danbacher 
220px-frankenfish_dvd_cov…
Legislation Will Prevent Approval of Frankenfish
by Dan Bacher
On the eve of Halloween, we have an opportunity to stop a real life horror show – the Obama administration’s fast-track approval of genetically engineered salmon for human consumption.
Representative Don Young of Alaska has introduced a clear and concise bill, HR 6265, to prevent the approval of genetically engineered salmon and other fish.
The bill amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by adding at the end the following new paragraph: “Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a genetically engineered fish shall be deemed unsafe under this section.”
Food and Water Watch, environmental groups, Tribes and fishing organizations are urging other Representatives to co-sponsor the bill. Marie Logan, Researcher and Policy Analyst of the Fish Program of Food and Water Watch, is circulating a copy of a sign-on letter that urges our representatives in Congress to co-sponsor HR 6265.
“We are writing to request that you co-sponsor H.R. 6265, or similar legislation in the Senate, which would define genetically engineered (GE) fish as unsafe under Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act,” the letter states. “We also ask you to urge President Obama to immediately put a stop to the pending approval by the Food and Drug Administration of the first GE organism for human consumption – AquaBounty Technologies (AquaBounty) AquAdvantage® salmon.”
“The flawed approval process is poised to result in a product being released into the environment and sold to consumers that could have significant adverse health and environmental impacts. We urge you to act quickly to safeguard U.S. consumers, fishing and coastal communities, and the environment,” the letter notes.
AquaBounty’s GE product is a bizarre and scary concoction of three species, a transgenic Atlantic salmon egg in which genes from an ocean pout have been inserted into the genes of Chinook salmon, and then inserted into an Atlantic salmon. The egg is meant to produce a fish that grows about twice as fast to market size as a non-altered Atlantic salmon in order to increase profits for aquaculture corporations.
“Given the inappropriate approval process, the lack of transparency for over ten years regarding this particular application, and the myriad of potential human health and ecological risks associated with production and consumption of GE animals, the AquAdvantage® salmon should not be approved for human consumption. We urge you to support H.R. 6265 or similar legislation in the Senate and request that you write President Obama and ask him put the brakes on the current FDA approval process and require a comprehensive environmental statement to address the various concerns addressed in this letter,” the letter concludes.
Caleen Sisk-Franco, chief and spiritual leader of the Winnemem Wintu (McCloud River)Tribe, points out the absurdity of the federal plan to approve genetically engineered salmon at the same time the same government is skeptical of the tribe’s plan to return winter run chinook salmon to the McCloud above Shasta Dam.
“The GE salmon, which many have nicknamed Frankenfish, have been spliced with a poutfish gene and a growth hormone so it’ll grow twice as fast,” said Sisk-Franco in her article in the California Progress Report (http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=node/8204). “While the FDA is assessing their safety based on AquaBounty’s own flawed studies, anyone with common sense can see Frankenfish poses a great threat to wild salmon.”
“If they escape into the ocean, they’ll compete with wild salmon for food, contaminate the gene pool and possibly cause extinctions. This comes at a time when Pacific salmon runs have recorded historically low numbers, and when many, including my tribe, fear they may soon be lost forever. AquaBounty is like coyote building with sticks, and the GE salmon are as shoddily constructed as coyote’s children,” she stated.
“Thus, we find it ironic that the government is fast-tracking the GE salmon yet skeptical about our own unorthodox but far safer plan to return Chinook salmon to our river, the McCloud,” she said.
Meanwhile, Senator Olympia Snowe of Maime just joined the ranks of those who are expressing serious concerns about the FDA’s potential approval of GE salmon for the marketplace, according to Food and Water Watch. On October 26, Snowe wrote a letter to FDA Commissioner of Food and Drugs Dr. Margaret Hamburg, asking the FDA to halt the current review process, which she described as “inadequate and inappropriate.” She requested that the FDA commit to holding more public hearings to allow for feedback.
“Given the precedent-setting nature of this decision, the FDA would be remiss if it did not carry out an extremely robust and transparent review process specifically established to address the concerns and intricacies unique to this unprecedented situation,” said Senator Snowe. “This is simply an unsuitable process by which to evaluate the safety of food for human consumption.”
Although she is critical of the process, Snowe has not officially come out against the approval of GE salmon. She is the 13th senator to express concern about FDA’s approval process.
For more information about supporting the campaign to stop the approve of GE salmon, contact Marie Logan at Food and Water Watch: mlogan [at] fwwatch.org, http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org.
danbacher by Dan Bacher
A panel overseeing the creation of marine protected areas on the North Coast voted unanimously today to forward the unified proposal developed by Tribal, fishing and environmental stateholders to the Fish and Game Commission.
The Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) also unanimously passed a motion, made by BRTF member Roberta Cordero, affirming the uniqueness of tribal uses of ocean resources. The motion included a mutual reservation of rights by the state and California Tribes and Tribal communities.
In addition, the panel passed a motion, made by BRTF member Meg Caldwell, urging the state agencies to work with Tribes in the comanagement of marine protected areas, according to Annie Reisewitz of the MLPA Initiative. The Task Force also voted to forward an “enhanced compliance alternative” plan that aims to meet more science guidelines
If adopted by the Commission, the unified proposal would result in about 13 percent of the North Coast region being restricted or closed to fishing and gathering, versus 16 to 20 percent in other regions of the state.
“The actions taken today really exemplified the unified voice that came from the North Coast communities and it was a nice ending to the MLPA process on the North Coast,” said Reisewitz.
Jim Martin, West Coast Regional Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, said the approval of the single proposal represented a “tremendous effort by North Coast recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, Indian Tribes and Tribal Communities, local conservationists and local governments to come together.”
On October 20, three counties, 10 cities and three harbor districts signed and sent a resolution to the state of California urging the adoption without modification of the unified array for marine protected areas developed by North Coast Tribal, fishing and environmental stakeholders.
Resolution endorsers include the Counties of Mendocino, Humboldt and Del Norte and the cities of Monterey, Point Arena, Fort Bragg, Willits, Ukiah, Fortuna Eureka, Arcata, Trinidad and Crescent City. Other agencies signing onto the resolution include the Shelter Cove Resort Improvement District, Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District and Crescent City Harbor District.
Assemblymember Wesley Chesbro (D-Arcata), who has been critical of the MLPA Initiative, urged the task force to adopt the single proposal.
“I believe that there are fundamental flaws in the way that the MLPA has been implemented,” Chesbro told the panel. “The MLPA Initiative has not looked at the ecological differences betweeen regions in the state. They have no consideration of existing fishing regulations. I strongly urge that the unified proposal be adopted unchanged.”
“The unified proposal is fragile like a soap bubble,” quipped Martin, emphasizing the hundreds and hundreds of hours that were spent by Tribes, fishermen, seaweed harvesters, local governments and businesses to develop one proposal. “If you reach out and touch it, it will pop. The adoption of the proposal with no substantive changes is a huge victory for all of the North Coast communities who participated in the process.”
Megan Rocha, Self-Governance Officer of the Yurok Tribe, applauded the resounding support for the unified proposal plus the recognition of tribal uses by the task force and the stakeholders.
“The Tribe now looks forward to working with the Department of Fish and Game, the Fish and Game Commission and the Legislature to resolve the tribal use issue,” she said. “The motion regarding the mutual reservation of rights by the Tribes and the state is really big, since early on in the process the state said it didn’t have the authority to recognize tribal uses. Now we can move forward and recognize that the real issue is resource management, not quibbling over who has authority.”
On July 21, over 300 members of 50 Indian Nations, recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, environmentalists, seaweed harvesters and community activists peacefully took over the previous Blue Ribbon Task Force meeting to protest the violation of tribal fishing and gathering rights under the MLPA.
Frankie Joe Myers, a Yurok Tribal ceremonial leader and organizer for the Coastal Justice Coalition that organized the direct action, said that he was glad that the task force adopted the unified proposal and passed motions supporting traditional tribal gathering and co-management.
“It is close to what we are looking for,” said Myers. “However, the proposal still has to go through the Fish and Game Commission – it’s not over yet. As native people, we have seen time and time again where we sit down and agree on something and then what comes out in the end is nothing like we expected.”
danbacher by Dan Bacher
The Environmental Water Caucus (EWC) on October 20 responded to letters sent to the Delta Stewardship Council (DSC) by the California Farm Bureau and the state and federal water contractors slamming the groundbreaking EWC report, California Water Solutions NOW.
The EWC, a coalition of 27 environmental groups, fishing organizations, environmental justice groups and Native American tribes, recently made a presentation regarding the report to the DSC, according to Dr. Mark Rockwell of EWC. The report shows how California can restore the Delta and imperiled fisheries while meeting future agricultural and urban water supply needs without building a peripheral canal and new dams.
“This effort by the EWC is significant, since it holds a glimmer of hope on better water policy and a recovered Delta and fisheries,” said Rockwell. “It is now an alternative for evaluation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and stands as an alternative to what the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) is doing.”
The Farm Bureau wasn’t impressed by EWC’s presentation. “While certainly bold, it is not at all new in proposing a rabbit-in-a-hat solution to California’s water crisis by focusing singlehandedly on water exports and the retirement of vast acreages of farmland,”Christian C. Scheuring, Managing Counsel of the California Farm Bureau, claimed in his letter.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, corporate agribusiness and southern California water agencies are promoting the construction of a peripheral canal (conveyance) and new surface storage through the Bay Delta Conservation Plan in order to facilitate and increase water exports from the imperiled Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. David Hayes, Deputy Interior Secretary, also claims that Delta conveyance is “necessary” and that “short term” protections and restoration of the Delta should be weakened.
In contrast, the EWC report demonstrates how California can restore its fisheries and meet its water supply needs through retirement of drainage impaired land and increased water conservation by agricultural and urban users. This will result in a reduction in Delta water exports.
“As to a new conveyance system, we feel that current plans are not necessary if diversion reduction targets are met,” said David Nesmith, EWC coordinator, in the letter. “If the State Water Board’s flow criteria, which must be part of the considerations of the Council, are met, through-Delta conveyance is possible without a new facility.”
“We see this as a Trojan horse for increasing water diversions from the system, not reducing them. We also see it as harmful to anadromous fish out-migrating from the system, and problematic for maintaining temperature standards in the upper river for spawning in the fall,” explained Nesmith.
The letter also challenged agribusiness claims that the EWC report concentrated on reducing agricultural use, rather than urban use also.
“Our recommendations certainly are not agricultural centric as claimed,” said Nesmith. “We recommend a more aggressive urban conservation goal than the Governor’s 20% by 2020. Under a high efficiency scenario, urban demand could be reduced by 5 million acre feet by 2030 (Pacific Institute, 2005, California Water 2030: An Efficient Future, pg. 34). We recommend changes in urban water rate structures that penalize excessive use and reward low water usage.”
Nesmith also countered the attempt by San Joaquin Valley water contractors and the California Farm Bureau to dismiss the primary role that massive exports out of the California Delta have played in the collapse of Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon and other fish populations.
“Nearly every report done on the Delta, from PPIC to the State Water Resources Control Board’s flow criteria, identifies export reductions and increased natural flow through the Delta as one of the primary actions to recover the Delta ecosystem and public trust resources,” emphasized Nesmith. “We can argue over terminology here, but high exports are a primary stressor. Certainly, this is not a ‘one cause’ problem, but export reductions are necessary along with reductions in toxic inflows, invasive species management and others. To intimate that exports are not a problem simply is inconsistent with science.”
The BDCP “principals” have been holding secret meetings lately to fast-track the Governor’s plan to build a peripheral canal and new dams. Bill Jennings, chairman/executive director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA), Jim Crenshaw, president of CSPA, Bret Baker, a Delta pear farmer, biologist and Restore the Delta board member, and I disrupted a secret Bay Delta Conservation Plan meeting in Sacramento on September 30 to protest the closed process. The 50 participants in the closed door meeting decided to leave rather than to allow the four of us listen to the proceedings (http://blogs.alternet.org/danbacher/2010/10/08/secret-meeting-participants-flee-from-delta-residents-fishermen).
EWC representatives will meet with the Council staff this week to further their request to form a workgroup. To read the EWC report, go to: http://ewccalifornia.org/home/…
To read the California Farm Bureau letter, go to: http://www.deltacouncil.ca.gov…
To read the State and Federal Contractors Water Agencies letter, go to: http://www.deltacouncil.ca.gov…
Below is the EWC response to the opposition letters:
Mr. Phil Isenberg
Chair, Delta Stewardship Council
980 Ninth St. Suite 1500
Sacramento, California 95814
Re: Response from Environmental Water Caucus to letters from California Farm Bureau (9-29-10)
and SFCWA (9-22-10)
Via Email – October 20, 2010
Dear Mr. Isenberg and Council Members:
We have reviewed the letters mentioned above and feel a response is required to clarify our
position and to respond to several claims made by both organizations. First of all, it is our goal to
bring value to the process of the DSC, and to help the council achieve your mandate. We represent
member groups and tribes whose interest lies in restoration of the Delta ecosystem and its
fisheries. We make no apologies for those interests. We also recognize that there are others whose
interests are focused on water supply only, and mention of ecosystem restoration comes only as a
necessary means to an end. This is a difficult climate in which to strike a balanced strategy for both
Delta restoration and water supply reliability. We recognize that both the Farm Bureau and SFCWA
do not share our sense that the Delta ecosystem has born more than its share of the water load in
past years. We also recognize that if a balanced agreement is to be achieved we all must come
together for the benefit of our interests and California. Hence, we provide our thoughts and input.
Delta Exports and Retirement of Farmlands
We realize these are “hot topics” for both groups who have written letters opposing the EWC
recommendation of forming a workgroup to further evaluate and clarify our recommendations.
Nearly every report done on the Delta, from PPIC to the State Water Resources Control Board’s flow
criteria identifies export reductions and increased natural flow through the Delta as one of the
primary actions to recover the Delta ecosystem and public trust resources. We can argue over
terminology here, but high exports are a primary stressor. Certainly, this is not a “one cause”
problem, but export reductions are necessary along with reductions in toxic inflows, invasive
species management and others. To intimate that exports are not a problem simply is inconsistent
with science.
Salt and toxin laced drainage from lands in the San Joaquin valley have long been identified as
problematic, both for the local environment in the valley, as well as for the Delta. For many years
drainage impaired water has moved from west side San Joaquin lands (San Luis unit of BOR)
toward the Delta and San Joaquin River (”The major cause of water quality problems in the San
Joaquin River is considered to be the discharge of agricultural return flows.” – 1985 Kesterson
cleanup order, WQ 85-1, pp. 53-54.). Though much has been done to reduce the problem over the
past several years, the issue remains a problem, and toxic inflow to the San Joaquin River continues.
In a September 1, 2010 letter from the Bureau of Reclamation to Senator Feinstein, the Bureau
discusses the permanent retirement of 200,000 acres of land within Westlands due to toxic load,
and with it the reduction of approximately 200,000 acre feet of water under their water service
contract.
The SFCWA letter mentions that they have been within state water quality requirements for over
10 years, but they fail to mention that is because they have had a waiver from the local state water
board for a waste discharge permit. In fact, the drainage water does not meet state requirements,
and they have been given years to correct it, but have not done so. They are now asking for another
10 year waiver on the discharge permit. For the west side San Joaquin we are not talking about
small amounts of salt and toxins. We mean generic salts like sodium and chlorides, as well as the
really nasty trace elements like selenium and mercury. How about 17 railroad cars a day, each
capable of carrying 100 tons of salt, according to a U.S. Geological Survey report
(http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1646/pdf/pp1646.pdf – at page 106).
Simply, we do not blame west side agriculture for the salt and toxins. It’s in the land. We do feel it
is time to remove the water that irrigates these lands, thus stopping the drainage problem, and
toxic inflow to the San Joaquin River and Delta. It is a win-win solution. Reduced toxins and salt
into the Delta system, and return of water to California for other uses has huge benefits. The land
can be productive for other uses, like the renewable solar electrical production now being done on
the west side. It is not the end of the world.
Water conservation, efficiency, reclamation and conjunctive use
Our recommendations certainly are not agricultural centric as claimed. We recommend a more
aggressive urban conservation goal than the Governor’s 20% by 2020. Under a high efficiency
scenario, urban demand could be reduced by 5 million acre feet by 2030 (Pacific Institute, 2005,
California Water 2030: An Efficient Future, pg. 34). We recommend changes in urban water rate
structures that penalize excessive use and reward low water usage. Recycling of water, mostly in
urban areas, including urban wastewater, gray water and storm water. This can result in an
additional 2 million acre feet of water per year by 2030. Additionally, because agriculture uses the
majority of managed water in the state, we feel that continued movement toward conservation is
critical to meeting the water needs of California. There are several estimates on how much could be
expected from agricultural conservation, ranging from a low of 600,000 acre feet to several million.
Certainly, the agricultural community needs to participate in an aggressive way, and has a
responsibility to do so.
We want to thank the Council for the fine presentation by Joe Grindstaff on the actions taken by
Australia in response to their long drought. The many strategies they undertook and implemented,
which moved the country to a new water management process are enlightening. What it tells us all
is that if the need is unavoidable, and the people are willing, huge water savings can be achieved
through the exact strategies we are recommending. The difference between California and
Australia is a long term drought of 10 years or more. That said, what we know from data on
droughts in California is that the state has experienced similar conditions to that in Australia in the
past. Climate change predictions for the West are for lower precipitation, hotter summers, and less
water in most years. It seems appropriate for the Council to “take seriously” the need for
conservation and efficiency strategies today, before we find ourselves in an emergency. We do not
think that past evaluations have been strident enough in looking at conservation and water
efficiency, and thus have not provided the real benefits possible from the many methods that are
available.
There is no doubt that many of our recommended actions are strong, and require a change of mindset
by many water managers and users. Scientists have confirmed that California’s water resources
have been over allocated . Fortunately there are many things that can be done to maintain
adequate water supplies for farms, fish and cities. This is consistent with the growing realization of
over allocation as reflected in current discussions such as the Roundtable Workshop on Ensuring
Reliability and Sustainability for California’s Water Supply: “Putting on Your Own Oxygen Mask First”
sponsored by the California Foundation on the Environment and the Economy (CFEE). The EWC
Report provides a framework to achieve this equable distribution of our water resources.
Infrastructure – Dams and Alternate Conveyance System
It is our sense that currently, if our recommendations are implemented that new surface storage is
not necessary. The two new facilities being evaluated will cost at least $4.5 billion and provide less
than 450,000 acre feet of water if they were full all the time, which they won’t be. There is enough
under ground storage available (conjunctive use) to hold that much from wet year run-off at little
cost to tax payers. Additionally, it will take much less money to incentivize the public on
conservation and efficiency, and provide much more water in return. Also of importance, any water
that flows into these new reservoirs must come from existing rivers, which are already over-drawn
today. It is easy to say that we’ll fill them only in excessively wet years, but that has not been the
history for any reservoir in history. It is more likely that DWR or the BOR will work to put as much
water in them as possible in all years, not only wet ones. Hence, it would be a negative impact on
the Delta environment, as well as for anadromous fisheries, already on the verge of extinction.
As to a new conveyance system, we feel that current plans are not necessary if diversion reduction
targets are met. If the State Water Board’s flow criteria, which must be part of the considerations of
the Council, are met, through-Delta conveyance is possible without a new facility. It is certainly
likely the Delta can be recovered if diversions are in the 3 million acre foot area, as the flow criteria
prescribes. Protection against seismic risk and sea level rise are still an on-going discussion. That
said, a 15,000 cfs diversion facility would be ecologically harmful, very costly, and is not necessary.
We see this as a Trojan horse for increasing water diversions from the system, not reducing them.
We also see it as harmful to anadromous fish out-migrating from the system, and problematic for
maintaining temperature standards in the upper river for spawning in the fall.
EWC Prospective and Summary
It is not our intention to say that our report, California Water Solutions NOW, is a final product. That
is why we asked the Council to form a workgroup to further discuss and flesh-out the best
strategies and procedures for the future. Our goal was to provide a way forward to achieve the flow
criteria of the State Water Board, and also achieve the water system reliability we all want. We
recognize this has to be a group effort, and as such, we would like the workgroup to be made up of
all interest groups – water users, environmental groups, government agencies, independent outside
authorities, academic thinkers, and the public. For once, we’d like to have an open and thoughtful
dialogue on how we can actually achieve a balanced outcome without further damaging the Delta
environment.
We feel strongly that the EWC report provides the framework to have this dialogue. We also
recognize that California has been managing water for more than 100 years in one way – dam,
divert, plumb and pump. As such, there is significant economic and cultural inertia for any
alteration to the status quo. However, it is time to recognize that California has grown from a few
million to now 37 million with the same water system, and that system is now causing an overtaxed
and suffering Delta watershed. It is seen in the environmental impacts to fisheries and other
aquatic and terrestrial life. Species are near extinction! Economies and families dependant upon
these fisheries are suffering. Communities dependant upon them are suffering. Iconic and historic
fish species are no longer available to citizens. More of the same is not appropriate!
We hope the Council will see push back by some as normal, and that resistance to change is to be
expected. I’m reminded of the resistance of the auto industry to seat belts, rear view mirrors and
other safety changes. All were going to cause the industry to fall apart due to costs. Well, it
survived, and EWC feels that we’ll all survive this too, but we have to shift the way we operate.
Away from dams, ditches and pumps, to water efficiency, conservation, reclamation and other
meaningful strategies that allow us to maintain our economic and social lifestyle while living with a
balanced and fixed water supply. Let’s not forget, the hundreds of dams and canals we currently
have will continue to exist. We simply don’t agree that more is required to meet the legislative
mandate the Council is tasked to achieve.
We want to be helpful in the process, invite all to participate, and we know that working together
we can achieve great outcomes. Fighting each other and rejecting the full range of alternatives will
not lead to a balanced water policy, or the long term solution required.
Sincerely,
David Nesmith
EWC Coordinator
danbacher The Obama administration has joined the Schwarzenegger administration in supporting the peripheral canal/tunnel, according to the latest newsletter from Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, campaign director of Restore the Delta. Canal opponents fear that the construction of the peripheral canal will lead to the extinction of collapsing populations of Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta and longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail and other fish species. Both the federal and state governments are going out of their way to serve corporate agribusiness and southern California water agencies at the expense of imperiled fish populations, the recreational and commercial fishing industries and family farmers on the California Delta.
Never mind the NHA. Keep your eye on the Department of Interior.
We now know something about what has been going on the BDCP Principals’ meetings, (which were not “secret” but which anybody present had to promise not to talk about).
We reported on October 10 that Lester Snow has said that decision-making about the BDCP would take place in public meetings.
Forget that.
Last week Interior Secretary Salazar met with the State and the Principals. His deputy, David Hayes, said that Delta conveyance is necessary and that “short term” protections and restoration of the Delta should be weakened.
We shouldn’t be surprised at this position, considering that Hayes was formerly an attorney with a firm that represented the Metropolitan Water District. Before that, he was one of the architects of the failed Cal Fed process.
Salazar isn’t contradicting Hayes. David Nawi, Senior Advisor to Secretary Salazar for California and Nevada, is apparently deferring to Salazar and Hayes on this issue.
On November 9, Salazar is scheduled to meet with BDCP Principals in Washington, D.C. The expectation is that the product of the Principals’ meetings, a report titled “Issues for Discussion for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan” (available at http://www.resources.ca.gov/restoring_the_delta.html) will form the basis of a federal/State agreement.
This is the report that Lester Snow said was not a draft plan, just a progress report on what has been considered throughout the planning process.
A public draft of the BDCP and a draft EIR/EIS are coming due. It has become apparent to everyone that they won’t be ready. Alternative approaches? There don’t seem to be any. The long, costly BDCP charade may be coming to any end as the State and the feds push forward with the conveyance they always wanted.
Once again, as so often in the past, environmental protections are being treated as an inconvenience. It will be interesting to watch the Department of Interior contradict the biological opinions that shaped the most recent pumping limits.
And, of course with increased pumping, fragile fisheries hanging on by a thread may be wiped out all together. Then again, that may be the intent. No need to protect fish species that no longer exist.
The expectation is that Interior will lift pumping restrictions soon.
So what do Delta Counties do?
It is our understanding that representatives from the Five Delta Counties participated in this October 15th meeting in Tracy with Salazar and Hayes, either in person or on the phone. We have also heard that the Five Delta Counties have to decide if they as a group or individually want to participate in the BDCP discussions with the caveat that they cannot offer input and cannot vote.
Restore the Delta staff certainly understands that local government entities have a responsibility to interact with Federal and State officials in order to represent local communities. And in the case of these BDCP meetings, having the Five Delta Counties gathering information is better than having local government not knowing what is happening.
But, Restore the Delta strongly objects to a process directed by the BDCP Principals, in which officials from State and Federal government agencies can make the decisions on behalf of Delta fisheries, Delta resources, Delta communities, and Delta people without our input and consent.
We believe that this defiles what American democracy is all about.
This is not representative government.
More contempt for science?
The Environmental Water Caucus (EWC) gave the Delta Stewardship Council (DSC) recommendations for meeting California’s water needs without building a canunnel, and – no surprise – the BDCP folks didn’t like those recommendations.
Byron Buck, Executive Director of the State and Federal Contractors Water Agency, fired off a letter to Phil Isenberg taking issue with the recommendations, which are taken from EWC’s publication “California Water Solutions Now.”
EWC recommendations include aggressive statewide conservation, reductions in Delta pumping, and retirement of toxic farmlands. Byron Buck objected to the “emotional pejorative” of referring to lands on the west side as “toxic.”
“The reality,” he said, “is that the West Side Drainage Plan . . . has halved the salt and selenium loads to the Delta from this region. State mandated water quality requirements have been consistently met for over ten years and completion of the plan is expected to eliminate regular subsurface farmland drainage from the Grasslands drainage area to the Delta.”
Westlands, according to Buck, is proposing to use similar techniques. Fallowing of select lands is part of salt management plans, but whole scale retirement is not necessary.
We’d just like to note that half of too much salt and selenium is still too much. We’d also like to note that it isn’t too hard to meet state-mandated water quality requirements when you are in a position to bully the Water Board into mandating only the quality of water that is convenient for you to deliver.
Bethel Island Bass Tournament benefits the Delta
The first rain of the season didn’t keep some dedicated bass fishermen from turning out last Sunday for a Bass Tournament at Russo’s Marina benefiting Restore the Delta and the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA). The largest fish was caught by the youngest fisherman. Thanks to all those who donated raffle items, including Steve Herringer of Heringer Wines. And a special thanks to Michael Frost, Bobby Barrack, Russo’s Marina, and Cooch Cuchera for organizing the event. In our next issue, we will have a special section on the good works of our tournament sponsors and winners.
Give the Delta Protection Commission your input
DPC Primary Zone Study Updates, all from 6-8 p.m.
Wednesday, November 3, Brentwood
Thursday, November 4, Thornton
Tuesday, November 9, Rio Vista
DPC Economic Sustainability Plan Forums
Monday, November 8, Oakley, 9-10:30 a.m.
Wednesday, November 10, West Lodi/North Stockton, 6-8 p.m.
Monday, November 15, Walnut Grove, 6-8 p.m.
Tuesday, November 16, Clarksburg, 6-8 p.m.
See DPC website for details http://www.delta.ca.gov/
danbacher 
640_100_4600.jpg
original image ( 2576×19
by Dan Bacher
“Recreational anglers, divers, kayakers, tackle shop owners, business owners and two members of the MLPA Regional Stakeholders Group protested outside of the hotel from 8:30 am until 9:30 am to demonstrate the level of grassroots support for sustainable fisheries management instead of overly large out and out closures,” said protest organizer Wendy Tochihara.
“It was critical to point out to the public the ‘perfectly transparent, clearly illegal MLPA process,’”she emphasized. “We want to slow down this process so that we can get it right.”
After the protest, the anglers moved inside for the Fish & Game Commission meeting that started at 10:00 am. Throughout the morning and afternoon, the Commission heard testimony from fishermen, environmentalists and the public regarding proposals for the network of “marine protected areas” that will be imposed in state waters on the Southern California coast.
Tochihara estimated that over 1000 people, including both MLPA critics and supporters, attended the meeting. Over 800 speaker cards were filled out, although not everybody spoke.
Many recreational and commercial fishermen spoke out against the conflicts of interest and corruption that have proliferated under the initiative, a process that MLPA proponents claim is “open, inclusive and transparent.”
Bob Fletcher, past president of the Sportfishing Association of California, asked the Commission to delay the decision on the South Coast marine protected area proposal until he receives the documents that he requested in a landmark lawsuit by United Anglers of Southern California and the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans.
On October 1, a Superior Court Judge in Sacramento issued a ruling confirming that two panels overseeing the MLPA Initiative must comply with the California Public Records Act. Judge Patrick Marlette ruled that the Marine Life Protection Act Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) and Master Plan Team (MPT) are state agencies and are therefore compelled by California’s Public Records Act to share information with representatives of angling/conservation organizations working to protect recreational ocean access.
The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Malloy & Natsis LLP, on behalf of Fletcher requesting the release of public records. Marlette, in a preliminary ruling, said the agencies must release all of the documents requested by Fletcher within 10 days.
However, Fletcher said he is still waiting for the records. “The judge hasn’t issued the writ of mandate that triggers the 10 day period yet,” said Fletcher.
MLPA critics have charged initiative officials with violating the California Public Records Act, California Fair Political Practices Act, Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act, American Indian Religious Freedom Act, UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and other state, federal and international laws.
Two Commissioners, Michael Sutton and Dan Richards, argued over the cost of the MLPA Initiative during the meeting. Sutton claimed the total cost of the marine protected area network will be around $11 million a year for monitoring, enforcement, and public outreach, based on information provided by the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force. Richards countered that the cost is actually $40 million a year, based on information provided to the Commission by the Department of Fish and Game.
On California’s North Coast, opposition to the MLPA has spurred the creation of one of the largest political movements since the Redwood Summer of 1990. On July 21, over 300 people including members of over 50 Indian Nations, recreational anglers, environmentalists, immigrant seafood industry workers, seaweed harvesters and human rights advocates peacefully took control of an MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force meeting in Fort Bragg to protest the violation of sovereign tribal rights under the initiative. They chanted, “MLPA, Taking Tribal Rights Away” and “No Way, MLPA” as they marched from the streets of Fort Bragg into the meeting room.
“The MLPA process completely disregards tribal gathering rights and only permits discussion of commercial and recreational harvest,” said Frankie Myers, Yurok Tribal member and Coastal Justice Coalition activist on July 21. “The whole process is inherently flawed by institutionalized racism. It doesn’t recognize Tribes as political entities, or Tribal biologists as legitimate scientists.”
The MLPA Initiative has already imposed so-called marine protected areas (MPAs) on the Central Coast and North Central Coast – and is now in the final stages of creating networks of MPAs on the South Coast and North Coast. The Commission is expected to adopt the final set of South Coast marine protected areas on December 15, after the Environmental Impact Report documents are completed by the DFG.
Meanwhile, the North Coast BRTF will meet on Monday, October 25 and Tuesday, October 26 at the River Lodge Conference Center in Fortuna to approve a proposal for a network of marine protected areas to send to the Fish and Game Commission for approval. In contrast with other areas of the state, fishermen, Tribes and environmentalists agreed on a unified MPA proposal that respects tribal gathering and fishing rights.
Fishermen, environmentalists and Tribes have blasted the MLPA Initiative for taking oil drilling, water pollution, aquaculture, military testing, habitat destruction and all other human uses of the ocean other than fishing and gathering off the table in the creation of marine protected areas.
The initiative is funded by a private corporation, the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation. MLPA critics point out that the Blue Ribbon Task Force that oversees the implementation of the MLPA includes oil industry, real estate, marina development and other special interests.
In fact, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, who chaired the South Coast MLPA BRTF and sits on the North Coast BRTF, is the president of the Western States Petroleum Association. She has called for new oil drilling off the California coast in recent months, in spite of the environmental and economic devastation to the Gulf of Mexico caused by the BP Blue Water Horizon oil gusher.
For more information about the MLPA and upcoming meetings, go to: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa.
danbacher 
640_fortbraggbridge-small…
Local Agencies Send Resolution to State Agencies
by Dan Bacher
Seventeen local government agencies have signed a resolution to the state of California urging the adoption without modification of the unified array for marine protected areas developed by North Coast Tribal, fishing and environmental stakeholders.
The resolution, sent to the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force and California Fish and Game Commission on October 20, says that if any changes to the proposal are considered, they must be developed in collaboration with Regional Stakeholders and North Coast communities.
Dan Bacher’s diary :: ::
The resolution emphasizes that “long term success of MPAs (marine protected areas) will required acceptance by local communities.”
“Although many community members do not believe any new MPAs are warranted, the Unified MLPA Array represents and compromise acceptable to North Coast residents, including recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen and conservation advocates,” the resolution says.
The resolution also includes strong language supporting Tribal fishing and gathering rights. “Any approved MPA array design will need to allow traditional, non-commercial, gathering, subsistence, harvesting, ceremonial and stewardship activities by California Tribes and Tribal Communities,” the resolution states.
Government agencies endorsing the resolution include the Counties of Mendocino, Humboldt and Del Norte and the cities of Monterey, Point Arena, Fort Bragg, Willits, Ukiah, Fortuna Eureka, Arcata, Trinidad and Crescent City. Other agencies signing onto the resolution include the Shelter Cove Resort Improvement District, Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District and Crescent City Harbor District.
The MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) will meet on Monday, October 25 and Tuesday, October 26 at the River Lodge Conference Center, 1800 Riverwalk Drive in Fortuna, to approve a proposal for a network of marine protected areas to send to the Fish and Game Commission for approval.
North Coast residents fear that the task force will try to change the proposal under pressure by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, whom many believe is using the controversial MLPA process to greenwash his environmental legacy.
“Even with this widespread support for the single proposal, we are worried that the BRTF may be interested in coming up with its own alternative,” said Jim Martin, West Coast Regional Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance.
North Coast fishermen, Tribes and environmentalists have criticized the MLPA Initiative for violating the Bagley-Keene Public Meetings Act, California Public Records Act, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and other state, federal and international laws.
MLPA critics also point out that the Blue Ribbon Task Force that oversees the process includes oil industry, real estate, marina development and other corporate operatives with numerous conflicts of interest. The process is funded by a private corporation, the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation overseen by executive director Michael Eaton.
On July 21, over 300 people including members of 50 Indian Nations, recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, immigrant seafood industry workers and environmental activists peacefully took over the previous Blue Ribbon Task Force meeting in Fort Bragg to protest the denial of tribal rights and greenwashing that has occurred under Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s MLPA Initiative. This was the largest protest held on the North Coast since the Redwood Summer of 1990.
For more information about the upcoming meeting, go to: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/meetings_n.asp
danbacher by Dan Bacher
Proponents of the peripheral canal and new dams often complain that critics of these controversial water projects have no “solutions” to California’s water and fishery problems.
Well, the Environmental Water Caucus (EWC), a coalition of 27 environmental groups, fishing organizations, environmental justice groups and Native American tribes, has crafted a comprehensive solution to how Californians can restore their fisheries and meet water needs at the same time.
The EWC recently presented a ground-breaking series of proposals to the Delta Stewardship Council, the newly-formed state agency that is charged with finding a balance between water reliability and Bay-Delta environmental recovery.
The caucus provided a series of recommendations on water that included an aggressive statewide water conservation program that can reduce water use by 8 million acre feet annually and the retirement of toxic farmlands that use almost 4 million acre feet of water per year, acccording to a news release from EWC. They paired their recommendations with a reduction of Delta pumping that will help restore the Bay-Delta ecology and fisheries.
“The Caucus recommendations have been boosted by the State Water Resources Control Board’s recent report that concluded that more water must be allowed to flow through the Bay-Delta in order to protect the health and public resources of this critically important watershed,” EWC noted.
The recommendations by the Caucus were presented as an alternative to the pending proposals by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). The widely-criticized plan, now being discussed in secret meetings convened by the Schwarzenegger administration, is designed to construct either a tunnel under the Bay-Delta or a peripheral canal around the Delta
BDCP critics fear that the peripheral canal/tunnel, designed to facilitate water exports to corporate agribusiness and southern California, will lead to the extinction of collapsing populations of Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta smelt, green sturgeon, Sacramento splittail and other fish. The canal/tunnel would cost an estimated $23 billion to $53.8 billion, according to an analysis last year by economist Steven Kasower.
Bill Jennings, chairman/executive director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA), Jim Crenshaw, president of CSPA, Bret Baker, a Delta pear farmer, biologist and Restore the Delta board member, and I disrupted a secret meeting of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan in Sacramento on September 30 to protest the closed process. The 50 participants in the closed door meeting decided to leave rather than to allow the four of us listen to the proceedings (http://blogs.alternet.org/danbacher/2010/10/08/secret-meeting-participants-flee-from-delta-residents-fishermen).
Dr. Mark Rockwell, representing the fishing community for EWC, said, “This BDCP plan will continue the destructive water extractions from the Delta and block any hope of recovery for fisheries and the Delta environment. We have to find a new way to manage water that does not involve reliance on the Delta. The recently published EWC report, California Water Solutions Now, accomplishes this goal.”
For many years, fishermen, Tribes and environmentalists have worked relentlessly to increase the amount of water flowing through the Delta and to San Francisco Bay in order to restore and protect the health of the estuary. Large water contractors south of the Delta, led by Westlands Water District, have fought just as incessantly to increase the amount of water pumped through the Delta in order to irrigate farms and accommodate a growing population.
“It’s a classic California water battle and seems to have no end,” said David Nesmith, EWC coordinator. “This battle for water must end if we are to ever achieve a balance between the State’s need for water, and our desire to have a healthy environment and save our fisheries.”
“The Environmental Water Caucus has presented this alternative proposal that stresses water use reductions and avoids the multiple billions of dollars that would be needed to construct a major tunnel or canal through the Delta,” said Nick Di Croce, long time water advocate and EWC consultant. “It is a non-structural alternative (no surface storage or new Delta conveyance) that can meet the needs of our growing population at least until 2050.”
This report documents numerous analyses of water efficient technologies and approaches that can save or reduce water consumption in urban areas by as much as 5 million acre-feet a year by 2030 compared with current trends – enough water to support population growth of almost 30,000,000 people.
“According to the California Water Plan Update 2009, the state’s population can be expected to increase by 22,000,000 over the next 40 years if current population trends hold,” the report’s executive summary states. “Clearly, a well-managed future water supply to take us to 2050 is within reach with the current supplies and with an aggressive water conservation program.”
Using the Strategic Goals and Recommendations from the Environmental Water Caucus’ report, the Caucus showed in their presentation how the actions called for in the report will save or reduce enough water consumption to allow the Delta exports to be reduced, in keeping with the State Water Board’s report on Delta flows.
“In the same way that California can no longer just continue to build highways to accommodate our population growth, we must find different kinds of technological and societal solutions to protect our most valuable, limited and life-giving resource: water,” said Michael Jackson, EWC steering committee member.
The Caucus closed their proposal by challenging the Delta Stewardship Council to analyze their proposal as one of the alternatives to be considered in the future Delta Plan. Additionally, they proposed a council workgroup to further develop the recommendations in the EWC report, and to bring together people from all sides to discuss how this can be implemented.
Mark Franco, headman of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe and an EWC member, pointed out the absurdity of claims that building a peripheral canal, as envisioned by BDCP officials, will somehow “save” the Delta.
“The peripheral canal is a big, stupid idea that doesn’t make any sense from a tribal environmental perspective,” stated Franco. “Building a canal to save the Delta is like a doctor inserting an arterial bypass from your shoulder to your hand– it will cause your elbow to die just like taking water out of the Delta through a peripheral canal will cause the Delta to die.”
The EWC report shows how California can meet its water needs and restore its imperiled fish populations without building an environmentally destructive and enormously costly peripheral canal and new dams. You can read the report and find out more about the Environmental Water Caucus at their website:http://ewccalifornia.org.
danbacher by Dan Bacher
Elrick “Rick” Caughey, a well known Sacramento human rights activist, passed away September 30 at age 90 surrounded by loving friends as he was in life. He will be remembered for his many volunteer activities and his leadership at the Unitarian Universalist Society of Sacramento.
At age 70, Rick learned Spanish and made many trips to Mexico, Spain, Peru, Cuba and Central America. His keen mind and lively interest in other cultures made him a sought-after traveling companion. He enjoyed all kinds of music, dance, and good food.
Rick believed in human rights for all, a belief he said came from watching his family feed “hobos” during the Depression and from serving in Europe in World War II. He worked such that people everywhere would have their basic needs met.
He participated in many historical events, including the WTO (World Trade Organization) protests in Seattle in 1999 and the Zapatista march on Mexico City in 2001. He was also a survivor of the Battle of the Bulge when he was in the military. He was an absolutely fearless individual that stood up against war, racism and violations of human rights wherever he went.
He was one of the key activists with the Central America Action Committee, Sacramento Area Peace Action, Zapatista Solidarity Coalition and numerous other peace and justice organizations. He was a regular participant in and organizer of protests, rallies, speaking engagements and other events regarding a variety of progressive issues. Everybody who knew and worked with Caughey over the years will miss him greatly.
Caughey was a member of the “Greatest Generation” who helped defeat the Nazis and Hitler’s war machine in Europe. After the war, he married, raised a family and became an activist for peace and justice. If only there were more people who treated others like Caughey did and shared his commitment to human rights and social justice, this would be a much better world.
Rick is survived by his sister Mary and his beloved son, Clark with his wife and family. For more information about his memorial service on October 17 at 3 pm, please contact the Unitarian Universalist Society of Sacramento, 2425 Sierra Blvd, Sacramento, CA 95825-4803, (916) 483-9283. Honor Rick through donations to the Caughey Fund he set up for youth work at UUSS.
danbacher 
brown_campaign_photo_.jpg
by Dan Bacher
Jerry Brown, the Democratic candidate for California Governor, on Wednesday released a water plan that includes a peripheral canal/tunnel around the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and new storage facilities.
In his “Water Plan For The 21st Century” posted on his website (http://www.jerrybrown.org/water-plan-21st-century), Brown endorsed the construction of a peripheral canal to facilitate the export of water to agribusiness and southern California.
Brown says he supports “conveyance and storage investments, such as a peripheral canal or tunnel, that provide a net benefit in ecosystem and water quality conditions and where the beneficiaries pay for the benefits they receive.”
In several places in his plan, Brown has echoed the co-equal goals of ‘”ecosystem restoration” and “water supplies” that the Schwarzenegger administration has constantly pushed in his press conferences, photo opportunities and news releases. These are the same co-equal goals that many fishery and Delta advocates believe led to the failure of the joint state and federal CalFed program initiated in 1994.
“As Governor, I will: Ensure that the newly-formed Delta Stewardship Council completes a Delta Plan that achieves the co-equal goals of restoring the Delta ecosystem and creating a more reliable water supply for California,” Brown stated.
A broad coalition of environmental organizations, fishing groups, consumer groups, Indian Tribes, family farmers and Delta residents opposes the construction of a peripheral canal because of its enormous environmental and financial costs. Canal opponents fear that canal’s construction will lead to the extinction of collapsing populations of Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River Chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail, green sturgeon and other species. The construction of the canal would cost an estimated $23 billion to $53.8 billion, according to an analysis last year by Steven Kasower, economist.
Restore the Delta, a coalition of family farmers, environmentalists, fishermen and Delta residents opposed to the construction of the canal, reacted to Brown’s endorsement of the canal on Wednesday by not endorsing either Brown or Republican candidate Meg Whitman for Governor.
“Now that both candidates are for the peripheral canal, Restore the Delta will recommend that our supporters vote for the candidate whom they think is least capable of actually implementing his or her ideas,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, campaign director of Restore the Delta.
While backing the canal and new water storage, Brown also supports some solutions to California’s water problems that many conservationists, environmental justice advocates and fishermen support. These include:
• Appointing State and Regional Water Board members who thoughtfully enforce state and federal water quality laws
• Strengthening programs that regulate discharge of wastewater into California’s rivers, lakes and streams
• Continuing to implement Integrated Regional Water Management Plans that adopt pollution control measures and support pollution control programs
• Supporting programs designed to prevent groundwater contamination
• Securing federal support from the US Department of Agriculture and Department of the Interior to provide financial assistance to low-income communities, especially in rural areas, to upgrade water treatment facilities and protect water quality
In contrast with Brown who only recently came out in support of the canal, Meg Whitman has strongly supported a peripheral canal and new dams throughout her campaign. “I was a proponent of the water bond that was just kicked to 2012 and I think that was wrong,” she stated. “I was a supporter of that bond…. It had all the elements, it had, above and below ground storage, it had an outline for the peripheral canal.”
Whitman has also completely sided with corporate agribusiness – and against working men and women in the fishing industry devastated by the Central Valley salmon population collapse – in supporting increased Delta pumping. On May 26, 2010, she praised Federal Court Judge Oliver Wanger’s decision to temporarily lift the Delta pumping restrictions protecting endangered salmon Central Valley populations.
“I am encouraged by the Federal Court’s decision earlier this week that ruled to temporarily lift the pumping restrictions in order to increase water deliveries to the Central Valley,” said Whitman in a statement. “This is just a start. We need a comprehensive solution and strong leadership to really fix California’s water crisis.”
Many political insiders are puzzled why Brown is supporting the construction of a peripheral canal because this controversial project was overwhelmingly defeated by California voters in 1982. In fact, the peripheral canal is so unpopular with voters that the Governor and Legislative leadership recently postponed the vote on the $11.14 billion water bond to November 2012 to prevent the bond from being crushed by the voters this November. The bond creates the infrastructure to be used in tandem with a peripheral canal/tunnel.
Mark Franco, headman of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, describes the absurdity of building the peripheral canal to “save” the Delta better than anybody.
“The peripheral canal is a big, stupid idea that doesn’t make any sense from a tribal environmental perspective,” says Franco. “Building a canal to save the Delta is like a doctor inserting an arterial bypass from your shoulder to your hand– it will cause your elbow to die just like taking water out of the Delta through a peripheral canal will cause the Delta to die.”
While Brown calls describes his proposal as a “Water Plan For The 21st Century,” the plan includes a peripheral canal and new dams that are in fact Nineteenth Century solutions to Twenty-First Century water problems.
Below is Brown’s water plan:
Water Plan For The 21st Century
California’s water is threatened as never before. Climate change, invasive species, toxic chemicals, dumping and just plain inefficiency threaten California’s water supplies. The Bay-Delta ecosystem, which provides water for 25 million Californians and hundreds of thousands of acres of farm land, is collapsing. Groundwater is being pumped at unsustainable rates. And our water infrastructure – dams, levees, canals – is old and vulnerable to earth quakes, sea level rise and saltwater intrusion.
Ensuring safe and sufficient water supplies for the 21st century requires significant investments in our water infrastructure and natural ecosystems. After five decades of divisive wrangling, the time has arrived for the governor to provide real leadership and solve our longstanding water problems. The goal must be to maintain and enhance water supplies for all Californians and take action to restore the Bay-Delta and meet California’s true water needs.
MY RECORD ON WATER:
As Governor:
Awarded $2 billion in clean water grants, improving drinking water quality and creating 48,000 jobs statewide
Won federal protection for five wild and scenic rivers in California
Signed legislation authorizing construction of a Peripheral Canal and other water facilities – all requiring strong environmental protection
Used funding from the Energy and Resources Fund to reforest private timberlands, restock lakes and rivers, preserve wetlands, and promote soil and water conservation
Created a state Office of Water Recycling with the goal of tripling water recycling; and created the first Office of Water Conservation
As Attorney General:
Recovered $19.5 million from Shell Oil for underground gas tank violations that threatened groundwater and drinking water supplies
Worked with District Attorneys statewide to bring multiple actions against companies for illegal disposal of toxic wastes and groundwater contamination
MY PLAN:
To protect water quality and supplies, I will:
1. Ensure Safe Drinking Water for All Californians
While we have made significant strides in water treatment, toxic chemicals and other pollutants continue to threaten the drinking water of millions of Californians. As Governor, I will strive to make California’s drinking water safe by:
Improving and protecting the Delta ecosystem and water supply
Appointing State and Regional Water Board members who thoughtfully enforce state and federal water quality laws
Strengthening programs that regulate discharge of wastewater into California’s rivers, lakes and streams
Continuing to implement Integrated Regional Water Management Plans that adopt pollution control measures and support pollution control programs
Supporting programs designed to prevent groundwater contamination
Securing federal support from the US Department of Agriculture and Department of the Interior to provide financial assistance to low-income communities, especially in rural areas, to upgrade water treatment facilities and protect water quality
2. Recognize the critical role of water in California Agriculture
Irrigated agriculture is the backbone of our agriculture economy. Reduced water supplies due to protection of endangered species, declining groundwater levels, changes in reservoir operation due to climate change, and other factors threaten the irrigation supply. Farmers need water supply reliability. As Governor I will:
Use the State Water Project, within the limits of existing contracts, to facilitate water transfers that improve agricultural viability
Create a permanent Office of Agricultural Water Supply Improvement to facilitate water sales and transfers benefiting agriculture
Encourage state and federal programs which help farmers make more of their water supplies
Seek partnerships between agricultural, environmental and urban water users which better utilize water supplies to serve multiple uses, such as providing incentives to farmers and agricultural districts to implement agricultural practices that benefit the environment while improving crop productivity
Support research at the University of California which helps farmers improve the efficiency of water use, improve the efficiency of groundwater pumping facilities to lower water cost, develop new varieties of crops which maintain or improve productivity while using less water, and find ways of making economic use of agricultural wastewater supplies
Implement state programs to assist farmers and irrigation districts to improve irrigation efficiency
Support programs to maintain California agriculture’s global competitiveness
3. Increase Water Supplies by Expanding Water Efficiency and Recycling
Increasing the efficiency of water use – cutting waste and increasing recycling – is the most cost-effective, lowest impact way to expand water supplies. For instance, water efficiency standards for clothes washers set by the California Energy Commission save enough water to meet the annual water needs of the City of San Diego. Reducing water waste also saves energy since water pumping, heating, and treatment are major consumers of electricity (20% of the state’s electricity goes to moving, cleaning and disposing of water). California currently has over 250 water recycling plants, but we must expand this capacity significantly to meet the state’s goal of recycling over one million acre-feet of water annually. By using this water for irrigation and industrial purposes, the state’s urban water supply will be increased by 20%. As Governor, I will:
Fully implement Senate Bill 7×7 which calls for improved water efficiency by both urban and agricultural users
Support incentives for increased water efficiency and recycling
Direct the California Energy Commission in coordination with the Department of Water Resources to adopt water efficiency standards for appliances that reduce both water and energy consumption and to adopt public education programs similar to “Flex our Power” to increase water efficiency
Increase capture of urban storm-water through cisterns, groundwater infiltration and other retention facilities
Consolidate and facilitate the permitting of recycled and reclaimed water projects
4. Restore and Maintain Groundwater Supplies
Groundwater provides an average of 30% of the water used in California and as much as 40% in drought years. Some communities rely entirely on groundwater for their water supply. Groundwater is also an increasingly important component of water storage in California. In the past 15 years, California has added groundwater storage capacity equivalent to 1.5 times the capacity of Lake Shasta, the State’s largest reservoir. Yet groundwater faces serious threats from pollution and overdraft (the extraction of groundwater at an unsustainable rate), both of which must be addressed to maintain safe, adequate groundwater supplies. As Governor, I will:
Support development and implementation of Integrated Regional Water Management Plans that address surface and groundwater supplies and quality, as well as associated ecosystem and habitat needs and benefits
Direct the Department of Water Resources to assist those responsible for groundwater monitoring and reporting of groundwater levels
Foster programs that improve groundwater management by local agencies and lead to more sustainable groundwater use
5. Protect and Restore the Delta
In addition to providing water for 25 million Californians, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is home to many small communities. It also provides important farmland, recreational opportunities and habitat for fisheries, endangered species and other wildlife. The Delta ecosystem faces numerous threats from water diversions, unreliable levees, invasive species, polluted runoff from agriculture and urban areas, sea level rise, saltwater intrusion and more. California must implement a science-based plan to ensure safe and adequate water supplies while addressing the severe challenges facing the Delta. As Governor, I will:
Ensure that the newly-formed Delta Stewardship Council completes a Delta Plan that achieves the co-equal goals of restoring the Delta ecosystem and creating a more reliable water supply for California
Prioritize levee repairs to protect existing communities and water supplies
Require the Delta Stewardship Council and Department of Water Resources to integrate sea level rise and other climate change impacts into the Delta Plan
Ensure that the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan is a multi-objective, integrated flood management plan that protects existing urban areas, and considers protection, restoration, and use of floodplains and wetlands for ecosystem restoration and groundwater recharge
Complete scientific, economic and environmental review of alternative conveyance facilities recommended by the Bay Delta Conservation Plan
6. Invest in California’s Water Infrastructure including water storage facilities
California desperately needs investment in its water infrastructure, but given the State’s financial condition, we must ensure that investments are cost-effective and funded by the appropriate sources. The beneficiaries – or users – of water infrastructure projects should pay their share of the costs of those projects. The state should invest in infrastructure improvements providing benefits to the general public or the environment. The projects must be cost-effective and make long-term sense. As Governor, I will:
Support infrastructure investments, including water storage projects, that achieve the multiple goals of increasing water supply reliability, protecting the environment and other public benefits, such as wetlands protection and restoration, and flood protection
Support conveyance and storage investments, such as a peripheral canal or tunnel, that provide a net benefit in ecosystem and water quality conditions and where the beneficiaries pay for the benefits they receive
7. Incorporate Climate Change into All Aspects of Water Planning and Management
Climate change will exacerbate all of the challenges water already faces in California. The Department of Water Resources projects that the snowpack will decline by 25-40% by 2050, reducing water storage and the water supply for millions of Californians. As snowstorms become rainstorms, the danger of flooding will increase. Higher temperatures and stronger winds will increase demand. Rising sea level will result in increased seawater intrusion threatening groundwater supplies. Both floods and droughts are likely to be more severe and erosion is likely to accelerate. Higher river flows may threaten the safety of some of our more than 1000 dams.
Integrating climate change into California’s water planning and management is critical to accurately forecasting water needs and supplies and protecting increasingly threatened infrastructure and natural resources. As Governor, I will:
Further develop and implement the California Climate Adaptation Strategy to protect water supply, agriculture and sensitive ecosystems
Focus resources on protection and restoration of wetlands and riparian habitat that protect water quality and provide buffers against flooding and sea level rise
Develop water management plans that address the shrinking snow pack and growing frequency of droughts
danbacher ***FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE***
HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL FISHERIES
October 14, 2010
Contact: Allie Hostler, HVT Fisheries, (530)625-4267 x12
Why is the California Water Board risking the State’s water to protect an Oregon Utility?
Klamath Water Quality Still in Peril
Last week, the State Water Resources Control Board granted PacifiCorp’s request to suspend the Section 401 Water Quality Certification process until May 17, 2011, a whole year beyond target dates set forth in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) negotiated in February.
“PacifiCorp will keep stalling and avoid taking responsibility for the water quality disaster on the Klamath River as long as the State allows. The River needs help NOW,” Hoopa Valley Tribal Chairman, Leonard Masten said.
California’s Section 401 Water Quality certification process is the final, required step in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) relicensing process. PacifiCorp’s license to operate the Klamath Hydroelectric Project expired in 2006. California was amidst the Section 401 Water Quality Certification process, as required by the Clean Water Act, when the Bush administration in 2008 announced an Agreement between PacifiCorp, California, Oregon and the Federal Government to look into potential dam removal. A year later, in 2009, the Obama administration signed on to the document.
“The Agreement in Principle brought the Section 401 Water Quality Certification process to a dead stop in 2008,” Masten said. The clock is still ticking, and not in favor of Klamath River salmon that Indians and non-Indians depend on as a subsistence, cultural and economic resource.
The KHSA and companion settlement, the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) require federal legislation to be in enacted. The KHSA calls for legislation to be introduced by May 18, 2010. That deadline has come and gone. The Hoopa Tribe believes the $1.5 billion price tag and ongoing disagreements about the KBRA in the basin have stalled its introduction.
Water Board Chairman, Charles Hoppin cited a lack of state money to complete the 401 certification process as a reason the Board granted another delay. Vice Chair, Frances Spivy-Weber expressed concerns that the Water Board is not putting PacifiCorp’s “feet to the fire.” She said, “Sooner or later we’ll have get past the abeyance issue. This issue is no closer to being solved today than it was years ago.”
The Hoopa Tribe sees water quality on the Klamath as an issue that needs immediate attention to avoid another fish kill, like in 2002, when over 68,000 adult Chinook salmon died in warm, shallow, disease ridden waters in the Klamath River. Action to improve the water quality is long overdue. Even if the Klamath Settlements move through Congress, dam removal would not occur until 2020. In the meantime, toxic blue green algae and other contaminants run rampant in the river.
“The State Water Board has granted a series of such delays,” Masten said. “The resolution they adopted last week will cause the abeyance to lift if federal legislation is not enacted by May 17, 2011, a whole year after the proposed timeline in the KHSA and KBRA settlements. They have, in essence, given PacifiCorp, and themselves, more time to do nothing.”
###
Helpful Links:
To read the State Water Resources Control Board’s discussion and resolution click herehttp://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_info/agendas/2010/oct/100510_9.pdf
To read the November 14, 2008 Agreement in Principle, news release, and correspondence between the Secretary of Interior and PacifiCorp, click here
http://www.doi.gov/archive/news/08_News_Releases/111308.html
To access the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement click here
http://www.edsheets.com/Klamathdocs.html
To read more about the Hoopa Valley Tribe’s position on the Klamath Settlements click here
