in the nation – protects our coastal economy, our environment and our public health.”
“California’s coastal waters will no longer serve as a sewage pond for big ships,” said Cal/EPA Secretary Matthew Rodriquez. “For too long, pollution from these vessels has endangered our marine environment, jeopardized public health and threatened the coastal communities that rely on recreation and tourism dollars. I commend U.S. EPA for helping us ensure that our coastline remains pristine.”
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has already implemented similar vessel sewage discharge bans in the four California marine sanctuaries that it oversees. Recreational and commercial uses of California’s coastal waters are equally important. Seventy-seven percent of the State’s population lives on or near the coast and annually, over 150 million visitor-days are spent at California beaches.
California ranks first in the nation as a travel destination and its beaches are the leading destination for tourists. California’s commercial and recreational fishing industry also relies upon clean water to help preserve and restore coastal fisheries.
Under the Clean Water Act, states may request EPA to establish vessel sewage no-discharge zones if necessary to protect and restore water quality. In 2006, following passage of three state statutes designed to reduce the effects of vessel discharges to its waters, the State of California asked EPA to establish the sewage discharge ban.
After releasing the proposed rule in 2010, EPA considered some 2,000 comment letters from members of the public, environmental groups, and the shipping industry before finalizing the regulation.
“California’s economic health is tied to the health of our oceans and beaches,” said Charles Hoppin, Chair of the State Water Resources Control Board. “Pollution from cargo and cruise ships directly threatens public health, marine life and our economy. This led to our request to declare the whole coastline a no discharge zone so that we could provide equal water pollution protection along our precious coastline.”
Today’s prohibition is unprecedented in geographical scope. In contrast to prior no-discharge zones under the Clean Water Act, which apply in very small areas, the new ban applies to all coastal waters out to 3 miles from the coastline and all bays and estuaries subject to tidal influence. Other California no discharge zones for ten bays and marinas remain in effect for all vessels.
Shipping industry and environmental groups praise ban
Both the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association and environmental organizations such as Friends of the Earth applauded the ban.
Consistent with the State’s request, the prohibition applies to all passenger ships larger than 300 tons and to all other oceangoing vessels larger than 300 tons with sewage holding tank capacity.
“The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association shares the concern for protection of California’s marine environment. Our member companies are dedicated to the facilitation of trade while also minimizing any associated environmental impacts,” said John Berge, Vice President of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association.
“Big ships make for big pollution but unfortunately, responsible disposal of sewage from ships hasn’t always been a given in California,” said Marcie Keever, oceans and vessels project director at Friends of the Earth. “The actions taken by the U.S. EPA, the State of California, and the thousands of Californians who supported the Clean Coast Act mean that cruise lines and the shipping industry can no longer use California’s valuable coastal and bay waters as their toilet.”
In addition to the discharge prohibition, other vessel sewage discharges will continue to be regulated under existing Clean Water Act requirements, which generally require sewage to be treated by approved marine sanitation devices prior to discharge. The State is also continuing to implement and strengthen other efforts to address sewage discharges from smaller vessels, including recreational boats, to state waters.
“California’s coastal waters are home to a wide variety of unique, nationally important marine environments that support rich biological communities and a wide range of recreational and commercial activities,” the EPA stated. “Four national marine sanctuaries, a national monument, portions of six national parks and recreation areas, and more than 200 other marine reserves and protected areas have been established to protect California’s unique marine resources.”
Greater effort needed to fully protect ocean and Delta from pollution and water diversions
I laud Senator Joe Simitian for sponsoring the legislation banning sewage discharge from cruise ships – and for the Brown and Obama administrations for implementing the “No Discharge Zone” to clean up the state’s ocean waters.
However, while this is a good first step, much more action is urgently needed to protect California’s marine waters and the San Francisco-Bay Delta Estuary, the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Americas. California’s controversial Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative creates so-called “marine protected areas” that fail to protect the ocean from oil spills and drilling, pollution, corporate aquaculture, wind and wave energy projects, military testing and all other uses of the ocean other than fishing and gathering.
The questionable “marine protected areas” that went into effect in Southern California waters on January 1, 2001 were created under the “visionary leadership” of Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association and chair of the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force for the South Coast. Now that fishermen have been kicked off large areas of the South Coast, Reheis-Boyd has been relentlessly lobbying for new oil drilling off the California coast, the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline and the evisceration of environmental laws.
The failure of the MLPA Initiative to comprehensively protect California waters occurs at a time when the military is planning to expand its training exercises in West Coast waters. A broad coalition of conservation and tribal organizations on January 26 sued the Obama administration for failing to protect thousands of whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, and sea lions from U.S. Navy warfare training exercises along the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington.
Earthjustice, representing the InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, Friends of the San Juans, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and People For Puget Sound, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service’s approval of the Navy’s training activities in its Northwest Training Range Complex.
“These training exercises will harm dozens of protected species of marine mammals—southern resident killer whales, blue whales, humpback whales, dolphins, and porpoises—through the use of high-intensity mid-frequency sonar,” said Steve Mashuda, an Earthjustice attorney representing the groups. “The Fisheries Service fell down on the job and failed to require the Navy to take reasonable and effective actions to protect them.” (http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/01/30/groups-sue-over-navy-sonar-impacts-on-marine-mammals-94811)
One of the reasons why this and similar lawsuits are so necessary is because the “marine protected areas” created under the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative – in reality “no fishing zones” that are falsely portrayed by MLPA advocates as “Yosemites of the Sea” and “underwater parks” – fail to protect the ocean from military testing and all other human impacts on the ocean than fishing.
Ironically, the same Brown and Obama administrations that announced the welcome ban on sewage discharge from larger cruise ships on February 9 are fast-tracking the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build the peripheral canal to export more California Delta water to southern California and corporate agribusiness on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley.
Delta advocates believe the construction of the peripheral canal will lead to the extinction of Sacramento River chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail, green sturgeon, southern resident killer whales and other imperiled species.
So while state and federal officials tout the creation of the New “No Discharge Zone” off the California coast, they are proceeding forward with a canal plan that will kill many more fish and other species that the MLPA Initiative’s “marine protected areas” or the “No Discharge Zone” would ever “save.”
More Information:
To view the electronic media kit for the U.S. EPA announcement including photos and a copy of the final rule please visit:http://www.epa.gov/region9/mediacenter/nodischarge
For more information on this and other no-discharge zones in California, and Clean Water Act programs to address vessel discharges and marine debris, please visit EPA’s website at:
http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/no-discharge
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/regulatory/vesseldisch.html
http://www.epa.gov/region9/marine-debris
Media Contacts:
U.S. EPA Media Contact: Mary Simms, simms.mary [at] epa.gov, 415-947-4270
Cal/EPA Deborah Hoffman, Director of Communications 916-324-9670 dhoffman [at] calepa.ca.gov Cal/EPA Lindsay VanLaningham, Deputy Director of Communications, 916- 324-9670, LindsayV [at] calepa.ca.gov
State Water Resources Control Board – George Kostyrko, Director of Public Affairs 916- 341-7365 gkostyrko [at] waterboards.ca.gov
Sen. Simitian’s office, Lisa Gardiner, lisa.gardiner [at] sen.ca.gov, 916-651-4011
Marcie Keever, Friends of the Earth, Oceans & Vessels Project Director, 415.544.0790 x223, mkeever [at] foe.org
danbacher “We do not believe that the proposed Delta Plan and EIR will result in the recovery of fish and other wildlife in the Delta; it will not stabilize and recover the Delta in a way that provides an ongoing and healthy environment for fish and other species; and it will not provide a sustainable foundation for a viable Delta community,” according to the Environmental Water Caucus.
The EWC comments were issued at a time when the Obama and Brown administrations are pushing for the construction of a peripheral canal or tunnel to export California Delta water to southern California and corporate agribusiness on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. Delta advocates believe that the construction of the canal will lead to the extinction of Sacramento River chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail, green sturgeon, southern resident killer whales and other imperiled species.
logo-header.jpg
A Realistic Plan for the Delta
In late 2009, the legislature created the Delta Reform Act which established a suite of requirements and basic goals for the Sacramento-San Joaquin-San Francisco Bay Delta. These included a more reliable water supply for California, protecting, restoring and enhancing the Delta ecosystem, and developing a legally enforceable Delta Plan to achieve these goals. The newly created Delta Stewardship Council has now produced a Delta Plan and a 2,300 page Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that fails to achieve these basic goals.
The Environmental Water Caucus (EWC) and our many affiliated organizations has responded with written comments to that proposed EIR and told the Delta Stewardship Council that they need to reissue an Environmental Impact Report that meets the mandates of the state legislature. This revised EIR should be fact based and clearly establish the specific actions that will put the Bay Delta and its declining fish and wildlife on the road to recovery. In a nutshell, here’s what the EWC said:
• “Water supply reliability” does not mean increased exports from the Delta, and is shorthand for a policy to increase Delta water exports for the benefit of San Joaquin Valley farming corporations and Southern California developers.
• The proposed Delta Plan is patently inconsistent with the increased Delta outflows recommended by the State Water Board for the health of the Delta.
• The EIR abrogates the Delta Stewardship Council’s duty to carefully evaluate and protect public trust resources.
• The proposed Delta Plan fails to enforce existing water quality laws.
• The provisions of the secretly negotiated Monterey Amendments need to be analyzed for their impact on water supply for Southern California.
• There is a complete lack of quantifiable data to evaluate the alternatives discussed.
• It is inconceivable that such a major undertaking as the Delta Plan so far contains no information on the costs of the alternatives; yet a Proposed Project has been selected with no references to costs or benefits.
• The Environmental Water Caucus’ superior alternative should be more accurately reflected in the EIR and then selected as the Proposed Project.
• The Draft EIR should be significantly revised into a legally compliant and enforceable Delta Plan.
We do not believe that the proposed Delta Plan and EIR will result in the recovery of fish and other wildlife in the Delta; it will not stabilize and recover the Delta in a way that provides an ongoing and healthy environment for fish and other species; and it will not provide a sustainable foundation for a viable Delta community.
The Delta Stewardship Council needs to produce at least two additional components for this to be considered an adequate and legal EIR: 1. A water availability analysis to determine if sufficient water is even available for each of the analyzed alternatives, and;
2. A socio/economic analysis to provide the information fundamental to allocating a scarce resource and to balancing the public trust, as required by the State of California.
The EWC alternative, based on the EWC report California Water Solutions Now (http://www.ewccalifornia.org/home/index.php), which was presented to the Council and “evaluated” in the EIR, calls for the following specific actions:
• Reduced exports from the Delta
• Increased flows for the Delta and its connected Central Valley rivers
• An aggressive statewide water conservation and efficiency program to partially compensate for the reduced exports
• Increased reliance on regional water solutions
• Elimination of irrigation water for impaired lands in the San Joaquin Valley
• Maximum use of existing facilities and improved fish screens in the Delta
• Restoration of approximately 18,000 acres of Delta ecosystems
• Reinforcement of existing core levees to higher standards in order to reduce the impacts from projected sea level rise or potential earthquake risks
• Examination of Tulare Basin water storage
• Floodplain and river integration
• Fish passage for Central Valley rim dams
• Cold water for fish in those reservoirs
• User fees to fund agencies,
The combination of these EWC recommended actions would eliminate the need to construct a Peripheral Canal or Tunnel under the Delta and the need for major new surface storage dams as contemplated by the Delta Plan and the upcoming water bond.
These two actions alone would save taxpayers at least $20 billion in new costs.
That would be a more realistic and economically viable Delta Plan.
Contacts:
Bill Jennings, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Deltakeep [at] me.com, 209-464-5067
Jonas Minton, Planning and Conservation League, jminton [at] pcl.org, 916-719-4049
Jim Metropulos, Sierra Club California, jim.metropulos [at] sierraclub.org, 916-557-1100, Ext 109
Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Restore the Delta, Barbara [at] restorethedelta.org, 209-479-2053
Dr. Mark Rockwell, Endangered Species Coalition, Federation of Fly Fishers,
mrockwell [at] stopextinction.org, 530-432-0100
Tom Stokely, California Water Impact Network, tstokely [at] att.net, 530-524-0315
Nick Di Croce, Lead Author: California Water Solutions Now, troutnk [at] aol.com, 805-688-7813
Add Your Comments
danbacher “Now, because of the foreclosure crisis Wall Street banks created with their lies and greed, millions of Americans have lost their homes, and one in four homeowners are currently underwater on their mortgage. In the Sacramento region, 1 in every 19 homes is in some stage of foreclosure,” according to Occupy Sacramento.
Photo of Occupy Sacramento protest against foreclosures in front of the California Attorney General’s Office in Sacramento on December 6, 2011 by Dan Bacher
640_img_5114.jpg
by Dan Bacher
Occupy Sacramento on Wednesday, February 8 disrupted a so-called “Home Preservation Event” by Wells Fargo at the Sacramento Convention Center, calling it a “public relations event for the bank” and another example of “unfair and deceptive practices towards homeowners, rather than a real effort to help the 99 percent.”
An exclusive video of the protest can be found here: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/20308730
Occupy Sacramento said it will protest again Thursday at 10:30 a.m. at the Convention Center – and this time will protest with a homeowner who says Wells Fargo is making it impossible for her to modify her loan. Later Thursday, the Occupy Sacramento foreclosure team will meet with the chiefs of staff for the County Board of Supervisors, according to Cres Vellucci of Occupy Sacramento.
A news conference Thursday at 2:30 p.m. at 700 H St. (outside the supervisor chambers) will provide details of that meeting, including requests by Occupy for the County to support a statewide moratorium on foreclosures, and locally, enact a blight ordinance to hold banks accountable for their neglect of vacant properties – the law allows banks to be fined $1,000 a day.
About a dozen Occupy activists “infiltrated” the Wells Fargo event Wednesday, and shouted a “Mic Check” and distributed flyers to homeowners inside before police tossed them outside. There were no arrests – although 110 people have been arrested at Occupy Sacramento since Oct. 6, according to Cres Vellucci of Occupy Sacramento.
In a written statement, Occupy said:
“Everyone deserves to have a roof over their head and a place to call home. For all of us, having a decent place to live for ourselves and our families is the most fundamental part of the American dream, a source of security and pride.
“Now, because of the foreclosure crisis Wall Street banks created with their lies and greed, millions of Americans have lost their homes, and one in four homeowners are currently underwater on their mortgage. In the Sacramento region, 1 in every 19 homes is in some stage of foreclosure.
“Nationwide, 4 million families have lost their homes to foreclosure since 2007. The Occupy Wall Street movement and brave homeowners around the country are coming together to say, ‘Enough is enough.’ We, the 99%, are standing up to Wall Street banks and demanding they negotiate with homeowners instead of foreclosing on them. We stand in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street movement and with community organizations who help the 99% fight for a place to call home.”
Below is the complete text of the “Mic Check” inside the Convention Center:
Occupy Sacramento has a message for Wells Fargo Bank
Keep the people in their homes
Make the banks reduce their loans
Wells Fargo, you have a responsibility
To keep people in their homes
Wells Fargo, you can afford it
After tax payers bailed you out
with $43 billion dollars
You pocketed another $40 billion in profits
Wells Fargo, be responsible
Write down the houses’ principal
To current market values
Reduce monthly payments
To affordable levels
Stand by your promises
Make loan modifications permanent
No more foreclosures
No more foreclosures
Keep the people in their homes
Make the banks reduce their loans
Banks got bailed out
We got sold out
The Wall Street bailout and increasing foreclosures of homes by the banksters occur within the context of the drive by corporations and the foundations they fund to privatize public services, education, water, the oceans and the public trust.
Michelle Rhee’s campaign to privatize public education, the Brown and Obama administrations’ Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build the peripheral canal to export more Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta water to corporate agribusiness and southern California, and the privatization of ocean conservation through Arnold Schwarzenegger’s corrupt Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative are just three examples of the many corporate privatization campaigns now being waged by the Wall Street 1 percent against the 99 percent!
For more information about the , contact: David Mandel or Cathy Grahnert, 916-769-1641 or 916-996-9170, news0058 [at] comcast.net .
danbacher “How do they justify flooding the Winnemem Wintu people out twice?” asked Caleen Sisk,Chief and Spiritual Leader of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe. “They still haven’t fulfilled the 1941 Act of Congress that said they are to provide like lands and pay for all the allotment and communal lands.”
Photo of Coming of Age Ceremony, Bałas Chonas, courtesy of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe.
balaschonas-008-resized.jpg
by Dan Bacher
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation on February 6 issued a controversial draft report claiming that a $1.07 billion plan to raise Shasta Dam by 18-1/2 feet is “feasible” and “economically justified,” a contention that the Winnemem Wintu Tribe strongly challenged.
The dam raise would increase Lake Shasta’s storage about 14 percent, supposedly benefitting municipal and agribusiness water users throughout California, according to the “Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation” draft feasibility report.
Raising the dam would also “increase the survival” of chinook salmon, steelhead and other anadromous fish populations in the Sacramento River by increasing the cold water pool in Lake Shasta, the report stated.
“Based on analyses to date, all comprehensive plans to enlarge Shasta Dam and Reservoir appear to be technically and environmentally feasible for implementation by the Federal Government,” according to the report. “Based on analyses to date, all 18.5 foot dam raise alternatives appear to be economically justified for implementation by the Federal Government. The 6.5 foot dam raise alternative is marginally justified.”
According to Bureau spokesman Pete Lucero, the Shasta Investigation is one of five surface water storage studies included in the 2000 CALFED Bay-Delta Programmatic Record of Decision and is a continuing feasibility study under the authority of Public Law 96-375.
“The draft documents address the potential impacts, costs and benefits of the No Action alternative and five action alternatives evaluated to date,” according to Lucero. “Reclamation and cooperating agencies are analyzing alternative dam raises from 6.5 to 18.5 feet and corresponding increases of reservoir storage from 256,000 to 634,000 acre feet.”
The documents are available on Reclamation’s website, http://www.usbr.gov/mp/slwri/documents.html.
The Winnemem Wintu Tribe, which conducted a historic war dance at the base of Shasta Dam in September 2004 to protest the plan to raise the dam, blasted the report for a multitude of reasons.
EIS is a ‘dehumanizing document’
“How do they justify flooding the Winnemem Wintu people out twice?” asked Caleen Sisk,Chief and Spiritual Leader of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe. “They still haven’t fulfilled the 1941 Act of Congress that said they are to provide like lands and pay for all the allotment and communal lands. They still haven’t fixed the cemetery problems as it’s still illegal for us to bury our people in the cemetery they set up, because it is held by the Bureau Land Management instead of the Bureau of Indian Affair like the Act called for. And the Shasta Dam is still not paid for by the public.”
She emphasized that the EIS is a “dehumanizing document – it takes our beautiful culture and summarizes it into a couple paragraphs, and just names a couple sites.”
“It doesn’t describe the importance of the sites to our people or the heartache and psychological destruction it would cause to us if these places were submerged,” Sisk said. “They don’t talk about us as the people most impacted, or the fact we have nowhere else to go to practice our religion. We can only teach our distinctive lifeway to be Winnemem here. It will be extremely hard to teach the tribal youth when you can’t go to the sacred site, see it and feel it and develop a relationship with it to be Winnemem.”
Sisk also noted the limitations of the study – the BOR only spent $8,000 to hire one archaeologist who only did one visit to their tribe.
“How could they possibly know anything about the ‘cultural impact,’” she stated. “Anthropologists, filmmakers and journalists spend YEARS understanding the vast complexity in the survival of an old living culture. They came out here once when they were introducing the whole idea, and they met with us on the river once. They told us they only had an $8,000 budget to do this archaeological report for the 371 shore miles on the lake and the 200 river miles to the Delta.”
Sisk also said it was difficult to understand why the Bureau is consulting 10 tribes when only the Winnemem and Pit River Tribe will be impacted and have cultural sites on Shasta Lake. “We figure they are going to want to be able to say ‘we got 7 out of ten, a majority to agree,’ so that’s too bad for the Winnemem, but we can’t please everyone,” Sisk explained.
Plan wouldn’t increase survival of salmon
Sisk took issue with the Bureau’s claim that the dam raise and expansion would “increase the survival” of” salmon and steelhead – and noted that the study didn’t include any exploration of the possibility of building a water way or “fish swim” around the dam to allow winter chinook to spawn in the McCloud River above Shasta Dam, as the Tribe and its allies have proposed.
“A bigger cold water pool IS NOT what’s best for salmon,” she pointed out. “It seems as that is one of the first goals in the EIS. But, where is the study that shows how just building a water way or fish swim around the dam would benefit and increase the numbers of salmon? A fish swim would be cheaper and produce more salmon spawning grounds in already naturally cold water.”
“It would save millions of dollars in the cost of the cold water pool currently. NOAA has already found that salmon need to go up above Shasta Dam to the McCloud because of climate change. The dam raise would flood more than 7 miles of cold water spawning grounds on the McCloud River, Squaw Creek, and the Sacramento River,” said Sisk.
Other severe flaws she noted in the report include:
• The document assigns 61% of the “benefits” and costs to fish and wildlife. “This is a major flaw and major injustice to the public,” said Sisk.
• The document is based on the 2004 biological opinions, which have been invalidated by the courts. “On first glance, this might have the affect of overstating environmental benefits; it pretty likely would overstate the water supply benefits of the project too,” she stated.
“If we could describe what a sacred site is, maybe they (the federal government) would understand the connected lines and that all of them have a different purpose, and they all help us in different ways,” concluded Sisk. “It’s not like a church where you have everything in one place. We could describe how sacred sites are the teachers.”
The Tribe is now working with a Stanford student on a GPS project to document the sacred sites that are already impacted by the lake level now and to document the Winnemem’s attachment to these places, according to Sisk.
For more information about the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, go to http://www.winnememwintu.us. Dancing Salmon Home (http://www.dancingsalmonhome.com), a 60-minute documentary still in the making, will chronicle the Winnemem’s remarkable trip to New Zealand in the spring of 2010 where they were reunited with the McCloud River winter run chinook salmon after 70 years of separation.
Peripheral canal, dam expansion designed to increase water exports
The report was released as the Brown and Obama administrations are fast tracking the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build the peripheral canal or tunnel to export more water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to corporate agribusiness on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and southern California water agencies. The expansion of Shasta Dam will help to create extra storage behind Shasta Dam to facilitate the increase of water exports through the canal.
A coalition of Indian Tribes, Delta residents, family farmers, recreational anglers, commercial fishermen and environmental justice advocates is opposing the peripheral canal because its construction would lead to the extinction of Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail, green sturgeon and other imperiled fish species.
A complete Draft EIS will be prepared for formal public review and comment, consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as additional scientific information and understanding of the conditions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is developed and incorporated into the Shasta Investigation. A comprehensive public outreach effort will be part of the NEPA process.
For questions, please contact Katrina Chow, Project Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage Way, MP-700, Sacramento, CA 95825, or fax 916-978-5094 or e-mail kchow [at] usbr.gov. To request an electronic copy of the draft documents, please contact Louis Moore at 916-978-5106 (TTY 916-978-5608) or e-mailwmoore [at] usbr.gov. Copies of the documents may also be viewed at Reclamation’s Regional Library, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, 916-978-5593. For more information about the Shasta Investigation, please visit http://www.usbr.gov/mp/slwri/index.html.
