by Dan Bacher   

The lack of support by Californians for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s water bond spurred the Legislature last week to delay the vote for this measure from the November ballot to 2012. This is a great victory for all of those opposed to the construction of the peripheral canal around the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. 

The bond funded the infrastructure needed to build the peripheral canal and new dams. Due to overwhelming opposition to the bond by fishing groups, environmentalists, Indian Tribes, labor unions, family farmers and Delta residents, the Governor will leave office without setting in place the infrastructure for the canal that he has so relentlessly campaigned for over the past three years. 

“With the Legislature’s vote to delay the Water Bond until the 2012 ballot, it is clear that both the contents and price are unpopular with voters,” according to a news release from the No on 18 Campaign. “Now members from both houses, across party lines, have seized the opportunity to start the discussions necessary to craft a proposal that will truly ensure California has a secure, safe and reliable water supply for all Californians and our fragile environment.” 

A bi-partisan coalition of legislators worked hard to prevent AB 1265 from passing, knowing that the water bond “would not get better with time,” according to the No on 18 Campaign. Assemblymember Jared Huffman, who led the charge in the Assembly to pass last year’s water package, was a vocal opponent of now delaying the bond. 

Legislators of both parties, including the entire Delta delegation of Democrats Mariko Yamada and Joan Buchanan and Republican Bill Berryhill, joined Huffman in the Assembly. Twenty-two assembly members stood firm with the many environmental, fishing, tribal, labor and consumer groups opposing AB 1265. 

In the Senate, Senator Lois Wolk of Davis, another Delta legislator, rallied the Democrats who had opposed the bond last year. Senators Corbett, DeSaulnier, Hancock, Para, Leno and Yee joined with Republican George Runner in opposing AB 1265. 

The No on Proposition 18 legislative co-chairs, Senator Lois Wolk (D) and Assemblymember Bill Berryhill (R), portrayed the delay as a victory and vowed to defeat the bond two years from now. 

“While we may have (narrowly) lost the fight to keep the bond on this ballot, we must remember that they’re moving it in the first place because of the hard work and dedication of everyone on this team,” said Assemblymember Bill Berryhill (R – Ceres). “This is a victory for us. As long as we use the next two years to continue to work together and educate people on this bond, I know we can defeat it just as soundly two years from now.” 

“I want to thank everyone for their efforts and I am grateful for the friendships I have forged in this endeavor. We took on some giants and won. We must build on this momentum and keep fighting,” he stated. 

“I welcome the action taken to remove the bond from the 2010 ballot, although simply postponing it to 2012 has done nothing to address my concerns or the concerns of the voters,” said Senator Lois Wolk (D – Davis). “It is still bloated with unnecessary pork and still fails to address the most important water issue in the state, the unsustainable over-reliance on the Delta for our water supply. 

This bond is out of touch with our fiscal situation, including a structural deficit projected for years to come. This bond still funds water taxis in Tahoe while we cut public transportation. It still funds watershed education centers while we lay off teachers It still funds billions of projects unrelated to our true water needs. 

Voters didn’t like it this year and I’m confident that the more they learn about it they’ll like it even less two years from now. So, I consider this bond all but dead. 

That is why I intend to get to work with other legislators and water policy advocates on a smart water financing plan that focuses on reducing our reliance on the Delta. A plan that is in touch with our times and recognizes our fiscal realities, not a lobbyist driven wish-list that saddles our children and grandchildren with more and more debt. 

I look forward to working with the next Governor and a new Legislature on a responsible water financing plan for California.” 

The work by the broad coalition that organized against the bond and peripheral canal kept the Water Bond from being passed this year but it isn’t over yet. The Governor and his collaborators will continue to push his schemes to build the canal and new dams through his Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) process and the Delta Stewardship Council. 

“It’s clear voters do not want this poorly designed water bond, but they do want solutions,” the No on Proposition 18 Campaign concluded. “We’ll continue working to build support for cost effective water solutions that benefit all Californians. It’s imperative that we keep up this momentum on this issue. Stay tuned for more information.” 

The peripheral canal, backed by Governor Schwarzenegger, corporate agribusiness, and southern California water agencies, is likely to lead to the extinction of Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon and southern resident killer whale populations. The canal is designed to facilitate the export of Delta water to corporate growers on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and water privateers including Stewart Resnick, owner of the giant Paramount Farms in Kern County. The canal/tunnel would cost an estimated $23 billion to $53.8 billion at a time that California is in its greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. 

I applaud all of those Legislators who opposed the bill to delay the bond. Still, the fact that the bond has been delayed shows that the Governor and his collaborators knew that the water bond was headed to certain defeat in November, just like the peripheral canal initiative was crushed by the voters in 1982. 

The Governor’s certainty that the water bond would have been defeated had it gone before the voters is not the only major defeat for Schwarzenegger’s “environmental” legacy in the past two weeks. The Legislature, faced with massive opposition to the confirmation of Don Benninghoven to the Fish and Game Commission because of his strong support of the Governor’s fast-track Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative, failed to confirm the Republican Governor’s appointee by the deadline of August 4. 

The MLPA Initiative under Schwarzenegger, in a bizarre parody of marine “protection,” has taken oil drilling, water pollution, corporate aquaculture, wave energy projects and all other uses of the ocean other than fishing and gathering off the table. The Blue Ribbon Task Forces that design the so-called “marine protected areas” are dominated by oil industry, marina development, real estate and other corporate interests. 

Opposition to the MLPA on the North Coast by Indian Tribes, environmentalists, fishermen, immigrant sea urchin industry workers and community leaders has spurred the creation of the largest political movement on the North Coast since the Redwood Summer of 1990. 

by Dan Bacher  

Happy Camp, CA – Federal scientists on August 12 released data indicating that sediment stored behind Klamath River dams targeted for removal is non-toxic. This data confirms findings from previous sediment studies performed by California agencies, according to a news release from the Karuk Tribe. 

“Toxins in sediment are often a concern for dam removal projects,” said Craig Tucker, Karuk Klamath Coordinator. “Often dam removal efforts are stymied by sediments behind the dams being contaminated by mercury or other hazardous substances.” 

However, Tucker noted that since almost all of the gold mining on the Klamath River happened downstream of Iron Gate Dam, toxins such as mercury were not found in sediments. Levels of other potential hazards such as dioxin were found to be similar to background levels and well below levels that pose health risks. 

“Getting rid of these dams will actually solve toxin problems by alleviating the massive blooms of toxic algae,” according Karuk Klamath Coordinator Craig Tucker. 

Currently, the Klamath reservoirs are posted with warnings against contact with the water due to blooms of the toxic blue green algae Microcystis aeruginosa. Most scientists agree that dam removal would alleviate these blooms. 

The toxics analysis was performed as part of a comprehensive analysis of the risks and benefits associated with the implementation of the Klamath Restoration Agreements of which dam removal is but one potential action. 

“Other benefits of the agreements include enhanced water security for Klamath Irrigation Project farmers, resolution of some of the more contentious water rights disputes in the basin, and a plan to reintroduce salmon to their historic range upstream of the dams,” added Tucker. 

An environmental impact statement on the proposed Klamath Agreements is due out next year and a finalized technical report on the sediment study results as well as other data will be included. Based on the EIS and other data, the Secretary of the Interior is required to make a determination as to whether or not dam removal and the other associated actions in the Agreements are in the public interest by March 2012. 

For more information, contact Craig Tucker, Klamath Coordinator, Karuk Tribe, 916-207-8294 or go to: http://www.klamathrestoration.org. 

On August 9, the State of California and U.S. EPA issued a warning against blue-green algae in Iron Gate and Copco Reservoirs. 

“Due to its potential health risks, federal, state, and tribal agencies are urging swimmers, boaters and recreational users to avoid contact with blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) now blooming in Copco and Iron Gate Reservoirs on the Klamath river in Northern California,” according to a news release from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region. 

California agencies including the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Department of Public Health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Yurok and Karuk Tribes urge residents and recreational water users of Copco and Iron Gate Reservoirs to use caution or avoid getting in the water near these blooms, especially during the upcoming summer months. 

“As blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) can pose health risks, especially to children and pets, we urge people to be careful where they swim when visiting these Reservoirs” said Catherine Kuhlman, Executive Officer of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. ”We recommend that people and their pets avoid contact with the blooms, and particularly avoid swallowing or inhaling water spray in an algal bloom area.” 

The algal blooms look like green, blue-green, white or brown foam, scum or mats floating on the water. Recreational exposure to toxic blue-green algae can cause eye irritation, allergic skin rash, mouth ulcer, vomiting, diarrhea, and cold and flu-like symptoms. 

“This is a situation that anyone who comes into contact with water in Iron Gate or Copco Reservoirs should be aware of. Vacationers and the public should adjust their activities accordingly, said Catherine Kuhlman, Executive Officer, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.” 

The Statewide Guidance on Harmful Algal Blooms recommends the following: 

· Avoid wading and swimming in water containing visible blooms or water containing algal scums or mats. 
· If no algal scums or mats are visible, you should still carefully watch young children and warn them not to swallow the water. 
· Do not drink, cook or wash dishes with untreated surface water under any circumstances; 
· Consuming shellfish from these waters previously tested positive for an algal toxin. People should avoid eating shellfish as public health authorities are evaluating the risk to human health. 
· If fish are consumed, remove guts and liver, and rinse meat in clean drinking water. 
· Take care that pets and livestock do not drink the water or swim through heavy scums or mats, nor lick their fur after going in the water. 
· Get medical treatment immediately if you think that you, your pet, or livestock might have been poisoned by blue-green algae toxins. Be sure to alert the medical professional to the possible contact with blue-green algae. 

With proper precautions to avoid water contact people can still visit Copco and Iron Gate Reservoirs and enjoy camping, hiking, biking, canoeing, picnicking, or other recreational activities, excluding direct contact with the algal bloom scum. For more information, please visit: 

World Health Organization Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, 3rd Edition: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/gdwq3/en/index.html 

California Department of Public Health: 
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/healthinfo/environhealth/water/Pages/Bluegreenalgae.aspx 

State Water Resources Control Board 
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/bluegreen_algae/ 

National Center for Disease Control: 
http://www.cdc.gov/hab/cyanobacteria/facts.htm 

Siskiyou County Public Health Department: 
http://www.co.siskiyou.ca.us/phs/ 
(530) 841-2100

by Dan Bacher 

On July 21, a prominent North Coast environmental leader called for the resignation of an oil lobbyist who serves as a member of the Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) to implement Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative. 

Judith Vidaver, Chair of the Ocean Protection Coalition based in Mendocino County, asked for the resignation of Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association, in her public testimony several hours after over 300 Indian Tribal members and their allies peacefully took control of a BRTF meeting to protest the violation of sovereign Tribal gathering and fishing rights under the MLPA. 

“OPC respectively and regrettably requests that Catherine Reheis-Boyd voluntarily step down from her position on the Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF),” said Vidaver. “Oil and water do not mix – as we are daily being reminded by the disaster spewing in the Gulf. Mrs. Reheis-Boyd’s position as President of the Western States Petroleum Association and her lobbying efforts to expand offshore oil drilling off the coast of California are a patent conflict of interest for which she should recuse herself from the BRTF proceedings which are ostensibly meant to protect the marine environment.” 

“OPC does not believe Mrs. Reheis-Boyd can provide unbiased, objective and science-based recommendations regarding placement and sizes of MPAs-especially if she may be privy to confidential oil industry information regarding areas of the coast of interest to the oil/gas industry,” stated Vidaver. 

Vidaver said Mrs. Reheis-Boyd’s recusal would also foster a “greater sense of trust” amongst the public-public trust being a commodity in short supply.” 

“If Mrs. Reheis-Boyd does not recuse herself, OPC will request a full conflict of interest investigation,” affirmed Vidaver. 

“The federal government is just now initiating the development of a National Ocean Policy,” said Vidaver. “The MLPA process will be scrutinized as a model of how to proceed in the formulation of this policy. Therefore it is vital that the deficiencies of the MLPA be addressed and corrected. Removing the perception of a conflict of interest by one representing an ocean polluting industry would go a long way towards legitimatizing the MLPA process.” 

Besides serving on the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force for the North Coast, Reheis-Boyd was chair of the South Coast task force and sat on the North Central Coast task force. 

Vidaver also asked that the so-called “marine protected areas” designated by the task force include the banning of oil drilling, wave energy projects, water pollution and other industrial uses of the ocean. 

“For over 25 years OPC, with our fisher and seaweed harvester allies, has protected our ocean from threats such as aquaculture projects, nuclear waste dumping, offshore oil development and recently, wave power plants,” noted Vidaver. “We are requesting that final Marine Protected Area (MPA) designations under the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative include language prohibiting industrial-scale commercial activities such as those cited above. Allowing such activities would not only threaten the very goals of the Marine Life Protection Act, but would also disrespect the incredible effort put forth by our community towards trying to implement this mandated program.” 

Meg Caldwell, a BRTF member, responded to Vidaver’s request in defense of Reheis-Boyd. 

“I am a died-in-the-wool environmentalist and I have worked with Reheis-Boyd on the Blue Ribbon Task Force. Not once has she demonstrated any bias for any industrial sector,” she stated. 

However, local environmentalists, fishermen and Tribal members were quick to point out that there is no way of knowing for sure if Reheis-Boyd has demonstrated any “bias” for the oil industry or other industrial sectors, since she may be privy to confidential oil industry information regarding areas of the coast of interest to the oil/gas industry. Many believe that Reheis-Boyd was appointed by Schwarzenegger to make sure that the marine protected areas don’t interfere with current or planned oil industry operations. 

Susan Burdick, a traditional Yurok Tribal gatherer, earlier in the day challenged the task force about its motives for denying Tribal members their right to gather and fish. 

“What is your real purpose: to start drilling for oil off our coastline?” she asked. “Be honest with us!” 

“We’re not going to stop what we have doing for generations. We have young people here, old people here and we will march everywhere you go,” Burdick affirmed. 

In recent months, Catherine Reheis-Boyd has repeatedly called for new drilling off the California Coast. For example, in spite of the BP spill’s environmental and economic devastation, she advocated for the development of the “huge reserves of petroleum” off California in her “Gulf Oil Spill Comments,” published on the association’s website, http://www.wspa.org. 

“The tragic Deepwater Horizon accident in the Gulf of Mexico has resulted in California Governor Schwarzenegger’s withdrawal of his support for limited offshore oil development near Santa Barbara,” said Reheis-Boyd. “WSPA has not taken a position on specific offshore projects. But we have been vocal about our views that California businesses and consumers would benefit from development of the huge reserves of petroleum off the California coast, in both state and federal waters.” 

In fact, respected environmental leaders such as John Stephens-Lewallen, co-founder of the Ocean Protection Coalition and Seaweed Rebellion on California’s North Coast, say that the MLPA clears the path to new offshore oil drilling. 

“By setting up these no-take marine reserves and kicking fishermen, Indians, seaweed harvesters and other ocean food providers off traditional areas of the ocean, the Schwarzenegger administration is paving the way for offshore oil drilling,” said Stephens-Lewallen. “Twenty-three percent of the nation’s offshore oil reserves are off the coast of California. The Point Arena Basin off Mendocino is on track now to be leased for drilling by the Minerals Management Service.” 

You just can’t make up a scenario this wacky, bizarre and corrupt. Here we have Schwarzenegger’s “marine guardian,” Catherine Reheis-Boyd, and real estate, marina development and other corporate operatives on the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force “protecting” the ocean by removing Tribal members, fishermen and seaweed harvesters, the strongest opponents of offshore oil drilling, from the water as she calls for new drilling off the California coast. What type of perverse marine “protection” is this?

2010 Salmon Season Fizzles, 2010 Fall Returns Look Weak

The 2010 salmon season has been a big disappointment.  Both recreational and commercial fishermen report they are finding very few fish in the ocean.  There have been some bright spots but a high percentage of the boats are coming home with nothing.  To most observers this is not a surprise.  The continued record low adult spawner returns each year and the failure to stop the smolt destruction in the Delta are taking a huge toll.  

The counts of returning adults at Red Bluff Dam so far this summer are showing returns no better that last year.  It’s time to get mad all over again and keep the pressure on the government demanding changes now.  We owe a big thanks to several hundred supporters who took the time following the Salmon Summit to write letters to their Congressmen.  They had a big impact in Washington DC.  Water4Fish and other organizations will continue to alert you when letters can help.  We will also give you suggested drafts.    

State Water Quality Control Board Issues a Precedent Setting Report on Delta Water Flows

On August 3rd the State Water Board approved a report that can be a game changer in the battle to restore the Delta and provide conditions where fish can survive and recover.  In 2009 the Legislature required that the Board complete a Delta Flow study as part of the Water Bill.  They were asked to determine how much water must flow into the Delta and out of the Delta to the ocean to recover the estuary and protect fish.  The Board concluded there is currently far too much water being drawn out of the Delta.  As a result the eco-system has crashed.  For recovery, much more water must pass through to the ocean.  

This is a welcome change.  Biological science prevailed instead of political science.  A team of eleven top fisheries and aquatic scientists helped the board complete the study.  The fishery groups cheered the ruling.  The report is not law or a regulation but it will serve as a strong guide to the Delta Stewardship Council and others who must implement the co-equal goals of a more reliable water supply and eco-system recovery.

Mark Your Calendar, Salmonaid is Back

The Salmonaid Festival is back big time.  September will be Salmon Month at the Aquarium of the Bay at Pier 39.  Every week there will be salmon specials and feature presentations.  We need you there to have a good time and show your support.  Check the Salmonaid website for details www.salmonaid.org.

Here are just a few of the events.  Sept 1st “Go Wild Gala” with special wild salmon and other seafood 7-11pm.  Sept 10th acclaimed writer and fisherman Bill Carter 1-4 pm. Sept 11& 12 Wild and Scenic Film festival. Sept 15th Salmon Cinema and Storytelling, Sept 19 & 20 Kids Weekend, and Sept 26th Music Festival and Salmon Organizations on Site 11-5pm.  Meet the Water4Fish team all day on Sunday the 26th.      

Salmon Industry Expresses Deep Concerns with the Bay Delta Conservation Plan

The Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) has been charged with the responsibility to produce a water plan that meets the dual objectives of a more reliable water supply and eco-system recovery.  They have concentrated heavily on their proposal for a peripheral canal or other “Dual Conveyance System” but in the opinion of the salmon industry they are ignoring eco-system recovery and specifically salmon needs.  

In a strong letter to the BDCP from Water4Fish, PCFFA and The Golden Gate Fishermen’s Association, the group pointed out that none of the proposed BDCP actions deal with the flows, temperatures and Delta conditions that are currently decimating the salmon runs. The comments also criticized the BDCP proposal to eradicate striped bass as a salmon recovery proposal. The industry will continue to oppose the plan until they get it right.

Thanks for your continuing support.  78,000 supporters have now signed our petitions demanding better water policies for fish.

Dick Pool -Editor 
www.Water4Fish.org  P.O. Box 5788, Concord, CA 94524  email action@water4fish.org

by Dan Bacher 

Citing concerns about how the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) is being implemented on the North Coast, Assemblymember Wesley Chesbro (D-Arcata) announced on August 9 that he is calling for a six month delay in the implementation of the MLPA on the North Coast. 

Chesbro, the chair of the Assembly Natural Resources Committee, has asked California Resources Secretary Lester Snow to delay the controversial process for at least six months to “ensure that environmental protection is balanced with traditional access rights.” Chesbro made the request in a recent meeting with Snow, according to a news release from Chesbro’s office. 

Opposition to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s MLPA Initiative by a diverse array of groups has mushroomed into the largest grassroots political movement of any kind on the North Coast since Redwood Summer of 1990. 

On July 21, over 300 people, including tribal members from 50 Indian nations, immigrant sea urchin industry workers, recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, seaweed harvesters and grass roots environmentalists, peacefully took control of a meeting of the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force in Fort Bragg in defense of tribal gathering rights and against the MLPA’s domination by oil industry and other corporate interests. 

“I have met with Resources Secretary Lester Snow and strongly urged him to slow down the process and that no action be taken by the Blue Ribbon Task Force for at least six months to allow more time to develop a plan that protects marine life and balances the access rights of traditional user groups,” Chesbro said. “I am confident that given enough time we can develop a workable solution between the fishing community, North Coast tribes and environmentalists.” 

“There has already been some movement in this direction. This is something that cannot be rushed,” Chesbro stated. 

Since the day he took office in 2008, Chesbro has been a “fierce critic” of the process Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has employed to implement the MLPA, according to the release. Chesbro has been resolute in his demand that access rights of traditional user groups such as fishermen and the tribes be protected. 

“It is imperative that the implementation process be driven by local participation,” Chesbro concluded. “The plan that is developed must be supported by those most affected by it. To that end, the North Coast needs more time for all the stakeholders to work out among themselves the best possible solutions.” 

Tribal members and fishermen praised Chesbro for calling for a delay in the implementation of the MLPA Initiative. 

“My first reaction to Chesbro’s announcement is that he is on the right track and that we’re finally hearing the right kind of things from our legislators about the MLPA,” said Georgiana Myers, organizer for the Coastal Justice Coalition and Yurok Tribal member. “He’s absolutely right in asking for a delay in the process.” 

“We’re encouraged by this and hope that Chesbro’s request is granted,” continued Myers. “I think that only time will tell whether this happens – and I hope that Snow will agree.” 

“I don’t think this request would have happened without the rally, march and many speeches that were given by Tribal members and their allies at the Blue Ribbon Task Force meeting in Fort Bragg on July 21,” Myers emphasized. 

“As a Tribal North Coast Regional Stakeholder Group member, I am very happy to receive such a recommendation from Assemblyman Chesbro,” said Atta P. Stevenson of the Inter-Tribal Water Commission of California. “But ultimately it is up to the state whether the Governor will reconsider his time frame for the MLPAI. At least the legality of traditional Tribal non-commerical fishing and gathering rights are now being discussed in open forums, where they were once silent regarding Tribes at all.” 

“Tribes have been adamant in their discussions that we are not ‘recreational,’ therefore our perspectives are not validated nor acknowledged,” Stevenson stated. “We cannot wait and see but must take the lead in whatever venue is open to us.” 

“We support Chesbro’s call for a six month extension,” said Jim Martin, West Coast Regional Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance. “The MLPA Initiative has been rushed in every region, but never as rushed as in the North Coast Region.” 

Martin said he is looking forward to the Joint Legislative Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture hearings on the MLPA Initiative that Chesbro is calling for this fall. 

I am still waiting for a response to Chesbro’s announcement from Resources Secretary Lester Snow. Schwarzenegger appointed Snow as Resources Secretary on February 1, 2010 to replace Secretary Mike Chrisman. 

I urge everybody to sign this petition to the State of California to acknowledge and include Tribal traditional uses within state regulations for marine protected areas of the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative. Go to the Inter-Tribal Water Commission of California website: http://www.itwatercommission.org. There is a link at the bottom of the posting that goes to: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/protect-traditional-lifeways-in-the-marine-life-protection-act/ 

For more information about the Coastal Justice Coalition, go to: http://www.klamathjustice.blogspot.com.

For Immediate Release: 10 Aug 2010 

HAY! DOUBTS ABOUT THE DROUGHT? 

Making hay and burning up water in the desert sun – Shipping Rice (and water) to Japan – Does it make sense? Is it sustainable? All this while California water officials cry drought. 

By Patrick Porgans and Lloyd G. Carter 

In 2009, the last year of the so-called Great California Drought, some strange things happened: Growers had a “hay day” in the Imperial Valley desert; Sacramento Valley growers produced a near record amount of rice, and down south, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Met), the largest urban water supplier in the nation, experienced record-breaking water sales. All of this despite repeated mainstream media accounts in 2009 of an economy “dust bowl” wrecking drought. 

The two things that hay and rice have in common are that both of them consume a great deal of water for their dollar value and they produce very little net income. 

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the California rice harvest in 2009 was up nine percent from the previous year and near the record crop of 2004. According to the rice growers’ publication, the minimum amount of water required to grow a crop of rice is about 42 inches; however, unavoidable losses due to percolation and tailwater outflows can add to this amount so that the amount of water consumed (or evaporated) can be up to as much as 100 inches per acre. That appears to be enough water to drown the tallest person on earth. 

The California Rice Commission, a trade group representing 2,500 rice farmers, estimates that rice uses 2.2 million acre-feet of irrigation water yearly, about 2.6 percent of the state’s total water supply. According to records obtained from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California that is equal to the annual average water it supplied to all of its 19 million customers. 
In 2008, University of California Davis data show California exported 52 percent of its rice production, much of it to Japan.http://farm.ewg.org/top_recips.php?fips=06000&progcode=rice&regionname=California 

Furthermore, for every pound of rice exported, about 250 gallons of “virtual” or “embedded” water used in growing and processing that rice leaves along with it, according to “Water Footprints of Nations,” a 2004 study from the Netherlands for UNESCO (The report spawned the Web sitehttp://www.waterfootprint.com.) 

The rice harvest should be of great consolation to the Chairman of the California State Water Resources Control Board, Charles Hoppin, who is also a rice grower, vice-Chairman of the Rice Growers Cooperative, and immediate past Chairman of the California Rice Industry Association. 

Chairman Hoppin, in a March speech in Yuma, Arizona, complained the regulatory community, including much of his staff, doesn’t know or understand the issues facing agriculture and “doesn’t give a rat’s …” 

According to the Environmental Working Group, rice subsidies in California totaled $2.4 billion from 1995-2009. In that period the single largest recipient of subsidies was the Farmers’ Rice Cooperative of Sacramento, California, totaling $146,174,297. Unfortunately, USDA has not provided recipient detail for rice cooperatives. Farm recipients of USDA subsidies in California totaled $9,123,000,000 in from 1995-2009. 

According to EWG, “Washington paid out a quarter of a trillion dollars in federal farm subsidies between 1995 and 2009, but to characterize the programs as either a “big government” bailout or another form of welfare would be manifestly unfair – to bailouts and welfare.” http://farm.ewg.org/summary.php 

Hey! And where is that Imperial Valley water-gulping hay going? According to writer Melinda Burns, much of it also going to Japan: 

In the Imperial Valley of California, a region drier than part of the Sahara Desert, farmers have found a lucrative market abroad for a crop they grow with Colorado River water: They export bales of hay to land-poor Japan. Since the mid-1980s, this arid border region of California has been supplying hay for Japan’s dairy cows and black-haired cattle, the kind that get daily massages, are fed beer and produce the most tender Kobe beef. Container ships from Japan unload electronics and other goods in the Port of Long Beach, and the farmers fill up the containers with hay for the trip back across the Pacific. Since the containers would otherwise return empty, it ends up costing less to ship hay from Long Beach to Japan than to California’s Central Valley. Water is cheap for [Imperial] valley farmers . . . it costs only $100 to irrigate an acre of hay in the desert for a year. 

It should be remembered that California agriculture now consumes 75-80 percent of the state’s available water supplies. 

Although 2009 crop estimates are not in yet, according to USDA’s annual reports, the data reveals that agricultural revenues generated in California have been rising since 2000, and that include the first two years of the so-called drought. In 2008, total gross farm revenues exceeded $36 billion; although that appears to be a significant sum of money (net farm income is far, far less), it represents less than two percent of the $1.88 trillion Gross Domestic Product generated in the Golden State in that same year. 

According to a report by tPeter H. Gleick, with the Pacific Institute, “This is water that is literally being shipped away,” said Patrick Woodall, research director at Food and Water Watch, an international consumer advocacy group with headquarters in Washington, D.C. “There’s a kind of insanity about this. Exporting water in the form of crops is giving water away from thirsty communities and infringing on their ability to deal with water scarcity. This is a place where some savings could be made now, and it’s just not being discussed.” http://www.miller-mccune.com/business-economics/trading-virtual-water-3650/ 

Jobs and Water: According to the Pacific Institute’s report, “…there is a huge disparity in the number of jobs that 1,000 acre-feet of water produces in different sectors of California’s economy. The use of 1,000 acre-feet of water produces 9,000 jobs in the semiconductor industry, 2,500 jobs in commercial offices, 35 jobs in grape and wine production, and 3 jobs growing cotton” [1 job for growing rice]. Overall, 1,000 acre-feet of water produces 22,000 jobs in California’s industrial sector, 6,600 jobs in the commercial sector, and 12 jobs in the agricultural sector.” 

Are the taxpayers, who have poured billions of dollars into California’s water infrastructure, getting a good return on their money? Is this type of use of the public’s water resources sustainable? In the past several decades tens-of-billions of dollars have been expended on government water projects. Between 2000 and 2006 California issued almost $20 billion in General Obligation bonds, for water- and water-related purposes, with interest payments will costs the public more than $30 billion in repayment from the state’s deficit-ridden General Fund. 

Taxpayers may want to remember this when California’s “water lords” try to float another $11 billion water bond ($22 billion by the time it is paid off) in the 2012 election. 

Lloyd G. Carter has a website, http://www.lloydgcarter.com, Patrick Porgans http://www.planetarysolutionariesis.org

by Dan Bacher 

FOR news and action alerts at: http://www.friendsoftheriver.org

Your Call Needed TONIGHT To Urge Repeal Of The Water Bond – Call Now

This week, possibly tonight, the California Legislature will likely vote on AB 1265, a bill to delay a public vote on Proposition 18, the $11 billion water bond, until 2012. The water bond is currently on the November 2010 ballot, but polls show that the budget-busting measure may fail. So this afternoon Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders are proposing AB 1265 to move the vote to the next general election in 2012. The commitee is meeting as we send this email so please do call as soon as you can!

Friends of the River opposes the water bond because part of the measure would fund expensive and largely ineffective new and enlarged dams. Unlike previous water bonds, the taxpayers will be billed for costly and destructive dams, not those who directly receive and benefit from what little new water may be produced by the dams. In addition, the $11 billion bond will ultimately cost taxpayers $22 billion, increasing California’s debt and requiring additional budget cuts in public education, safety, and health services.

Struggling with a $19 billion state deficit and political gridlock over the state budget, the Governor and legislative leaders have no choice but to try to delay a bond vote because the flawed measure appears doomed if it appears on the November ballot. Newspapers across the state have editorialized against the water bond, demanding that the Legislature repeal the measure and start over.

Sample text for call:

“Hi my name is _______________ and I’m from the city of _______________. I’m calling because I want [Senator/Assemblymember __________ ] to vote NO on A.B. 1265. The water bond is bad for the budget and for California’s water, now or in 2012. We should scrap the bond and start over, not postpone it! Please vote no on A.B. 1265.”

Click here to call your Assemblymember and State Senator TODAY! (this will take you to the action page sponsored by Food and Water Watch, with who we are working to defeat the bond).

Take action link to Food and Water Watch website:

http://action.foodandwaterwatch.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4573

For more information, read this article:

No on 18: Repeal, Don’t Delay the Water Bond

by Dan Bacher

The No on Proposition 18 campaign on Friday announced its opposition to A.B. 1265, a Schwarzenegger administration backed bill to postpone the $11.14 billion pork-filled water bond from this November’s ballot to 2012. The Legislature could vote on postponement on Monday, August 9. 

The announcement was made the day after Food & Watch Watch released a ground-breaking report revealing who’s really behind the water bond.

The bill, pushed by agribusiness interests, southern water California agencies, oil companies and corporate water privatizers, is sponsored by Assemblywoman Anna Caballero (D-Salinas) and Asssemblyman Kevin Jeffries (R-Lake Elsinore).

“A vote for A.B. 1265 is a vote for the water bond,” said Jim Metropulos of the Sierra Club California. “Legislators should do what’s right for California and vote down this attempt to delay the measure – not try to hoodwink voters by postponing it for two years.”

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed postponing the measure to 2012 when polling numbers showed low support for the bond, which would cost California taxpayers $22 billion over 30 years to fund projects such as the construction of new dams.

“After reviewing the agenda for this year, I believe our focus should be on the budget — solving the deficit, reforming out of control pension costs and fixing our broken budget system,” Schwarzenegger proclaimed in a June statement. “It’s critical that the water bond pass, as it will improve California’s economic growth, environmental sustainability and water supply for future generations.”

Proposition 18 includes $3 billion for new dams, the most expensive, environmentally destructive, and least productive sources of new water supply, according to Clean Water Action. This bond allows public funds to pay up to 50% of the project cost, with no repayment.

The bond also provides $1.5 billion in funding that will ultimately support a peripheral canal to divert Sacramento water around the Delta and feed the giant federal and state pumps in the South Delta. Voters rejected the canal in 1982 because of its ability to dramatically increase water exports from the Delta; this is a back-door mechanism to reverse that decision.

“Legislators are seeing the writing on the wall,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parilla, campaign director of Restore the Delta. “This bond is unpopular because it is bad policy. It’s bad for the Delta and bad for our communities. We need solutions that work for all Californians, not that continue the failed policies of the past.”

“Voters know that the bond is bad for California,” said Elanor Starmer, Western Region Director with the consumer group Food & Water Watch. “The main beneficiaries of the bond would be special interests such as developers and agribusiness, not most Californians.”

Report Exposes Who’s Behind the Water Bond

The legislature’s decision on whether to postpone, scrap or leave untouched this controversial measure “is actually a referendum on who should control water in California,” according to Starmer. Legislators have an opportunity to weigh in in favor of the public by voting to permanently remove the bond from the ballot.

“The battle over the bond has been framed in many circles as a battle between farmers and fishermen, or between Northern and Southern California,” said Starmer. “But a report released by Food & Water Watch yesterday suggests that the real battle is between private and public interests, with private interests across the state set to gain measurably if the bond is passed.”

The real battle is between the people, including fishermen, family farmers, farmworkers, California Indian Tribes, conservationists and environmental justice communities, and the giant corporations that seek to profit off California’s public trust water resources. It also is a battle between the overwhelming majority of California’s environmental groups and a few corrupt corporate environmental NGOs such as the Nature Conservancy.

Bond beneficiaries would include the Obayashi Corporation, a large Japanese contractor working on the San Vicente Dam in San Diego, and Warren Buffett, whose Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary Pacificorp would have costs associated with the removal of its dams on the Klamath River offset by bond funds. Another beneficiary would be Cadiz, Inc., which could access bond money for a groundwater bank in the Mojave Desert, where it would store Colorado River water and resell it at a profit to Southern California communities.

“That puts the bond’s cheery title, the ‘Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Water Act of 2010,’ in a whole new (and suspect) light,” said Starmer. “And it makes the fact that the bond would be paid for out of the same pot that funds essential public services like education, public safety, and health care seem positively reprehensible.”

“These interests stand to benefit from the bond because the main emphasis of the package is the construction of new dams,” she emphasized. “Entities like the Friant Water Users Authority, representing east San Joaquin Valley agribusinesses, and the powerful Westlands Water District could see new dams constructed in their regions using bond funds.”

She noted that although the cost of building the dams would fall on taxpayers across the state, most of the water would flow to these powerful Valley interests. That water could then be resold to developers at a significant profit. The dams themselves could also be owned and operated by private companies, even though their construction was financed with public money.

Starmer said it shouldn’t be surprising that over half of the contributions to pro-bond PAC have come from the construction industry, agribusiness, and developers. An additional 20 percent came from Governor Schwarzenegger’s “California Dream Team,” which raises money to support the Governor’s agenda to privatize California’s public trust resources.

For the 2009-2010 election cycle, Dream Team contributors included the energy industry ($325,000 from Occidental Petroleum Company), agribusiness ($35,000 from billionaire Steward Resnick, owner of Paramount Farms), and developers ($150,000 from Henry Segerstrom of C.J. Segerstrom & Sons).

The remaining 29 percent of contributions to the pro-bond PAC came from land conservancies, which could receive significant funding for land purchases and related projects in the bond. “Unfortunately, the way the bond is written forces dams to be funded first, arguably offsetting any environmental benefits that might be associated with these projects,” Starmer noted.

“And who would lose if the bond passes?” said Starner. “Our communities and our wallets. Only 2 percent of bond funding is guaranteed for conservation programs, the most cost-effective and urban-friendly way to improve water supply reliability. Only one percent of funding is guaranteed to reach disadvantaged communities that struggle with polluted drinking water and other problems.”

With interest, the bond would shoulder California taxpayers with an additional $22 billion in debt, to be paid off over 30 years at a cost of some $800 million per year, according to Starmer. That’s enough to pay for 13,000 teachers’ salaries or four years of the Healthy Families program, which insures 900,000 children in the state.

“The findings of this new report are clear,” she concluded. “The bond is a continuation of failed policies that have funneled California’s public water to private interests that overuse, pollute, and profit from it. Our legislators should take advantage of the scuffle over the bond to stop the measure in its tracks and remove it from the ballot permanently. We can, and must, do better.”

To read the report, go to: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/california/no-water-bond/whos-behind-the-bond/

Opponents of Proposition 18 include the California Teachers Association, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, California Sea Urchin Commission, Clean Water Action, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Friends of the River, Food and Water Watch, Inter-Tribal Water Commission of California, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Planning and Conservation League, Restore the Delta, Sierra Club California, United Farmworkers Union, Winnemem Wintu Tribe and many others.

The water bond and campaign to build a peripheral canal and new dams occurs in the larger context of Schwarzenegger’s drive to privatize public trust resources and resource management in California, including the Governor’s corrupt Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative.

In a parody of real marine protection, the MLPA Initiative has taken water pollution, oil drilling, wave energy projects, habitat destruction and all other human uses of the ocean other than fishing and gathering off the table.

The MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Forces are overseen by oil industry, real estate, marina development and other corrupt corporate interests that seek to profit from the privatization of the ocean. The MLPA has violated the sovereign rights of California Indian Tribes in an egregious display of institutional racism and cultural genocide.

Opposition to the MLPA has mushroomed into a broad based human rights movement including over 50 Indian Nations, recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen, immigrant workers, divers, environmentalists and coastal communities. Likewise, the opposition to the water bond and peripheral canal has expanded into a huge, diverse coalition including fishermen, environmentalists, family farmers, environmental justice communities, tribes and the vast majority of Californians.

For a complete list of organizations opposed to Proposition 18, visit http://www.VoteNoOn18.org.