danbacher Photo of Scott River courtesy of the Klamath Riverkeeper
640_hwy-3-scott-river_186…
original image ( 1319×786)
Court to Hear Challenge to Water Diversion Permits on Scott and Shasta Rivers
by Dan Bacher
The Superior Court in San Francisco on Wednesday, December 1 will hear a court challenge to salmon-killing water diversion permits approved by the California Department of Fish and Game on the Scott and Shasta Rivers on September 22, 2009.
Earthjustice Attorneys Wendy Park and Greg Loarie will be in court challenging the permitting programs that are driving endangered wild coho salmon extinct. The de-watering of the two major Klamath River tributaries has resulted in major fish kills over the years. During the past two years, DFG staff were forced to rescue juvenile salmon from certain death in drying pools on the rivers.
Earthjustice is representing the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Klamath Riverkeeper, the Sierra Club, the Quartz Valley Indian Tribe, Northcoast Environmental Center and Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC) in the case.
“The permits would allow the ‘incidental take’ (i.e., killing) of coho by agriculture, so long as these water users abide by a list of generic, unstudied, and inadequate mitigation measures,” said Park. “Ultimately, the permits allow the continuation of the destructive activities that resulted in the collapse of the coho fishery in the first place.”
Local ranchers divert so much water from both rivers to grow hay that the rivers often dry up during part of the year, according to Park. Coho salmon that historically spawned in these two rivers are at, or close to, extinction.
“The California Department of Fish and Game is issuing permits to ranchers to continue dewatering the rivers based on historic diversion levels which leave baby salmon high and dry and block the return of adult fish to spawn,” Park added. “Last year only nine adult coho salmon returned to the Shasta River to spawn.”
In April 2010, water conditions on the Scott and Shasta became so inhospitable that DFG staff relocated what few endangered coho salmon could still be found in the two rivers, transplanting them dozens of miles down the mainstem Klamath River to supposed safety.
“At this point, coho are so close to extinction and the Scott and Shasta are so severely dewatered each year that this type of rescue action may be warranted, but it cannot be a substitute for rewatering, and in the long term it’s not likely to be a viable survival strategy for coho in these basins,” said Klamath Riverkeeper Erica Terence. “It’s a band-aid solution at best on what has become a major water hemorrhage.”
Wild steelhead have also perished in fish kills on the Scott and Shasta, most notably in 2001 under the Gray Davis administration. For example, Game Warden Renie Cleland said he was told to “back off” from citing ranchers on the Scott and Shasta for killing off fish, according to an article by Tom Stienstra and Glen Martin in the San Francisco Chronicle on June 22, 2001 (http://articles.sfgate.com/2001-06-22/news/17604602_1_shasta-rivers-major-klamath-tributaries-scott-and-shasta).
“This has gone all the way to Sacramento,” Cleland was quoted. “It’s extremely politically sensitive. I was told to take no enforcement action on it. These fish are dying. We’ve got five or six thousand steelhead trout dead on the Scott, and (dead juvenile steelhead) everywhere on the Shasta.”
The latest permit to dewater the Scott and Shasta was granted by the DFG under the administration of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. This is the same Governor who has attacked the biological opinion protecting imperiled Delta smelt and Central Valley salmon, has relentlessly campaigned for a peripheral canal and new dams, and has fast-tracked his corrupt and unjust Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative.
Schwarzenegger, who is worshipped by the corporate media and some environmental NGO’s for his grandstanding about “climate change” and “green energy” corporate greenwashing scams, has pursued a “scorched earth” policy towards California’s fish populations that has resulted in the unprecedented collapse of Central Valley chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon, Sacramento splittail, young striped bass, and other fish species in recent years.
I applaud the Earthjustice attorneys for constantly standing up for the fish, fishermen, Tribes and grassroots environmentalists in court!
The hearing will take place at 9:30 a.m. at the Superior Court, 400 McAllister Street, Dept 618, in San Francisco. For more information, call Wendy Park, Earthjustice, 510-550-6792, or John McManus, Earthjustice, 510-550-6707, http://www.earthjustice.org.
danbacher It has been an eventful couple of weeks for those concerned about the state of California’s water politics and the fate of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The Bay Delta Conservation Plan to build a peripheral canal/tunnel has been released, a contentious legislative oversight hearing was held on the BDCP and the Westlands Water District pulled out of the BDCP.
In addition, a coalition of fishing, tribal and environmental groups, including Salmon Water Now, sent a letter on November 23 to Congressman John Garamendi asking him to request the Securities Exchange Commission to investigate whether Westlands Water District engaged in “material misrepresentations and omissions” in connection with the offer and sale of certain municipal securities, including those issued by the Westlands and the San Luis & Delta Mendota Water Authority. “The specific securities in question involved a $50 million Revenue Notes, Series 2009A, CUSIP 798544AM4, issued in March 2009,” according to the letter.
“The award for the biggest newsmaker once again goes to the Westlands Water District,” said Bruce Tokars of SalmonWaterNow.org. “Salmon Water Now has a new video that we hope will contribute some background and perspective about what has been going on with our favorite irrigation district.”
Here is the summary of the video, entitled “Westlands BDCP Blues” (10:32), from Tokars.
Salmon Water Now Releases New Video about Westlands
Westlands’ BDCP Blues (10:32)
Sometimes it hurts being big and powerful. You have to dodge the slings and arrows of those who would like to see you disappear or, at the very least, change your attitude. The Westlands Water District has decided to change their attitude about their participation in the State’s effort to fix California’s most difficult water issues. They have decided to end their participation.
The Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s plan to build a peripheral canal/tunnel to facilitate the export of Delta water to corporate agribusiness and southern California, has been moving along for four years. $140 million dollars has been spent so far and the controversy that started when the work began has not ended. In fact, it has grown. At a recent meeting of the Assembly’s Water, Parks and Wildlife Resources committee meeting about the current status of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP).
The Westlands representative seemed to be all gloom and doom about the current state of the BDCP work, in part because “environmental groups’ have been sending letters that contain “nasty rhetoric” and ignore “economic realities.” A few days after their comments, they withdrew their support of the effort.
This video describes the work of the BDCP and features Westlands comments. More importantly it makes a case for putting Westlands out of their water uncertainties and calls for taking the toxic, saline land out of production to save water needed to restore the Delta.
The BDCP process may or may not be good for the Delta, but retiring problem land and overturning the Monterey Plus Amendments would go a long way to make what is wrong, right again.
Westlands needs to think about what is at stake and lead a path of change instead of crying the blues.
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QcJLWYPg0&hd=1
danbacher by Dan Bacher
The Westlands Water District, criticizing what it described as “political interference,” announced on November 22 that it is withdrawing its support for the “continued development” of the controversial Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP).
The BDCP, a process opposed by many fishing groups, environmental organizations, Indian Tribes, family farmers and Delta residents, is a plan started four years ago by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to build a peripheral canal/tunnel to facilitate the export of California Delta water to corporate agribusiness and southern California.
In a letter to David Hayes, Deputy Secretary of the Interior, the district’s President, Jean P. Sagouspe, wrote, “As a public agency, Westlands cannot continue to spend millions of our ratepayers’ dollars on a project that is likely to deliver no more and potentially less water to the public than they are receiving today.”
Westlands’ withdrawal from the BDCP process was no surprise, considering that Thomas W. Birmingham, general manager of Westlands, reportedly walked out of a meeting in Washington D.C. on November 10 with Hayes and other federal and state officials and BDCP stakeholders. The walk out was prodded by a discussion that the plan may include reduced water exports to protect endangered fish species.
Westlands has filed numerous lawsuits to stop fishery restoration programs in recent years, ranging from its lawsuit in 2000 to block Trinity River restoration to its latest litigation attacking the federal biological opinions protecting imperiled Central Valley salmon, Sacramento River chinook salmon, green sturgeon, Delta smelt and the southern resident killer whale populations under the Endangered Species Act.
The Westlands Water District includes 600,000 acres of farmland on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley in Fresno and Kings counties. 73 miles long by 15 miles wide, the district stretches from Mendota in the north to Kettleman City in the south. Much of the land is laced with selenium and other salts and minerals that are toxic to fish and wildlife when agricultural waste water drains back into the San Joaquin River system.
“Westlands and the other public water agencies that rely upon water supplies pumped through the Delta have invested nearly $150 million and more than four years of effort to develop the BDCP program for fixing California’s broken water system,” according to a news release from Westlands. “BDCP was created to help resolve regulatory shortages through a balanced plan to meet California’s co-equal objectives of repairing the Delta environment and restoring reliable, adequate water supplies for California.”
Tom Birmingham: Interior’s Approach Is ‘Destructive’
Birmingham claimed that over the last three years, federal regulations have reduced California’s public water supplies by more than one-third.
“But instead of working to solve the problems caused by these regulatory shortages, the Department of the Interior, at David Hayes’ direction, is now proposing to add even more regulatory restrictions, reducing even more drastically the deliveries that California’s farms and cities and two-thirds of the state’s residents depend on,” said Birmingham.
Birmingham said Sagouspe’s letter “expresses confidence that there are many dedicated employees” within Reclamation, the Fish & Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service who could achieve a successful outcome of the BDCP process if they were not being subjected to “misinformed political interference.”
“Instead of working with the BDCP participants, Hayes is relying on the same special interests that have refused to join the BDCP process and have opposed its development from the beginning,” Birmingham claimed. “He apparently agrees with the idea that ‘success’ in the Delta can be measured on the basis of how much water is taken away from the people of California.”
“Through this action we are trying to get BDCP back on track,” said Birmingham. “Such a destructive approach directly undermines the objective of fixing the water supply problem,” the Westlands letter concluded. “And without a project to fix the water supply problem, California won’t have the means to restore the Delta either. In short, it is our view that your myopic and unscientific obstructionism will bring this entire effort at water reform and ecosystem restoration to a halt.”
Sarah Woolf, spokesperson for Westlands, added that with Westlands gone from the BDCP process, “Our hope is that will elevate the need for the BDCP to come to some resolution on meeting everyone’s needs in the process. The BDCP is a very fragile and very difficult process.”
Bill Jennings: A Publicity Stunt by Westlands?
Bill Jennings, chairman/executive director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, said he suspected that Westland’s announcement of their withdrawal from the BDCP process was “a publicity stunt to focus their attacks on the administration just like they did when they launched their ‘New Dust Bowl’ campaign last year.”
“They joined the process with the assumption that that they could get more water out of it,” said Jennings. “Now that they aren’t getting what they want, they are threatening to withdraw funding. Their letter strikes me as political grandstanding and an attack of David Hayes and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to pressure them to back down over their concerns that the project as proposed could have disastrous consequences on the Delta.”
“Westlands is obviously groaning under the weight of the cost of the project,” added Jennings. “The district is saying it will only play if they get more water. However, the best available science shows that the project would be a disaster for the Delta. To protect ESA listed species such as Central Valley salmon and Delta smelt, is is unlikely that water exports will be maintained at the current levels.”
The Planning and Conservation League also responded to Westlands’ withdrawl from the BDCP in a statement. “There is overwhelming scientific consensus that diversions from the Delta must be reduced in order for its ecosystem to be revived. Although Westlands does not like the broad scientific consensus, they are beginning to realize that diversions will be reduced, not increased,” the group stated.
Randy Yonemura: Decision Exposes How Big Business Controls DWR
Randy Yonemura, California Indian Heritage Council Director and Inter-Tribal Water Commissioner, said Westlands’ withdrawal is a “good thing” if Westlands is serious and not using its action as a “publicity stunt.”
“Westlands’ withdrawal sends a message to the public about the inner workings of the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and how they allow big business to control public water,” said Yonemura. “Big business is running amok over public resources with public resources.”
“The Bay Delta Conservation Plan and Bureau of Reclamation representatives told the Bureau of Indian Affairs that they are working with all of the California Tribes on the impacts of the BDCP,” emphasized Yonemura. “However, they have not included Tribes in the BDCP process”
Tribes, recreational anglers and commercial fishermen, who are directly impacted by plans to build a peripheral canal under the BDCP, have been to date completely excluded from the Steering Committee and meetings of BDCP. In fact, Lester Snow, California Natural Resources Secretary, in the past two months convened secret meetings of BDCP principals to avoid public scrutiny.
Department of Interior: District Decision Is ‘Short Sighted and Misguided’
The Department of Interior on November 23 issued a sharply worded response to the Westlands letter.
“I believe the district’s decision is short-sighted and misguided,” said David Hayes. “From the statements in your letter, it is also based on characterizations of my role in the process that are contrary to the facts.”
“I will not address in detail in this response your characterization of my role, nor will I repeat them here,” added Hayes. “But I can state unequivocally that the Secretary’s and my intent, and that of our entire Department, is to develop and complete a successful plan that is consistent with the twin goals of water supply reliability and ecosystem restoration.”
“The Secretary and I firmly believe that the BDCP process continues to affort the best opportunity to resolve California’s water issues. We would prefer to pursue this course with Westlands’ participation,” he concluded.
The peripheral canal/tunnel proposed by the BDCP would cost an estimated $23 to $53.8 billion, according to a study conducted last year by Steven Kasower and Associates.
The $11.14 billion water bond, taken off this November’s ballot by the Legislature and rescheduled to November 2012 because of its impending defeat by the voters this year, would not specifically fund the canal/tunnel. However, it would put in place the infrastructure for the canal and new surface storage facilities.
The ‘New Dust Bowl’ Exposed
Throughout 2009 and 2008, Astroturf groups led by the Latino Water Coalition and west side San Joaquin agribusiness interests claimed that court-imposed reductions in Delta water exports to protect Delta smelt had created a “New Dust Bowl” in the Central Valley.
Mother Jones magazine joined Sean Hannity, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and agribusiness “Astroturf” groups in perpetuating the “Big Lie” about the alleged “drought” and “New Dust Bowl (http://www.c-win.org/blog/dan-bacher-doubts-westside-san-joaquin-growers-feed-nation.html).
According to an article by Lloyd Carter and Patrick Porgans (More Doubts About the Drought), this “New Dust Bowl” rhetoric had no basis in reality (http://www.lloydgcarter.com/content/100901425_more-doubts-about-the-drought). “Figures obtained from the U.S. Department of Agriculture on Tuesday, August 31, 2010, show the Golden State’s agricultural earnings have reached historic highs during the so-called three-year drought,” noted Carter and Porgans.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), California’s cash receipts from crop and livestock sales were $34.841 billion in 2009, $38.407 billion in 2008 and $36.386 billon in 2007.
How could there be a “New Dust Bowl” with record agricultural earnings in the Central Valley and other agricultural regions?
The BDCP “Complete Working Draft” is now posted online and available here: http://www.baydeltaconservationplan.com/BDCPPlanningProcess/ReadDraftPlan.aspx.
danbacher 
640_img_9621.jpg
by Dan Bacher
The seven motions adopted by the BRTF are available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/recommendations_nc.asp. One of the most significant motions, motion 2, clarifies Tribal gathering rights in marine protected areas:
“When the legal authority to do so is clarified and settled by the State of California and California tribes and tribal communities, the BRTF recommends that the California Fish and Game Commission identify ‘tribal uses’ as a separate category of use in the regulations applicable to each MPA. And, for each state marine conservation area (SMCA), state marine park (SMP) and state marine recreational management area (SMRMA) for which the NCRSG has proposed to allow tribal uses, the California Fish and Game Commission should include the following descriptive language in the regulations: ‘Members of California indian tribes and tribal communities shall be allowed to fish, gather and harvest marine resources for California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative traditional, non-commercial subsistence, ceremonial, religious or stewardship purposes.’”
This resolution also provides for “a mutual reservation of rights by the State of California and California tribes and tribal communities.”
MPA Proposal and Special Closure Recommendations (MLPA website) are available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/mpaproposals_nc.asp. These recommendations are the North Coast “Enhanced Compliance” Alternative MPA Proposal (ECA), the Revised Round 3 NCRSG MPA Proposal (RNCP), and the North Coast Special Closures Recommendation.
The materials currently available are: overview maps, descriptions of individual MPAs, consideration of existing MPAs and special closures maps, description and basic information.
“In the coming days and weeks, additional materials will be made available, including more detailed maps and evaluations of the MPA proposals and recommended special closures,” said Kelly Sayce of the MLPA Initiative.
The MPA Proposal and Special Closure Recommendations (Marine Map) are available at: http://northcoast.marinemap.org (under the “MPA Proposals” tab). The names of MPA proposals and special closures recommendations in MarineMap are: the North Coast Enhanced Compliance Alternative MPA Proposal, Revised Round 3 NCRSG MPA Proposal and North Coast Special Closures Recommendation.
Any of the above information is available in print or on CD: Contact the MLPA office at mlpaoffice [at] resources.ca.gov or 916.654.1885.
The North Coast MLPA process is unique in that the diverse stakeholders, including Indian Tribes, commercial fishermen, recreational anglers, seaweed harvesters and local business owners, agreed to a unified proposal for marine protected areas. The proposal is also unique for inclusion of language protecting tribal subsistence and ceremonial gathering rights.
Unfortunately, the Fish and Game Commission has already designated and implemented marine protected areas on the Central Coast and North Coast without language protecting sovereign tribal rights, although a marine protected area off Stewarts Point in the North Central region was changed to allow for ceremonial and subsistence use by the Kashia Pomo Tribe after the area was closed on May 1, 2010.
The unified North Coast proposal could not have occurred without the hard work from the stakeholders – and intense political pressure from the Coastal Justice Coalition and Klamath Justice Coalition, who organized two direct action protests at MLPA meetings in Eureka and Fort Bragg.
On July 21, over 300 members of 50 Indian Tribes, commercial fishermen, conservationists, recreational anglers, seaweed harvesters, environmental justice advocates and community members peacefully took over a MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force meeting in Fort Bragg to protest the violation of Tribal rights and corporate greenwashing that has occurred under the controversial initiative.
The MPA proposal, developed by the 33-member north coast regional stakeholder group (NCRSG), will be presented to the California Fish and Game Commission together with a modified “enhanced compliance alternative” marine protected area proposal and other recommendations in Sacramento on February 2, 2011.
After the proposal is presented to the Commission, the Commission will hold hearings to solicit public comment. A final decision is not expected until later in the year under the incoming Jerry Brown administration.
Brown has not made any public comments to date about what direction his administration will take regarding the implementation and enforcement of Schwarzenegger’s MLPA process. In 2004, Schwarzenegger privatized the process by allowing a private corporation, the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, to fund the initiative through a MOU between the foundation and the Department of Fish and Game.
Although some political insiders have speculated about possible Brown appointees to fill positions in the Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Department of Water Resources, State Water Resources Control Board and other state agencies, Brown has not yet announced any appointments in the incoming administration.
Frankie Joe Myers, a Yurok Tribal ceremonial leader and organizer for the Coastal Justice Coalition that organized the direct action in Fort Bragg on July 21, said that he was glad that the task force adopted the unified proposal and passed motions supporting traditional tribal gathering and co-management, but emphasized that the proposal still has to be approved by the Fish and Game Commission.
“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.”
Tribes, fishermen and environmentalists have criticized the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force, a panel that prominently features an oil industry lobbyist, marina developer and real estate executive, for numerous conflicts of interest and violations of state, federal and international laws.
While “Big Green” environmental NGOs including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Ocean Conservancy and the League of Conservation Voters constantly praise Schwarzenegger’s MLPA Initiative for being an “open, transparent and inclusive” process, grassroots environmental and environmental justice organizations such as the Ocean Protection Coalition, Klamath Justice Coalition and Coastal Justice Coalition are among the initiative’s fiercest critics.
danbacher Please send an email now to support the struggle to save the indigenous burial ground and fragile ecosystem at Glen Cove in Solano County.
Everyone who wants to protect Glen Cove sacred site from destruction and desecration should send WRITTEN COMMENTS to the Greater Vallejo Recreation District before November 30.
Comments should focus on why permits should not be issued to grade and blade the area which is rich in cultural resources and is a major Native American burial site. Of course, also mention objections to adding toilets and a parking lot on top of or near a burial site.
You can also request to be notified of all opportunities to comment on the proposed Glen Cove development. Comments should go to GVRD General Manager Shane McAffee at this email: smcaffee [at] gvrd.org Also cc these comments to the Mayor of Vallejo, Osby Davis at: Mayor [at] ci.vallejo.ca.us.
To join the listserve for updates on the situation: http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/protectglencove or email: protectglencove-subscribe [at] lists.riseup.net.
Meanwhile, a Sacred Site/Shellmound Peace Walk is in progress. The walk began on November 17 and will run through November 26.
“IPOC Shellmound Peace Walkers along with SSP&RIT and FootPrints for Peace invites all to join in a journey of walk and prayer to remember our ancestors that lived on this land for thousands of years,” according to the Vallejo Inter-Tribal Council website. “The walk will be led by traditional Native American leaders and Nipponzan Myohoji Buddhist. We will walk and pray with our ancestors in areas where shellmounds and sacred sites have been desecrated by development, and celebrate the return of our ancestors due to recent NAGPRA law changes.”
The walk began in San Jose, and is now traveling through the Bay Area to Sogorea-Te` Shellmound (Glen Cove in Vallejo). It will end at the Huchiun Shellmound (Bay Street Mall in Emeryville).
For more information, contact Corrina Gould at 510-575-8408, Johnella LaRose at 510-743-7373, Email: shellmoundwalk@yahoo.com, Website: Indian People Organizing for Change. FootPrints for Peace is a non-profit, all donations are appreciated and tax-deductible.
danbacher FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Nov. 18, 2010
Senator Introduces Common-sense Federal Bills to Address Controversial Genetically Engineered Salmon
Statement by Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director, Food & Water Watch
“Today Senator Begich (D-AK) introduced two vital bills to head off the FDA’s unwise process for approving the first genetically engineered (GE) food animal, AquaBounty salmon. The first bill, a companion to Representative Don Young’s (R-AK) HR 6265, would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prevent the approval of the controversial fish. The second bipartisan bill, a companion to Rep. Young’s H.R. 6264, would amend that same act to require, at minimum, labeling of this science experiment that the biotech industry wants to release into our food system.”
“We applaud Senator Begich’s commitment to keeping genetically engineered salmon off the market as well as his demand for full disclosure if the FDA does approve the product despite widespread consumer opposition.”
“The FDA’s approval process for AquaBounty salmon has been disingenuous at best. The product has not been tested sufficiently for its potentially disastrous environmental and human health impacts.”
“It is telling that these bills were introduced shortly after at least 30 House members and 13 senators wrote the Obama administration either expressing serious concerns about the manner in which FDA conducted its review or calling for the outright prohibition of the approval of AquaBounty salmon.”
“The efforts on behalf of Congress demonstrate that there is bipartisan concern over the careless approval of the first genetically engineered food animal. Democrats and Republicans alike are reminding the FDA that the public is not happy that the agency is playing games with their health.”
“Furthermore, just this week, Food & Water Watch released startling internal emails and documents revealing that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) has had many of the same environmental concerns as these legislators.”
“Unfortunately, as the FDA forges ahead with its approval process, it has become clear that the agency has ignored not only the other federal agencies (like FWS) that it is required by law to consult with, but widespread congressional opposition as well.”
“We urge members of Congress and the public to support these critical bills before the FDA sets a dangerous precedent, unleashing the first genetically engineered food animal on an unsuspecting public.”
For more information, contact Lauren Wright; Lwright [at] fwwatch.org; 202 683-4929
###
Food & Water Watch works to ensure the food, water and fish we consume is safe, accessible and sustainable. So we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of where their food comes from, keep clean, affordable, public tap water flowing freely to our homes, protect the environmental quality of oceans, force government to do its job protecting citizens, and educate about the importance of keeping shared resources under public control.
danbacher by Dan Bacher
Fishermen, conservationists, Delta farmers, Indian Tribal members, environmentalists and elected leaders from diverse political perspectives have slammed Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) process over the past four years for being a thinly disguised plan to build a peripheral canal to export more water from the California Delta to agribusiness and southern California.
Now a new and surprising critic of the BDCP process – the giant Westlands Water District on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley – has emerged, although the district’s critique is much different than those working to provide the estuary with more water for fish and Delta farms. Westlands and other water contractors fear that the plan may include reduced water exports to comply with studies by state and federal biologists recommending increased Delta flows for fish.
Jason Peltier, Chief Deputy General Manager of Westlands Water District and one of the principals in the process, shocked many with his strong criticism of the BDCP’s current direction during his testimony at an oversight hearing held by the Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife at the State Capitol in Sacramento on November 16.
Peltier blasted the work of “mid-level biologists” from the federal government for recommending increased flows through the Delta for salmon, Delta smelt and other fish and boldly recommended that political appointees, rather than scientists, make the decisions over how much water must flow through the estuary. Peltier said the water contractors have heard from federal agencies that the BDCP is on track to produce a document that the federal government does not consider permittable.
At the same time, Peltier slammed a recent report by unnamed federal biologists that said that at least one species of fish would be threatened with extinction if the BDCP went forward. The biologists concluded “overall habitat conditions under the proposed project are likely to be worse than present day conditions or future conditions (if the project is not built).”
“Yes, I would ask political appointees to weigh in to make a decision based on informed views – not just a little paper with no names,” Peltier emphasized, referring to the recent report. “The world is bigger than the word of a few biologists.”
“It is important that agencies get the best available science,” Peltier stated. “It’s unfair to ask biologists to choose the flows for fish.”
He also claimed there is “scientific uncertainty” on the flows needed for fish, noting the “complex tidal swing” in Delta channels of 30,000 cfs on every tide change. “We have to listen to debate and to make the best decisions we can,” said Peltier.
While responding to questions by Senator Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael), chairman of the Committee, Peltier criticized environmental groups for “nasty rhetoric” and spreading a “mythology.” Peltier voiced frustration about the “never-ending stream of letters” from environmental organizations both on and off the BDCP steering committee who ignore economic realities.
“They seem to envision a perfect world,” claimed Peltier. “We can’t find perfection in this process. If that is their demand, that rock doesn’t exist, and we ought not continue spending money to try and find this perfect world.”
Peltier also warned the Committee, “There’s going to need to be some kind of a reset – some kind of a come-to-Jesus – about how all of our interests can be met, or not met, and tell people they’re not going to get what they had been hoping for.”
Peltier was on a panel of BDCP “stakeholders” including Laura King-Moon, California Water Contractors Association; Cynthia Koehler, California Water Legislative Director, Environmental Defense Fund; Jonathan Rosenfield, Ph.D., Conservation Biologist, The Bay Institute; Melinda Terry, Manager, North Delta Water Agency; and Don Nottoli, Delta Stewardship Council Member, Delta Protection Commission Chair, and Sacramento County Board of Supervisors.
Jonathan Rosenfield responded to Peltier’s complaints about “scientific uncertainty” by stating that federal, state and independent biologists have all identified, in a number of reports, the flows needed to maintain healthy salmon and Delta fish populations. These reports include ones conducted by the State Water Resources Control Board, the National Academy of Sciences and the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC).
“I don’t know of any scientist who disagrees with the need for flows out of the Delta,” Rosenfield emphasized.
Ironically, the report that Peltier, a member of the BDCP Steering Committee, criticized was part of the “effects analysis” of proposed operations authorized under the BDCP process.
“They (Westlands) are decrying this report that the BDCP Steering Committee asked for,” said Jonas Minton, water policy advisor of the Planning and Conservation League. “Now Westlands is recommending the same policy of political interference that occurred under the Bush administration, a policy that allowed the collapse of the Delta ecosystem to occur.”
Julie A. MacDonald, deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks under President GW Bush, resigned on May 2007 after a scathing investigation by the Inspector General found that she had “injected herself personally and profoundly” in a number of Endangered Species Act decisions, including the Sacramento splittail of the Delta, a violation of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The Legislature failed to ask members of California Indian Tribes, recreational fishing groups, commercial fishing organizations, or environmental justice groups to speak on the hearing panels, even though they will be impacted dramatically by the construction of a peripheral canal or tunnel. However, Dick Pool, administrator of Water 4 Fish, spoke in the public comment period about the urgent need for immediate action to save collapsing runs of Sacramento River chinook salmon.
“I have a major concern about the rapid decline in fall-run chinook salmon from 800,000 fish in 2002 to only 39,500 fish in 2009,” said Pool. “We don’t have a lot of time left – there won’t be any fish around if we rely on the BDCP schedule. We need to implement early projects to recover fish populations.”
Resources Secretary Announces Release of Delta Plan Reports
During the hearing, Natural Resources Secretary Lester Snow announced that two major reports on the controversial Bay Delta Conservation Plan, developed after 4 years of meetings and $140 million spent, will be released in the next few weeks.
“While the Delta has become the most politically contentious water management issue in California,” Snow said, “our progress in developing the Bay Delta Conservation Plan speaks to a growing consensus that we must achieve a Delta ecosystem that is more resilient and improve the state’s water supply reliability.”
Snow said that the BDCP Steering Committee plans to finalize its “working draft plan” at its meeting on Thursday, November 18.
Snow lauded the draft as “a product of a collaborative process that has included the California Department of Water Resources, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, federal and state fisheries agencies, water contractors, environmental organizations and other stakeholders. It will reflect substantial progress towards a completed Bay Delta Conservation Plan, and identify remaining elements where scientific work and other analysis is needed.”
Snow said a separate “status report and issues summary” on the BDCP will be released the week of December 6, 2010. This document will include the State of California’s assessment of the issues, but will reflect the work of state and federal agencies, water users, and the environmental community.
“It will also identify issues that require further resolution, including additional scientific analysis to improve upon water operations for Delta fisheries, ecological metrics to measure progress, and ongoing development of an adaptive management plan,” according to Snow.
Snow stated that a draft habitat conservation plan/environmental impact report will be released in mid-2011 and the final report will be released in 2012. He said the current plan could lead to the construction of the peripheral canal/tunnel by 2013.
Delta Advocates Blast BDCP Goals and Costs
Delta advocates who attended the hearing were very critical of the BDCP’s failure to address how it can possibly provide both the water and habitat that imperiled fish populations need and the water that the exporters desire.
“After 4 years and $140 million, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan is going to release some kind of document this week, but it won’t answer the central question of the exercise: how do exporters plan to get the amount of water they want while giving fish and habitat the water they need?” said Jane Wagner-Tyack, a policy consultant for Restore the Delta.
Wagner-Tyack also criticized the BDCP for its failure to address how it will come up with the money for canal/tunnel construction and habitat “restoration” at a time when the state of California is besieged with an unprecedented budget crisis.
“And no one knows how this will all be paid for,” she concluded. “However, one thing that seems clear is that exporters are unlikely to continue to pay for a plan that will not give them the amount and reliability of water that they thought they were getting with their investment in the BDCP.”
Committee member Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis) also pointed out the “incredible disconnect” of the BDCP proposals and the actual financing available for the plan as the state budget has grown to $25.4 billion.
“We cannot as a society continue to dump the burden of the remaining cost of the BDCP on the counties and water ratepayers,” said Wolk. “What the BDCP expects to do is simplify not feasible. There will be a revolution.”
In response to Wolk’s comments that the state can’t afford the facilities, Peltier said, “My response is that we cannot afford not to invest in the future.”
“The contractors will pay for construction of the facilities, but none of the farmers want a tunnel or canal just as an accomplishment. They want something out of it more than they get out of the current system. If this is not going to happen, we need to have a discussion on closing down the economy of the state or letting anarchy happen,” concluded Peltier.
With the BDCP process now under attack by both Delta advocates and water contractors, it will be interesting to see whether the incoming Brown administration will move the BDCP forward under its current path or to start anew with a process that asks first how much water fish and the Delta need for full restoration before considering exports to corporate agribusiness and southern California water.
After all, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) of 1992 mandated the doubling of all naturally spawning anadromous fish populations – Sacramento River chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, white sturgeon, green sturgeon, striped bass and other species – by 2002. Rather than the doubling of these fish populations occurring, many of these species have declined to record low populations, due to record water exports by the state and federal governments.
Immediate action must be taken to double these fish populations, as well as recovering Delta smelt, longfin smelt and other imperiled fish under the state and federal Endangered Species Acts.
For more information about Restore the Delta, go to: http://www.restorethedelta.org. BDCP documents will be available at http://www.resources.ca.gov andhttp://www.baydeltaconservationplan.com.
danbacher by Dan Bacher
Natural Resources Secretary Lester Snow on November 16 announced that two major reports on the Bay controversial Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), developed after 4 years of meetings and $140 million spent, will be released in the next few weeks.
He made the announcement during his testimony at an oversight hearing held by the Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife at the State Capitol in Sacramento.
Snow described the BDCP as “a comprehensive conservation plan to protect species/habitat protection and improve the reliability of water supplies in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.”
However, many fishing groups, Indian Tribes, environmental organizations and family farmers say the plan is a thinly veiled plan to build a peripheral canal/tunnel to export more water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to San Joaquin Valley agribusiness and southern California.
“While the Delta has become the most politically contentious water management issue in California,” Snow said, “our progress in developing the Bay Delta Conservation Plan speaks to a growing consensus that we must achieve a Delta ecosystem that is more resilient and improve the state’s water supply reliability.”
Snow said that the BDCP Steering Committee plans to finalize its “working draft plan” at its meeting on Thursday, November 18.
Snow lauded the draft as “a product of a collaborative process that has included the California Department of Water Resources, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, federal and state fisheries agencies, water contractors, environmental organizations and other stakeholders. It will reflect substantial progress towards a completed Bay Delta Conservation Plan, and identify remaining elements where scientific work and other analysis is needed.”
The 1,500 page draft report won’t be available to the public until Monday, November 21.
Snow said a separate “status report and issues summary” on the BDCP will be released the week of December 6, 2010. This document will include the State of California’s assessment of the issues, but will reflect the work of both state and federal agencies, water users, and the environmental community.
“It will also identify issues that require further resolution, including additional scientific analysis to improve upon water operations for Delta fisheries, ecological metrics to measure progress, and ongoing development of an adaptive management plan,” according to Snow.
Snow stated that a draft habitat conservation plan/environmental impact report will be released in mid-2011 and the final report will be released in 2012. He said the current plan could lead to the construction of the peripheral canal/tunnel by 2013.
Snow said the process has come to six major conclusions, including the “need” for a peripheral canal/tunnel:
1. Large scale habitat restoration is necessary.
2. Dual conveyance – a combination of a peripheral canal/tunnel and in-Delta conveyance – is necessary.
3. An economic plan must be developed
4. The BDCP must develop a resilent ecosystem.
5. California needs an increasingly diversified water supply.
6. Water management in California has suffered from a “lack of of truly integrated resource management.”
BDCP “stakeholders” who testified included Jason Peltier, Chief Deputy General Manager, Westlands Water District; Laura King-Moon, California Water Contractors Association; Cynthia Koehler, California Water Legislative Director, Environmental Defense Fund; Jonathan Rosenfield, Ph.D., Conservation Biologist, The Bay Institute; Melinda Terry, Manager, North Delta Water Agency; and Don Nottoli, Delta Stewardship Council Member, Delta Protection Commission Chair, and Sacramento County Board of Supervisors.
Westlands Water District: political appointees, Not biologists, should decide Delta flows
Jason Peltier, during his testimony and while responding to questions by Senator Jared Huffman, criticized environmental groups for “nasty rhetoric” and spreading a “mythology.” Peltier voiced frustration about the “never-ending stream of letters” from environmental organizations both on and off the BDCP steering committee who ignore economic realities.
“They seem to envision a perfect world,” claimed Peltier. “We can’t find perfection in this process. If that is their demand, that rock doesn’t exist, and we ought not continue spending money to try and find this perfect world.”
Peltier also said the water contractors have heard from federal agencies that the BDCP is on track to produce a document that the federal government does not consider permittable. He blamed this on the work of “mid-level biologists” and boldly recommended that political appointees, rather than scientists, make the decisions over how much water must flow through the estuary.
At the same time, he blasted a report by unnamed federal biologists that said that at least one species of fish would be threatened with extinction if the BDCP went forward. The biologists conclude that “overall habitat conditions under the proposed project are likely to be worse than present day conditions or future conditions (if the project is not built),”
“Yes, I would ask political appointees to weigh in to make a decision based on informed views – not a little paper with no names,” he emphasized. “The world is bigger than the word of a few biologists.”
“It is important that agencies get the best available science,” Peltier stated. “It’s unfair to ask biologists to choose the flows for fish.”
He also claimed there is “scientific uncertainty” on the flows needed for fish, noting the “complex tidal swing” in Delta channels of 30,000 cfs on every tide change. “We have to listen to debate and to make the best decisions we can,” said Peltier.
Jonathan Rosenfield responded to Peltier by stating that federal, state and independent biologists have all identified, in a number of reports, the flows needed to maintain healthy salmon and Delta fish populations.
“I don’t know of any scientist who disagrees with the need for flows out of the Delta,” he emphasized.
The Legislature failed to ask members of California Indian Tribes, recreational fishing groups, commercial fishing organizations, or environmental justice groups to speak on the panels, even though they will be impacted dramatically by the construction of a peripheral canal or tunnel. However, Dick Pool, administrator of Water 4 Fish, spoke in the public comment period about the urgent need for immediate action to save collapsing runs of Sacramento River chinook salmon.
“I have a major concern about the rapid decline in fall-run chinook salmon from 800,000 fish in 2002 to only 39,500 fish in 2009,” said Pool. “We don’t have a lot of time left – there won’t be any fish around if we rely on the BDCP schedule. We need to implement early projects to recover fish populations.”
Delta advocates who attended the hearing were very critical of the BDCP’s failure to address how it can possibly provide both the water and habitat that imperiled fish populations need and the water that the exporters desire.
“After 4 years and $140 million, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan is going to release some kind of document this week, but it won’t answer the central question of the exercise: how do exporters plan to get the amount of water they want while giving fish and habitat the water they need?,” said Jane Wagner-Tyack, a policy consultant for Restore the Delta.
Wagner-Tyack also criticized the BDCP for its failure to address how it will come up with the money for canal/tunnel construction and habitat “restoration” at a time when the state of California is besieged with an unprecedented budget crisis.
“And no one knows how this will all be paid for,” she concluded. “However, one thing that seems clear is that exporters are unlikely to continue to pay for a plan that will not give them the amount and reliability of water that they thought they were getting with their investment in the BDCP.”
For more information about Restore the Delta, go to: http://www.restorethedelta.org. BDCP ocuments will be available at http://www.resources.ca.govand http://www.baydeltaconservationplan.com.
danbacher The Restore the Delta newsletter for November 17, “Delta Flows, reports on the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Commitee oversight meeting held at the State Capitol yesterday.
November 17, 2010
“Never be frightened to take a profit. Better in your pocket then theirs.”
-Michael Levy
Where’s the beef?
After 4 years and $140 million, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan is going to release some kind of document this week, but it won’t answer the central question of the exercise: how do exporters plan to get the amount of water they want while giving fish and habitat the water they need?
On Tuesday, the Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife held an oversight hearing on the status of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. In his introductory remarks, Chair Jared Huffman noted that reducing dependence on Delta exports is now codified in law.
But almost from the start, there was disagreement about what that means.
Laura King Moon, Assistant General Manager of the State Water Contractors, suggested that for the water contractors, reducing future dependence on the Delta meant that as demand increases in the future, they can’t look to the Delta to meet that demand.
Westlands Water District’s Jason Peltier made it clear that the contractors certainly expected to get back to exporting the amount of water they exported before fish protections cut their deliveries. Westlands needs that to continue participating in the BDCP process
Still central to the BDCP is building conveyance to separate export water from water for the ecosystem. But the type and size of conveyance have not been decided. Also unresolved, according to Moon, are important financial matters, operations issues, and the permit status of contractors. They don’t yet know how the plan will integrate into the 2009 legislative requirements.
As Melinda Terry, Manager of the North Delta Water Agency noted after the hearing, 70% of the document may be completed, but the 30% that is still undone represents all the heavy lifting.
The Bay Institute’s Jonathan Rosenfield said that a series of “place holder documents” are preventing forward movement toward issues such as measurable biological objectives. He said that steering committee members refuse to consider that fresh water flows play a role in the health of the ecosystem. This flawed premise results in an inadequate analysis.
The BDCP has come up with a plan for governance that includes a ten-member implementation office. But Cynthia Koehler of the Environmental Defense Fund said that the final BDCP will be very complex, with many moving parts, and she expressed concern about governance that delegates recovery of the Delta to the water user community.
The implementation office seems to represent a redundant level of governance. Don Nottoli, speaking on behalf of the Delta Counties Coalition, noted that the Delta Reform Act calls for a new conservancy board to implement the plan for the Delta.
In her testimony, Melinda Terry noted that the BDCP plan has not addressed loss of property assessments, seeping and erosion, loss of agricultural land, reduced water quality and availability, and unmitigated impacts. She objected to in effect “using Yolo County as a mitigation bank so that you can have developments in other parts of the state.”
Resources Secretary Lester Snow said that large scale habitat restoration was essential, although it is unpopular with the Delta Counties. He called for payment to the counties in lieu of taxes for ecosystem restoration, and he said that the state should develop MOUs with individual counties to deal with differing impacts.
Snow also called for increasing integrated regional water management statewide to reduce dependence on the Delta. He suggested that we need to see what we can safely take out of the Delta, then build a project around that. As Tom Zuckerman noted, that is what people in the Delta have been saying for decades.
Snow said that the Resources Agency will publish a “transition” document early in December to make the plan understandable to the public. A draft conservation plan and environmental review documents are scheduled for release in June or July of 2011, with the final documents in 2012 and construction beginning in 2013.
So, for our holiday reading, we will be working our way through the some sort of BDCP document, and the Resources Agency transition document to explain the plan – both of which will leave out environmental impacts and costs for the proposed project. We will most certainly need some strong eggnog to wash down the empty content.
Size matters
Moon and Snow both noted that operating criteria determine how much water you get, regardless of what is built. But Assembly member Yamada and Huffman both made the point that with a large facility come large expectations. And the size of the facility is still unknown.
Huffman asked Snow about the meeting that took place last week with the Department of the Interior in Washington, D.C. Snow said it involved an explicit discussion of cost and generated a great deal of frustration.
Westlands’ Peltier voiced that frustration. He focused on two issues. First, what the water contractors heard from federal agencies is that the BDCP is on track to produce a document that the feds do not consider permittable. He blamed this on the work of “mid-level biologists” and suggested that it would be preferable to have political appointees make decisions based on the whole picture. “The world,” said Peltier,” is bigger than the word of a few biologists.”
Second, Peltier voiced frustration about the “never-ending stream of letters” from environmental organizations both on and off the BDCP steering committee who seem to envision a perfect world but ignore economic realities.
Moon noted that the reform legislation did not call for flow criteria to be integrated in the BDCP. The flow criteria were supposed to “inform planning decisions.” Contractors feel that the SWB report was done rapidly and should not be adopted wholesale.
But Koehler said that the plan is required to pay attention to recovery of endangered species. However, she also said that certainty can’t be the decision-making standard. She recommended a broad adaptive management range and said that we can’t wait for all the answers; we need to get something going.
And no one knows how this will all be paid for. One thing that seems clear, however, is that exporters are unlikely to continue to pay for a plan that will not give them the amount and reliability of water that they thought they were getting with their investment in the BDCP.
Uh. . . Let’s think about this
More Dudley Ridge landowners are selling water rights
Last week in the N.Y Times, Felicity Barringer reported on a proposal for two farmers in Dudley Ridge Water District in the southern San Joaquin Valley to sell their water rights for development at Tejon Ranch. Selling 2,000 acre-feet annually for $5,850 an acre-foot will net the sellers $11.7 million.
Says Barringer, “Water managers in rural areas argue that without a consistent supply of water, farmers face economic chaos, if not ruin. Among other things, they cannot be sure of the viability of longer-term crops like fruit and nut trees. Annual crops like tomatoes can be abandoned for a year and the fields left fallow, but trees must be watered in wet years and dry ones. So they say they need the option of selling their rights.”
“At the same time, it is inevitable that the push for new development, which is expected to resume if the economic recovery picks up speed, will mean a search for water rights for homes and industry.”
So let’s see . . . fruit trees need guaranteed water every year, but so do new houses. It appears once again that southern San Joaquin Valley land owners plan to make a tidy profit from growing new development, instead of fruit, with water from the State Water Project – all at the Delta’s expense.
danbacher 
640_img_0690.jpg
original image ( 3456×2304)
by Dan Bacher
The numbers of salmon trapped at the Nimbus Fish Hatchery on the American River are about four times of those trapped last fall to date.
As of November 12, the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) hatchery has trapped 3,245 adult chinooks and 555 jacks, according to Bob Burks, hatchery manager. That compares to 851 adults and 128 jacks last year.
The steelhead numbers are also on the upswing. The hatchery has received 19 steelhead, compared with 8 total to date last year.
However, Burks noted that this year the hatchery staff started spawning fish on November 2, while last year the didn’t spawn until November 12.
“We have taken 1.8 million eggs so far, compared with 747,000 last year, ” said Burks. “I’m pretty sure we’ll make our goal of 5.5 million green eggs so we can produce 4 million salmon smolts.”
The improved numbers of salmon at Nimbus correspond with the larger numbers of salmon that have returned to Coleman National Fish Hatchery on Battle Creek, Feather River Fish Hatchery and the Mokelumne River Fish Hatchery.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Coleman facility has taken a total of 16,841 adults and approximately 5,000 grilse (two-year-old salmon also known as jacks and jills) as of November 16, according to Brett Galyean, deputy hatchery manager. That compares to 6,551 adult chinooks and 700 grilse last year to date.
Approximately 22,000 total fish, a combination of adults and grilse, have been counted at the weir on Battle Creek so far this season.
“We’ve taken an estimated 15,000,000 eggs so far, so we should be able to meet our goal of 12,000,000 smolts to be released next year,” said Galyean.
The DFG’s Feather River Hatchery has trapped 17,157 adult salmon and 2,757 grilse to date, compared to 6,205 adults and 3,722 grilse last year.
The Mokelumne River facility has trapped 1,296 adult chinooks and 1,134 grilse this year to date, compared to 351 adults and 394 grilse last season to date.
Although the hatchery counts are up from last year, the question remains whether the numbers of wild and naturally spawning fish are on the upswing also. Department of Fish and Game crews will be doing salmon carcass surveys on the American, Feather, Sacramento and Mokelumne rivers through December to record the number of salmon that naturally spawned in the river, so we probably won’t find out until January how well wild and naturally spawning chinooks fared on the Central Valley rivers.
Fishermen and biologists are hoping that the Sacramento River fall chinook salmon will meet its conservation goal of 180,000 fish this year. Federal biologists forecasted an abundance of 245,000 salmon this year, which allowed the state and federal governments to open limited recreational and commercial salmon fishing seasons on the ocean and short recreational salmon seasons on the Sacramento, Feather and American rivers.
The Sacramento River fall chinook run, the driver of West Coast salmon fisheries, collapsed to a record low population level of 39,530 fish in 2009. While state and federal biologists blame ocean conditions for the collapse, fishing groups, environmental organizations and independent scientists point to massive exports to corporate agribusiness and southern California water agencies and declining water quality as primary factors in the dramatic decline.
The salmon collapse has occurred as Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, corporate agribusiness and southern California water agencies are relentlessly pushing for the construction of a peripheral canal/tunnel under the Bay Delta Conservation (BDCP) process. Fishermen, Tribes, family farmers, Delta residents and grassroots environmentalists are engaged in an epic battle to stop the construction of the canal, a $23 to $53.8 billion government boondoggle that they believe is likely to result in the extinction of Central Valley salmon and Delta fish populations.
Tribes, fishermen and environmentalists are also engaged in efforts to provide fish passage for salmon and steelhead to reopen historic habitat for imperiled wild fish populations. For example, the Winnemem Wintu Tribe is working with the New Zealand government and Maori nation to return the original strain of winter run chinook salmon to the McCloud River above Shasta Dam. The tribe has developed an innovative solution – providing passage for the salmon over the dam by creating a channel connecting Dry Creek, a tributary to Lake Shasta, to a tributary of the Sacramento River, Cow Creek.
