danbacher Current Post: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/03/31/18676041.php
This is a superb piece by Lloyd Carter about the House Subcommittee on Water and Power field hearing to be held in Fresno April 11 with the provocative title “Creating Jobs by Overcoming Man-Made Drought: Time for Congress to Listen and Act.”
It was “1984” author George Orwell who wrote that political language “is designed to make lies sound, truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” That is the case with the phrase man-made drought.
By Lloyd G. Carter
The House Subcommittee on Water and Power, now under the control of Republicans, will hold a field hearing in Fresno April 11 with the provocative title “Creating Jobs by Overcoming Man-Made Drought: Time for Congress to Listen and Act.”
The phrase “man-made drought,” like the terms Obamacare, death tax and death panel, was cooked up by political consultants with the intent to trigger an emotional response from listeners, rather than intellectual analysis. Use of the phrase began surfacing in 2009 when water deliveries to the western San Joaquin Valley were significantly reduced, thanks to reduced rainfall and snowpack and deteriorating ecological conditions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, triggering the Endangered Species Act.
It was “1984” author George Orwell who wrote that political language “is designed to make lies sound, truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” That is the case with the phrase man-made drought.
While congressional committee field hearings are supposed to be impartial fact-gathering exercises, they are more often simply dog-and-pony shows where the local congressmen or favored special interests get to grandstand in front of the local TV station cameras and expert witnesses who actually have something informative to say are relegated to the end of the day when the cameras are long gone.
Dam booster Rep. Tom McClintock, (CA-04), whose fourth congressional district encompasses the northeast corner of California from Lake Tahoe to the Oregon border, is the new chairman of the water subcommittee. He wants to downsize government except when it comes to taxpayer-funding of new water projects.
In McClintock’s view, the federal government is to blame for the fictional “man-made drought” which commenced a few years ago when Delta fishery populations began plummeting rapidly, coinciding with a mild natural drought.
In a press release announcing the Fresno hearing, McClintock claims “deliberate diversions by the federal government of over 303 billion gallons of water away from the breadbasket of America cost tens of thousands of farm workers their jobs, inflicted up to 40 percent unemployment rates in the region, fallowed more than 150,000 acres of the most fertile farmland in our nation, and forced up the price of groceries across the country. The facts we gather from this hearing will be instrumental as we begin the process to rescind government policies at the root of the San Joaquin Valley’s misery.”
First of all, the Midwest is the breadbasket of America, unless you can make bread from tomatoes, almonds and grapes.
Second, there was not 40 percent unemployment in the “region,” whatever McClintock means by “region.” There was a 2009 estimate of 40 percent unemployment in the small Fresno County town of Mendota, a figure which was quickly discredited even by its authors. Most economists agreed unemployment in the San Joaquin Valley was attributable to the collapse of the housing market. Indeed, unemployment in Mendota (McClintock’s “region”) is now higher than it was during the natural drought year of 2009.
Third, much of the “fertile” farmland McClintock mentions is marginal, salted up land in an area with no drainage for agricultural waste water.
Fourth, there is no evidence grocery prices were “forced up” nationally. Westlands Water District, with about $1 billion in annual gross revenues for 600 growers, accounts for only one-quarter of one percent of America’s $375 billion annual gross farm income. McClintock also conveniently forgets it was the federal government (i.e. the American taxpayers) which built the Cadillac water delivery system for Westlands in the first place, shipping water hundreds of miles to an alkali desert.
And, of course, most farm work in the San Joaquin Valley is done under harsh conditions, with minimum wages, by undocumented workers. Grower concern for the welfare of farmworkers is evidenced by the Ag industry’s long-time efforts to block reforms such providing field workers portable toilets, shade and drinking water in the blistering summer heat of the Valley, which annually results in several deaths due to heat stroke.
McClintock bloviates by claiming the entire San Joaquin Valley was in “misery” due to the “man-made drought.” In fact, not one acre of land on the East Side of the Valley was idled the last few years due to lack of water.
What McClintock really means by “man-made drought” is that the growers in the Westlands don’t like being at the end of the bucket line in the Central Valley Project, where senior water rights holders get their needs met first, along with the ecological and water quality needs of the Delta.
When Westlands growers claimed they got only 10 percent or 20 percent of their “allocations” or “allotments” two years ago, people presumably thought the federal U.S. Bureau of Reclamation was required to deliver the amount stated in the federal water delivery contracts.
In fact, the amount identified in those contracts (for Westlands and other federal water districts in the Western Valley) is a “wish list,” or requested amount, of water that growers always knew would be available only in a very wet year, even absent Delta pumping restrictions. Reclamation never promised to deliver the full contract amount every year. All the federal contracts state explicitly that the Bureau is required to meet its Endangered Species and state-mandated Delta protection standards for fish and salinity control.
It is true that some cutbacks in west side water deliveries are due to the call for more fresh water in the Delta to save the salmon fishery (which creates a high protein food and livelihoods for thousands of Americans) and, yes, the lowly Delta Smelt. It is true that urban pollution, downstream agricultural runoff, predatory invasive species, and industrial pollution have all contributed to making the Delta a toilet bowl death trap for fish.
But even if the Endangered Species Act were not in play, the Bureau of Reclamation still has a duty (under Section 8 of Reclamation law) to comply with orders from the State Water Resources Control Board, which is under a public trust duty to protect the Delta and the counties where the water originates. But for the past three decades the State Water Board, unless prodded by lawsuits, has done little to halt the Delta’s ecological decline.
Here is how the Fresno hearing will go. Rep. Devin Nunes, if he behaves true to form, will label all environmentalists and San Franciscans as Satan’s Children or worse. Reps. Jeff Denham and Jim Costa (ironically, Costa is loathed by many Westlands growers in his own district) will prophesy utter disaster for California’s economy unless Westlands gets much more water.
The truth is that the Valley’s agricultural economy the last few years has suffered only a modest dip in income, despite drought, natural and man-made. The Valley agriculture industry’s fundamental problem the last few decades has not been lack of water but low prices due to oversupply of one commodity after another. Indeed, some West Side growers are beginning to sell off their water supplies at fat profits. Water is the new cash crop.
To further skew any semblance of impartiality at the Fresno hearing, McClintock has decreed minority subcommittee Democrats will be limited to two witnesses. Naturally, none of the congressmen crying that the sky is falling for Westlands will address the moral dilemma posed by growers getting higher quality irrigation water than the fouled drinking water provided farm workers. Or that industrial agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley, which has been irrigated by publicly-funded dam-and-canal projects for well over half a century, has produced the poorest place in America while absentee landholders reap huge profits (and generous crop, water and power subsidies) year after year.
Most speakers at the Fresno hearing will all tout the $12 billion bond measure for the controversial Peripheral Canal/Tunnel which will be on 2012 statewide ballot and Rep. McClintock will probably again promote the white elephant doomed Auburn Dam project. In California’s water world, some things never change. The hearing will result in no legislation to protect Northern California rivers and fisheries, Native American water rights, the salmon industry and the deteriorating Delta. In truth, the Fresno hearing probably won’t even please Westlands officials.
As George Orwell said, politics (especially water politics) “is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.” The Fresno field hearing will prove it.
Lloyd G. Carter has been writing about California water issues for 40 years. His website is http://www.lloydgcarter.com
danbacher Below is a brief explanation and draft letter to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board that Bill Jennings of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance is asking organizations to sign on to. This problem goes to the heart of whether California is serious about controlling the largest identified source of pollution to Central Valley waterways: pollution that threatens drinking water, recreation and fisheries.
The Regional Board is proposing to continue its present policy of ceding implementation of the state’s water quality act to industry advocacy groups that will continue to shield discharges: i.e., the Board will not know who is discharging, what theyre discharging, whether measures have been taken to reduce pollution of if those measures are working.This approach has grievously failed in the past and will continue to fail in the future.
The Regional Board will consider a long-term program to regulate discharges from six million acres of irrigated agriculture on 7 April 2011. I don’t believe we can restore the estuary if we can’t get a handle on the pervasive pollutant discharges from some six million acres of irrigated farmland in the Central Valley.
Toxic water discharges into the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and their tributaries are one of several key factors in the pelagic (open water) organism decline in the California Delta, along with water exports and invasive species. Since 2005, populations of Delta smelt, longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail, threadfin shad, young striped bass and other fish species have declined to record low levels. Sacramento River fall-run chinook populations also collapsed in 2008 and 2009, spurred unprecedented closures of river and ocean salmon fishing.
Please review the information below and attached and get back to Jennings and John Newbold if you can sign on. Please makeyour voice heard by signing the attached coalition letter and sending your organizational logo and the individual signing the letter (with title) to John Newbold (jdnewbold [at] earthlink.net) and Jennings (deltakeep [at] aol.com).
Thanks!
Dan Bacher
jennings.jpg
“Watching fisheries that God nurtured over tens of thousands of years being virtually destroyed in less than two decades while DWR, the Bureau and the State Board continue their embrace of denial is surely one of the most wretched and despicable spectacles ever witnessed.”
Bill Jennings, CSPA Executive Director/Chairman
Important Sign On Letter to Protect Water Quality
The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) and a coalition of fishing and environmental groups ask for your help in an important campaign to improve fisheries and water quality.Were seeking organizations to sign on to the attached coalition letter to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Present supporters include CSPA, PCFFA, Northern and Southern California Councils of Flyfishers, Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity, Endangered Species Coalition, Bay Institute, Planning and Conservation League, California Coastkeeper Alliance, Friends of the River, Clean Water Action, California Water Impact Network, Food & Water Watch, Southern California Watershed Alliance and many, many others who care about clean water and the fisheries that depend upon it.
Runoff from irrigated agriculture is identified as the largest source of pollution to Central Valley waterways and the Delta. Monitoring downstream of agricultural areas reveals that virtually all sites exceed water quality standards and almost two thirds are toxic to aquatic life. Pollution is identified as one of the principle causes of the collapse of Central Valleys pelagic and salmonid fisheries. Agricultural pollution also threatens drinking water supplies and public health and is a major source of groundwater impairment.
However, irrigated agriculture remains exempt from routine requirements to protect water quality that have long been applicable to virtually every other segment of society. The existing regulatory waiver covering discharges from irrigated lands expires in June 2011, and the Regional Board will consider a new long-term program at a hearing on April 7.
Unfortunately, the Regional Board is proposing a Framework that is not protective of water quality. They propose to continue the same basic approach to regulating agriculture that has proved to be a dismal failure: i.e., ceding implementation of the program to industry advocacy groups.
Under this scheme, the Board doesnt know who is discharging, what pollutants are being discharged, the localized impacts to receiving waters and whether dischargers are implementing measures to reduce or eliminate pollution or if those measures are working. Consequently, the Board cannot identify any improvement in water quality or any effort to stop pollution.
More information, including CSPA’s formal comments on the proposed Framework and PEIR can be found at the Clean Farms Clean Water button athttp://calsport.org
Regional Boards ILRP Framework website:http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/irrigated_lands/long_term_program_development
It is important that the Regional Board understand that agricultural special interests do not represent the entire Central Valley community. Make your voice heard by signing the attached coalition letter and sending your organizational logo and the individual signing the letter (with title) to John Newbold (jdnewbold [at] earthlink.net) and me (deltakeep [at] aol.com). Cheers!
Bill Jennings, Chairman
Executive Director
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
3536 Rainier Avenue
Stockton, CA 95204
t: 209-464-5067
c: 209-938-9053
f: 209-464-1028
e: deltakeep [at] aol.com
http://www.calsport.org
5 April 2011
Ms. Katherine Hart, Chair
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region
11020 Sun Center Drive, #200
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Re: Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program Framework
Dear Chairperson Hart and Board Members:
As representatives of commercial and sport fishing communities in the Central Valley and throughout California, we write to encourage the Regional Board to embrace a regulatory framework that will meaningfully reduce the pollution caused by irrigated agriculture.
Runoff from irrigated agriculture is identified as the largest source of pollution to Central Valley waterways and the Delta. This pollution is documented to be one of the principal causes of the collapse of Central Valley fisheries. Inexplicably, irrigated agriculture remains exempt from requirements to monitor discharges and identify measures implemented to reduce or eliminate pollution that have long been applicable to every other segment of society, from municipalities to industry to mom-&-pop businesses.
The present approach to regulating irrigated agriculture has grievously failed. After two iterations of the present regulatory scheme, the Regional Board doesn’t know who is actually discharging, what pollutants are being discharged, the localized impacts to receiving waters and whether management measures (BMPs) have been implemented to reduce pollution or if implemented BMPs are effective. The Board simply cannot continue to cede its regulatory responsibilities to third-party industry advocacy groups if it hopes to succeed in reducing pollutant discharges from irrigated agriculture.
We urge the Regional Board to reject the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program Framework proposed by staff and, instead, embrace an approach that has a reasonable chance of success. Continuing to avoid direct regulation of pollution dischargers cannot reduce the pollution of ambient waters.
Restoration of degraded waters and protection of water quality requires the following changes:
1. Eliminate third party coalitions and require instead that individual dischargers submit reports to the Regional Board identifying the location and content of discharges to both surface water and groundwater. The Regional Board has the duty to implement Porter-Cologne and to assure that farm dischargers do not pollute the Central Valley’s waters. Third party coalitions add bureaucracy, obfuscate critical information the Regional Board needs to have, create permanent lobbies to weaken or undermine any true regulation of farm dischargers, and cannot be effectively enforced.
2. Monitor discharges to surface water and groundwater and the effectiveness of measures implemented to reduce pollution. The blunt fact is that water quality cannot be protected if you don’t measure actual discharges to quantify pollution and evaluate the effectiveness of implemented management measures. If irrigated agriculture discharges pollution, they, like every other discharger in the state, should be required to measure what they are discharging and be able to show that their pollution is not harming any water of the State, whether the waters are flowing immediately adjacent to their fields or miles downstream.
3. Require all farm dischargers to prepare individual farm water quality management plans (FWQMPs) that identify measures implemented to reduce pollution. These plans must be made available to the Regional Board and the public. The proposed Framework fails to provide any scheme to track whether any management practices are being implemented or maintained, especially on a farm-specific basis. Nor does the Framework provide basic information about nutrients and pesticides being applied by specific farms for the Board to evaluate whether any installed measures are appropriate. The Regional Board must not tolerate another decade of delay waiting for dischargers to save the Board from its own failure to act. The Board has to stop putting off this first step and require FWQMPs be prepared by every discharger within 6 months of the termination date of the current waiver.
4. Require compliance with water quality standards in the near-term, not some uncertain distant future. Staff proposes three years to allow third-party coalitions yet another opportunity to show that whatever they are doing is resulting in implementation of effective management practices and improved water quality. The framework allows three months for coalitions to tell their existing members of the new requirements, an entire year for existing members to reconfirm their membership, and two and a half years to attract a few new members. Staff then further proposes to delay compliance by each of the categories of dischargers by another five to ten years. Given twenty-plus years of no regulation followed by seven years of failed regulation, additional delays are unacceptable.
5. Demonstrate consistency with the state’s non-point source and antidegradation policies. An irrigated lands program relying upon third party coalition groups has no likelihood of ever achieving any water quality objectives. After seven years of oversight by the Regional Board, staff cannot point to a single farm that has implemented Best Practical Treatments or Controls. Staff cannot describe or quantify the management practices, if any, that have been implemented throughout the Central Valley. The data collected during the last seven-year period shows water quality continuing to be degraded throughout large areas of the Central Valley. Furthermore, we are unaware of any consequences to a farmer who did absolutely nothing for the last seven years as long as they could say they were enrolled in a coalition. As for the coalitions, the only consequences of their missing deadlines or not achieving any measurable water quality benefits is receiving additional extensions of time or weakening of requirements. They have utterly failed to facilitate implementation of controls as is required by the Non Point Source Policy.
The only way farm dischargers will recognize any consequences of not complying with conditions of an irrigated lands program is for the Regional Board to remove the coalitions from the equation and regulate the dischargers directly. The abject failure of the existing program and coalitions to regulate agricultural runoff, the largest source of water pollution in California, demonstrates that the Regional Board should move the irrigated lands program into a regulatory system similar to the industrial and construction storm water programs. We urge the Board not to abdicate its responsibility to protect the quality of water discharged from irrigated lands.
Sincerely,
danbacher It’s official: the California “Drought” is finally over, according to today’s proclamation from Governor Jerry Brown.
gov_header.png
by Dan Bacher
Since 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger repeatedly used wildly inflated claims of a “drought” to campaign for the peripheral canal and new dams to facilitate the export of California Delta water to corporate agribusiness and southern California water agencies.
Schwarzenegger and the agribusiness lobby also used the “drought” and the alleged creation of a “New Dust Bowl” on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley as a major talking point in attacking the federal government plans (biological opinions) to protect Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River winter and spring-run chinook salmon, green sturgeon, Delta smelt and the southern resident population of killer whales from extinction.
Schwarzenegger’s successor, Jerry Brown, today finally proclaimed the official end of the drought.
“Following significant increases in statewide rainfall and mountain snowpack this season, Governor Jerry Brown today proclaimed an end to the state’s drought, but urged Californians to keep conserving water as we move into the spring and summer months,” according to statement from the Governor’s office.
“While this season’s storms have lifted us out of the drought, it’s critical that Californians continue to watch their water use,” Brown said. “Drought or no drought, demand for water in California always outstrips supply. Continued conservation is key.”
Brown said today’s announcement follows the fourth snow survey of the season, conducted by the Department of Water Resources (DWR), which found that water content in California’s mountain snowpack is 165 percent of the April 1 full season average.
A majority of the state’s major reservoirs are also above normal storage levels. Lake Oroville in Butte County, the State Water Project’s principal reservoir, is 104 percent of average for the date (80 percent of its 3.5 million acre-foot capacity).
Lake Shasta north of Redding, the federal Central Valley Project’s largest reservoir with a capacity of 4.5 million acre-feet, is at 111 percent of average (91 percent of capacity).
DWR estimates it will be able to deliver 70 percent of requested State Water Project (SWP) water this year. The estimate likely will be adjusted upward as hydrologists make adjustments for snowpack and runoff readings.
“Given the heavy water inflow from the series of storms that have swept across California, the state’s flood managers are monitoring high river flows and making flood control releases from reservoirs to maintain storage space,” Brown noted.
Governor Brown’s Proclamation officially rescinds Executive Order S-06-08, issued by Schwarzenegger on June 4, 2008 and ends the States of Emergency called by Schwarzenegger on June 12, 2008, and on February 27, 2009.
Now that Brown has officially declared the drought over, corporate agribusiness, southern California water agencies and their political allies will no longer have the “drought” to use in their fear-based campaign to build the peripheral canal/tunnel and new dams, to strip Endangered Species Act protections from Central Valley salmon and Delta fish and to increase export pumping from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
Now that the drought is officially over, they will have to use a new excuse for building the peripheral canal and new dams at a time when California is in its greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. What will be their new battle cry in their campaign to build the canal and new surface storage: the “urgent” need to stop the threat of catastrophic flooding from too much water going down the Central Valley and other rivers? Will their new slogan be: “Prevent Flooding: Build the Peripheral Canal And New Dams”?
For additional information on California’s water supply, please visit the Department of Water Resources website at: http://www.water.ca.gov.
The Governor’s proclamation, signed today, is copied below:
A PROCLAMATION BY THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS on June 4, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-06-08, which proclaimed a statewide drought, and ordered executive branch entities to take immediate action to address the water shortage; and,
WHEREAS on June 12, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger proclaimed a State of Emergency for nine Central Valley counties because the drought had caused conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property; and,
WHEREAS on February 27, 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger proclaimed a State of Emergency for the entire state as the severe drought conditions continued and the impacts were well beyond the Central Valley; and,
WHEREAS the Department of Water Resources today conducted the fourth snow survey of the season and found that water content in California’s mountain snowpack is 165 percent of the season average; and,
WHEREAS a majority of California’s major reservoirs are above normal storage levels; and,
WHEREAS Lake Oroville, the State Water Project’s principal reservoir, is 104 percent of average, and Lake Shasta, the federal Central Valley Project’s largest reservoir, is at 111 percent of average; and,
WHEREAS the Department of Water Resources estimates it will be able to deliver 70 percent of the requested State Water Project water this year, and this estimate is likely to be adjusted upward after additional snowpack and runoff readings; and,
WHEREAS I am advised by the appropriate agencies of the State of California that current conditions warrant the termination of Executive Order S-06-08 and ending the States of Emergency called on June 12, 2008, and on February 27, 2009.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor of the State of California, in accordance with the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the statutes of the State of California, do hereby PROCLAIM THE DROUGHT TO BE AT AN END.
I FURTHER DIRECT that state and public agencies cease all further activities in reliance on Executive Order S-06-08 and the States of Emergency called on June 12, 2008, and February 27, 2009, and that Executive Order S-06-08 and the drought State of Emergency proclamations are terminated.
IT IS STRONGLY ENCOURAGED that all Californians continue to minimize water usage and engage in water conservation efforts.
I FURTHER DIRECT that as soon as hereafter possible, this proclamation be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State and that widespread publicity and notice be given to this proclamation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of California to be affixed this 30th day of March 2011.
____________________________________
EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
Governor of California
ATTEST:
____________________________________
DEBRA BOWEN
Secretary of State
###
danbacher “I’m very concerned about the decline in the winter and spring runs,” said Dick Pool, administrator for Water for Fish. “Regardless of what happens with the fall run, the decline of winter and spring runs will greatly impact the fishery if the numbers continue to decline.”
Salmon season is welcome news, but efforts needed to rebuild all runsby Dan Bacher
Recreational anglers fishing from Fort Bragg to Morro Bay in 2011 will see a season similar to that back in 2007, the last “normal” salmon year before the collapse of Sacramento River salmon stocks spurred the closure of recreational and commercial salmon fishing off California and southern Oregon and limited seasons in 2008 and 2009.
The season, scheduled to open on April 2 from Horse Mountain in Humboldt County to the U.S./Mexico border, is based on the National Marine Fisheries Service’s ocean abundance estimate of 729, 893 Sacramento fall chinooks this year. This figure is developed from modeling derived from a 2010 jack (two-year-old) salmon escapement to the Sacramento River in 2010.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) at its meeting in Tacoma, Washington on March 9 adopted three public review alternatives for the 2011 recreational and commercial salmon fishing season off the West Coast. The Council will select a final alternative at their next meeting in San Mateo, California on April 9-14.
“We are glad to see three alternatives calling for much better fishing south of Cape Falcon, due to strong forecasted abundance of Sacramento River and Klamath River fall Chinook,” said Pacific Council Chairman Mark Cedergreen. “While we will have significant ocean seasons off Washington and northern Oregon, we still have some conservation solutions to work on for the salmon stocks in this area.”
To back up the PFMC’s decision to open salmon fishing on April 2, the California Fish and Game Commission voted unanimously in emergency session on Monday, March 14 to approve the April 2 opener. If the commission had waited until its next regular meeting on April 6, fishermen would not have been able to get out on opening day to pursue salmon.
“I’m encouraged by the increased fishing opportunities this year and the up tick in fall salmon numbers,” said Dick Pool, administrator for Water for Fish. “I think that the trucking and pen rearing program in San Pablo Bay had a lot to do with the increased numbers of fall chinook.”
“However, there are still reasons to be concerned,” said Pool. “The fall run is still way below what we need for a sustainable fishery. We have a lot more work to do. When the returns get to 400,000 to 450,000 fish, we can begin to relax.”In 2008 and 2009, poor Sacramento returns led to the largest salmon fishery closure on record. The federal and state governments claimed that ocean conditions led to the collapse, while fishing groups, environmental organizations and Indian Tribes pointed to record water exports to southern California and agribusiness and declining water quality as the key factors behind the crash.
In 2010, alternatives improved, with the first commercial fishing season off California in three years.
“This year, abundance is predicted to increase substantially, sufficient to provide robust fisheries and exceed the conservation goal of 122,000 – 180,000 spawning adult salmon,” according to Cedargreen.
The three recreational management alternatives adopted by the Council for recreational ocean salmon fisheries from Pigeon Point to the U.S. Mexico Border (Monterey South) feature an April 2 opening day and different dates for the season closure. Fishing will be open seven days a week in all alternatives.
All three options require a minimum size limit of 24 inches total, a measure taken to minimize any contact with Sacramento River winter run chinook, an endangered species. The limit will be two fish per day of all salmon except coho.
Alternative 1 will allow a season of April 2 through October 2, alternative 2, from April 2 through September 18, and alternative 3, from April 2 through September 5.The three alternatives for recreational salmon seasons from Point Arena to Pigeon Point (San Francisco) are the same, as those of the Monterey South region except for they will feature later closure dates.
Alternative 1 features a season from April 2 through November 13. Option 2 provides for a season from April 2 through October 16, while Option 3 allows a season April 2 through September 18.
Alternative 1 for the Horse Mt. to Point Arena (Fort Bragg) zone will be April 2 through November 13. Alternative 2 will run April 2 through October 16. Finally, alternative 3 will run April 2 through September 18.
Ocean Chinook fishing alternatives in the Brookings/Crescent City/Eureka area – the Klamath Management Zone (KMZ) – open in May and continue through September 5.
Like the seasons further south, the season is open seven days per week. The limit for all salmon except coho is two fish per day and Chinook minimum size limit is 24 inches total.
In 2006, the Council established a rebuilding plan for Klamath River fall Chinook after three years of low spawning returns. Since that time returns have increased, and in 2010 were sufficient to meet the Council’s criteria for declaring the stock rebuilt.
“The 2011 Klamath River Fall Chinook forecast is near average and will allow opportunity for ocean and river fisheries while achieving the minimum spawning goal of 35,000 natural adult spawners,” Cedergreen stated.
The chinook season alternatives from OR/CA Border to Horse Mt. (California KMZ) will all close on September 5, but are based on different opening dates. The three alternatives are May 7 through September 5, May 21 through September 5, and May 28 through September 5 (C.6).
Public hearings to receive input on the alternatives are scheduled for March 28 in Westport, Washington and Coos Bay, Oregon; and for March 29 in Eureka, California. The Council will consult with scientists, hear public comment, and revise preliminary decisions until it chooses a final alternative at its meeting during the week of April 9 in San Mateo, California.At its April meeting in San Mateo, the Council will narrow the three alternatives to a single season recommendation to be forwarded to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for their final approval before May 1.
The recreational salmon fishing season alternatives also include also both mark-selective and non-mark selective coho fishing seasons starting in June or July and running into August or September in Oregon waters south of Cape Falcon, Oregon.
While the fall run chinook population numbers of Klamath and Sacramento fish allow for expanded recreational and commercial seasons this year, the Sacramento winter chinook population plummeted to only 1,596 fish, including 1,555 adults and 41 jacks, in 2010.
The winter run population, through a number of measures including changing of the operation of the Red Bluff Diversion Dam and the maintenance of cold water curtains on Shasta and Whiskeytown dams, steadily rose from only 200 adult fish in 1991 to 16,764 fish in 2006. The population has declined ever since.
The Central Valley spring chinook salmon population, after years of rising abundance due to the removal of dams and other habitat improvements on Butte Creek and other Sacramento River tributaries, has declined over the past few years also.
A total of 4,612 fish, including 1,661 hatchery fish and 2,951 natural spawners, returned to the system in 2010. In contrast, an estimated 21,319 natural spawners and 4,052 adult hatchery fish came back in 2005.
“I’m very concerned about the decline in the winter and spring runs,” said Pool. “Regardless of what happens with the fall run, the decline of winter and spring runs will greatly impact the fishery if the numbers continue to decline.”
He identified providing Delta flows in favor of fish and the state’s support of the federal biological opinions protecting Central Salmon and Delta smelt as long term solutions to restoring salmon runs to historical numbers.
For more information, go to: Pacific Fishery Management Council: http://www.pcouncil.org
danbacher CEQA Is Fundamental to Managing California’s Water
by Dan Bacher
A coalition of fishing and environmental groups on March 26 announced their strong opposition to proposed budget cuts that will undermine one of California’s landmark environmental laws, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The organizations include the California Water Impact Network, Aqualliance, Southern California Watershed Group, Friends of the Trinity River, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, and San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association.
Environmentalists and fishermen claim that the “GOP Five” – Senators Anthony Cannella of Ceres, Sam Blakeslee of San Luis Obispo, Tom Berryhill of Modesto, Tom Harman of Huntington Beach, and Bill Emmerson of Hemet – are holding the budget hostage, demanding major concessions to CEQA that weaken environmental, fishery and public health protections.
In February, Senator Canella introduced SB 241—a measure that would allow 125 projects to receive immunity from CEQA. Now he is working as part of the “GOP Five” on a more sweeping proposal attempting to attack CEQA from all angles.
“California’s landmark Environmental Quality Act is fundamental to the responsible management of California’s water supply,” according to a joint press release from the coalition. “Prior to CEQA, water law was defined mostly by litigation between private parties over ownership of water rights. After CEQA, water users also had to explicitly consider the environment. Two landmark lawsuits show the importance of CEQA to areas of origin.”
First, the Owens Valley Restoration Program resulted from a landmark lawsuit by Inyo County. In 1972, Inyo County sued Los Angeles over its management of the Owens Valley floor, and won a restoration water to the lower Owens Valley River. The Owens Valley water supply is now jointly managed by Inyo County and Los Angeles.
Second, the Mono Lake decision is a landmark case that upheld the “public trust” doctrine. In 1994, as part of the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, the California State Water Resources Board gave the order that actually put water back in Mono Lake.
“As California’s water supply becomes a commodity, CEQA will become central to balancing the economic value of water with environmental impacts of water diversions,” said Carolee Krieger, executive director of the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN. “The largest diverter of water is the State Water Project, which sends water from Northern California via the Delta to cities in Southern California. CEQA has been used to ensure that the SWP uses responsible assumptions in its projections of water supplies.”
In 1994, the Department of Water Resources instituted the “Monterey Agreements,” which threw out the safe yield of the project as the determining factor in water supply decisions, according to Krieger. A CEQA challenge followed. A landmark 2000 court decision ruled that the state could not rely on “”entitlements [which] represent nothing more than hopes, expectations, water futures, or as the parties refer to them, ‘paper water.’” This is a critical decision for responsible use of California’s water.
California has large desert regions, and the temptation is ever present for developers to build with water supplies that are mostly wishful thinking. Recent legislation requires major new developments to show proof of a reliable water supply. Courts have held that CEQA is the fundamental law for enforcing this requirement.
California faces unique challenges in the 21st century in living within its water supply, according to the groups. CEQA will be fundamental to meeting the needs of a growing population while still protecting the environment.
“CEQA and other modern environmental laws are essential to protecting the public trust and should not be subject to revision for special interests in budget negotiations,” the groups concluded.
The proposed budget cuts couldn’t come at a worse time for California fisheries. While Central Valley fall chinook salmon populations are on the upswing from the unprecedented collapse of 2008-2009, Sacramento River winter and spring run salmon populations are on an alarming decline.
The DFG continues to observe record low population levels of Delta smelt, longfin smelt, Sacrament splittail, young striped bass, threadfin shad and other pelagic fish in its annual fall midwater trawl surveys.
A number of factors have led to the collapse of Central Valley salmon and Delta pelagic (open water) fish populations, led by increased water exports from the California Delta to southern California and corporate agribusiness and declining water quality.
For more information, contact: Barbara Vlamis, Aqualliance (530) 895-9420, or Carolee Krieger, CWIN (805) 969-0824.
To take action, go to: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/03/26/18675625.php
danbacher John Laird, Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, is scheduled to provide an update (item 15A) regarding North Coast marine protected areas under the MLPA Initiative on April 7 at 9:30 a.m.
mlpa_logo.jpg
Commission meeting will feature MLPA update, salmon regs
The California Fish and Game Commission will discuss the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative on the North Coast, recreational salmon fishing regulations for the Klamath-Trinity River system and recreational salmon fishing regulations for the Sacramento River and tributaries during its meeting in Folsom April 6 and 7.
The meeting will be held at the Lake Natoma Inn, 702 Gold Lake Drive, Sierra Ballroom, Folsom.
On Thursday, April 7 at 9:30 am, John Laird, Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency is scheduled to provide an update (item 15A) regarding North Coast marine protected areas under the MLPA Initiative.
That will be followed by an update (item 15B) on the Department Fish and Game (DFG) feasibility analysis regarding North Coast marine protected areas under the MLPA Initiative.
The Commission, in a special hearing on February 2, directed the DFG to develop a revised marine protected area network proposal for the North Coast Study Region, based on and consistent with the Unified North Coast proposal from the RSG (Regional Stakeholders Group and BRTF (Blue Ribbon Task Force), that accommodates the stakeholders’ expressed intent to allow for traditional, non-commercial subsistence, ceremonial, cultural and stewardship uses by Tribal people.
“There is no evidence that tribes have had a negative impact upon the ecosystem,” said Thomas O’Rourke, Chair of the Yurok Tribal Council. “They have been part of the ecosystem since time immemorial. Science needs to recognize people as part of the ecosystem. If you don’t include people, the proposal will fail. Our rights are not negotiable.”
Tribal members at the hearing indicated they were willing to engage in civil disobedience if tribal rights weren’t protected. “When grandma wants mussels, it will take a lot more than Wild Justice to prevent me from doing this,” quipped Sammy Gensaw Jr., Yurok Tribal Member. (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/03/08/18674116.php)
Since the joint meeting, Secretary Laird’s staff has been working with staff and attorneys from DFG, California State Parks, the California Attorney General’s office, the MLPA Initiative and a number of the north coast tribes to identify a potential administrative solution to allowing traditional tribal gathering within marine protected areas. “Those discussions are ongoing and an update is expected at the commission’s April meeting,” according to the MLPA Initiative North Coast News: Issue 9.
In a related matter, Dr. Jeanine Pfeiffer et. all, will present a tribal harvesting paper, entitled “Native Science, Harvesting and Conservation,” to the Commission on Wednesday, April 6. Wednesday’s meeting starts at 10 a.m.
On Thursday, the Fish and Game Commission will also receive public testimony on proposed changes to Klamath-Trinity sport fishing regulations for the upcoming salmon season. Following the testimony on the Klamath-Trinity regulations, the Commission will hear public testimony on proposed changes to the Central Valley sport fishing regulations for the upcoming salmon season.
That will be followed by the receipt of public testimony on proposed changes for ocean salmon sport fishing regulations.
The adoption hearing for the Klamath/Trinity, Central Valley and ocean sport fishing regulations is scheduled for April 21, 2011, at a special teleconference meeting.
Also of note: One of the items to be discussed in a closed executive session on April 6 is the lawsuit by United Anglers of Southern California, Coastside Fishing Club and Robert C. Fletcher against the Fish and Game Commission regarding the South Coast and North Central Coast marine protected areas under the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative.
For more information on the two day meeting, contact the California Fish and Game Commission, 916-653-4899, http://www.fgc.ca.gov
danbacher While fall run chinook salmon numbers are on the upswing, the Sacramento adult winter chinook population, an endangered species, plummeted to only 1,596 fish in 2010.
Photo of winter-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) reared to adulthood in a captive broodstock program at Bodega Marine Laboratory courtesy of UC Davis.
salmon_clip_image002.jpg
by Dan Bacher
The National Marine Fisheries Service forecasts an ocean abundance of 729,893 Sacramento fall chinooks this year, based on modeling derived from a 2010 jack (two-year-old) salmon escapement to Central Valley rivers in 2010, while the winter and spring runs continue to decline.
Due to the increased fall salmon abundance, recreational and commercial fishermen will see more liberal salmon season seasons on the California and southern California coast this year. The recreational salmon fishing season will open on Saturday, April 2 in ocean waters from Horse Mountain in Humboldt County to the U.S./Mexico border.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) at its meeting in Tacoma, Washington on March 9 adopted three public review alternatives for the 2011 recreational and commercial salmon fishing season off the West Coast. The Council will select a final alternative at their next meeting in San Mateo, California on April 9-14.
The salmon numbers were first released during the DFG’s annual informational salmon fishery meeting in Santa Rosa on March 1, an event during which officials from the National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Fish and Game and the PFMC spoke to and listened to a packed room of recreational fishermen and commercial fishermen.
“The salmon fishery is definitely going in the right direction – we’re more optimistic about the fishery’s recovery than we have been in several years,” said Craig Stone, owner of the Emeryville Sportfishing Center. “Whereas last year recreational anglers were split over whether not to have a salmon season, I think everybody is behind us having a salmon season this year.”
The 125,300 Sacramento River adult fall chinooks that returned to spawn in 2010 included 43,360 fish that returned to the hatcheries and 89,654 salmon that spawned in Central Valley rivers. The 27,500 jacks included 15,482 hatchery fish and 14,699 river spawners, according to Brent Kornos of the California Department of Fish and Game.
“In both the Upper Sacramento River and San Joaquin River systems, we saw the greatest spawning escapement of both adults and jacks,” stated Kornos.
This is an improvement over the 2009 and 2010 record low years, but still nowhere near normal for the river that has historically been the driver for West Coast salmon fisheries. The 10-year (1997-2006) pre-disaster return averaged roughly 475,000 fish.
A total of 798,770 adult chinooks, including 94,223 hatchery fish and 704,547 natural spawners, returned to the Sacramento River and its tributaries to spawn in 2002.
Back to square one on the winter run
At the same time, the Sacramento adult winter chinook population, an endangered species, plummeted to only 1,596 fish in 2010, according to Kornos.
The winter run population, through a number of measures including changing of the operation of the Red Bluff Diversion Dam and the maintenance of cold water curtains on Shasta and Whiskeytown dams, steadily rose from only 200 adult fish in 1991 to 16,764 fish in 2006. However, the population then declined to 2,403 in 2007, 2,521 in 2007, 4,363 in 2009 and then 1,555 fish in 2010.
“Three or four years ago, we thought we were over the hump,” said Stone. “Now we’re back to square one. I hope we get to see the recovery of the winter run in my lifetime.”
To preserve this fragile population, the seasons will have to be crafted around avoiding impacts upon the winter run. Federal biologists recommended that be done through either raising the recreational size limit to 24 inches or reducing the length of the season – or a combination of both.
The management of this endangered species is in transition between a salmon management plan developed nearly two decades ago and a more recent biological opinion protecting Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento winter run and spring run chinook salmon, green sturgeon and the southern resident population of killer whales.
“We’re concerned about what happens now to the winter run now that we’ve seen four straight years of low returns,” said Dan Lawson, NMFS biologist. “The old thinking was that as long as the numbers are increasing, we couldn’t be harming the winter run through the fishing regulations.”
Lawson said that they are hoping to have a new management plan in operation by 2012. Meanwhile, they will address the impacts upon winter run chinook by either having a shorter season or establishing a 24 inch size limit that minimizes any potential mortality to winter run chinooks. The winter run are found mostly from Point Arena in Mendocino County to Monterey.
Winnemem Wintu Tribe working to reintroduce winter run to McCloud
The Winnemem Wintu Tribe, along with opposing the peripheral canal and a plan to raise Shasta Dam, is trying to pressure the federal and state governments to support their plan to reintroduce McCloud winter run chinook salmon from New Zealand to the McCloud River above Shasta Lake. Thirty members of the Tribe went to New Zealand last spring to conduct joint ceremonies with the Maori people to bring salmon eggs from winter run chinook, now thriving in the Rakaira and other rivers, back to their native river. (http://blogs.alternet.org/danbacher/2011/03/08/winnemem-leader- challenges-feinsteins-idea-of-peace-on-the-river/)
The Central Valley spring chinook salmon population, after years of rising abundance due to the removal of dams and other habitat improvements on Butte Creek and other Sacramento River tributaries, has declined over the past few years also. A total of 4,612 fish, including 1,661 hatchery fish and 2,951 natural spawners, returned to the system in 2010. In contrast, an estimated 21,319 natural spawners and 4,052 adult hatchery fish came back in 2005.
The Sacramento River fall chinook run, the driver of West Coast salmon fisheries, declined from 798,770 adult chinooks in 2002 to only 39,530 fish in 2009. The unprecedented collapse prompted the federal and state governments to close recreational and commercial salmon fishing off the California and southern Oregon coast in 2008 and 2009.
Due to improved ocean salmon numbers, a severely restrictive commercial season and short recreational season opened in 2010.
Factors figuring prominently in the Central Valley salmon and Delta pelagic (open water) species collapses include water exports from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, increases in toxic chemicals and ammonia discharges into Central Valley streams and the failure of the state of California to regulate agricultural water pollution. Ocean conditions also played a role in the Sacramento salmon crash.
Klamath Basin: Scott and Shasta River runs are down
On the Klamath River, the ocean abundance forecast for fall run chinooks is 371,114 fish, noted Morgan Knechetle, DFG biologist. This compares to an abundance forecast of 331,500 fish in 2010.
“The preseason forecast of the number of fall chinooks returning to the Klamath Basin was 110,700, compared to a post season estimate of 91,000 fish,” he stated. “We didn’t quite make our goal.”
He was concerned that both the Shasta and Scott River natural spawning salmon populations were down in 2010. A total of only 2507 fall chinook returned to the Scott River in 2010, compared to an average run of 5,200 fish. Likewise, only 1,346 salmon returned to the Shasta in 2010, less than one third of average and a far cry from the 75,000 fish that returned to the river in 1935.
The recreational ocean salmon season alternatives from the OR/CA Border to Horse Mountain (California Klamath Management Zone) will all close on September 5, but are based on different opening dates. The three alternatives are May 7 through September 5, May 21 through September 5, and May 28 through September 5.
More information on west coast salmon returns and ocean fisheries can be found online in the PFMC’s “Review of the 2010 Ocean Salmon Fisheries” athttp://www.pcouncil.org/salmon/stock-assessment-and-fishery-evaluation-safe-documents/review-of-2010-ocean-salmon-fisheries/.
A list of meetings to be held throughout the season setting process can be found on DFG’s website at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/oceansalmon.asp
danbacher Below is an excellent article by Patrick Porgans about the status of flood control operations in the Central Valley that puts the current storms into perspective. ”By all accounts, the data indicate that the current weather conditions are mild in comparison to others stormy winters in recent history, such as the storm events of 1997 and 1986, when California was declared to be suffering a flood state of emergency,’” Porgans stated,
California is Weathering the Storm
By Patrick Porgans
Although California and the Pacific Northwest have been battered by a series of winter storm systems, the Golden State’s major flood control systems are holding steady. No need for Noah to get the Ark out yet.
According to the National Weather Service, more storms are on the way. The good news is that they are colder storms, meaning lower snow levels in the Sierra and a reduction of sudden runoff from warmer storms which can cause severe flooding.
Many mainstream news media outlets, print and electronic, have been painting current weather conditions as much more serious that they are, either to hype ratings or subscriptions or because the modern 24-hour news cycle demands that virtually all “news” be blown out of proportion to hold public attention.
In my recent conversations with flood control experts at the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), they assure me the state’s flood control system is functioning as designed and “dam operators” up and down the state are running the integrated flood control system by the “book.” This was confirmed by an online perusal of the government internet sites where this information is posted.
Heavy river flows throughout the state are being regulated by professional federal and state personnel at California’s Operation Control Center (OCC). They are at the controls of a massive century-in-the-making flood control system, comprised of dams, levees, weirs, and bypasses, enabling them to channel water and flood flows within the design criteria of the system.
The state’s largest flood control system is located in the Sacramento River Basin, designed to drain the swollen streams and rivers during precipitous weather events. Without this system the current series of storms would have already caused major flooding in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys.
One of the state’s premier flood control experts at the Operations Control Center is Maury Roos, hydrologist, with the Department of Water Resources who has been on the job for five decades. In my recent discussion with Mr. Roos, I learned that as of 23 March, in the northern reach of the Sacramento Valley and the upper reaches of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, natural water runoff and floodwater releases were at 140,000 cubic feet per second (CFS), which is about 25 percent of the system’s design capacity. The system could handle an additional 460,000 cfs, which is an enormous about of water.
Presently, flood-related discharges are in the lower ranges; and the Sacramento Valley has had a number of reprieves aided by intermittent periods of no rain between storms.
By all accounts, the data indicate that the current weather conditions are mild in comparison to others stormy winters in recent history, such as the storm events of 1997 and 1986, when California was declared to be suffering a “flood state of emergency.” In those years, floodwater and runoff discharges were reportedly around 600,000 cubic feet per second, right at the design capacity of the flood control system. During those events, levees broke, significant damages occurred, and the system was tested to its limits.
Currently, according to Mr. Roos, the state’s flood control system has significant cushion and space to handle what is in the near-term forecast. However, here on the eastern flank of the Pacific Rim, changes that could create the “Perfect Storm” are only a matter of a series of warm storms coming from the southwest, known as the “Pineapple Express”, which could overwhelm the system.
This type of system brings lots of rain at the higher elevations and the melting High Country snow accelerates natural runoff, forcing additional flood water releases from the Sierra foothill dams. Under these conditions, breaks in the aging Delta levee system and river overflows are a distinct possibility. Although there have been a few minor breaches in levees in this current bout of wet weather, the flood control system as a whole is holding together.
Under the prevailing weather conditions, it is imperative that the flood control system and the “releases from the dams” remain compliant with the federal Master Flood Control Manual, which details the procedures and methods of operating the state’s flood control system. Actions of current state flood control workers have shown a marked improvement in managing and operating the system over the last decade. They are to be commended. It is a far cry from the manner in which the system was “managed and operated” during the 1986 and 1997 flood events, when it was determined that floodwater releases from several major dams were not in compliance with federal safety protocols, resulting in downstream damage and loss of life.
Given the recent massive earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster in Japan, Californians, who, like the Japanese, live along the so-called ring of fire which delineates the earthquake zone around the Pacific Ocean, should be counting their blessings and thanks should be given to the federal and state’s flood personnel. ±Ω±
Patrick Porgans can be reached at pp [at] planetarysolutionaries.org
danbacher This special Delta “Stewardship” Council report by Brett Baker, along with editorial comments by Restore the Delta staff, is very enlightening about what is going on with the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. “It certainly shows that if Delta residents don’t speak up about their homes, farms, communities, fisheries, Delta related businesses and their way of lives, all could be lost to a bunch of people more interested in selling water and growing low value crops and crops for export at our expense,” said Roger Mammon Restore the Delta board member.
Fishermen, family farmers, Indian Tribe members, environmentalists and other concerned people are fighting efforts by the Brown and Obama administrations to build a peripheral canal to export more water to southern California water agencies and corporate agribusiness on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. We must not allow the state and federal governments, under pressure by water privateers, developers, agribusiness and other corporate operatives, to build a canal that is likely to result in the extinction of Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon and other imperiled species.
“When asked for some scientific backing for the recommendations he had spent the last half hour expounding upon, Leo Winternitz of the Nature Conservancy was only able to point to a picture from the Delta Vision Report (as if he had forgotten that the DSC chair’s name was on the by-line of the report) and spout some thoughts on what could be extrapolated from the photo, which seemed hardly enough to justify continuing the conversation,” Baker noted.
whyrtd2.jpg
-Tears for Fears
Special DSC report by Brett Baker; Editorial comments by RTD staff
Grab a cup of tea. This is a detailed rocounting of what is happening with the Delta Stewardship Council. We have tried to define acronyms to best of our ability.
Choose your words carefully
The Delta Stewardship Council held its most recent meeting in the Old Sugar Mill in Clarksburg. Maybe they heard that it was a cool hangout.
From the Council side of the discussion it was apparent that they were still trying to come to grips with their time line and legislative directive to produce a meaningful, defined and beneficial Delta Plan. There is still a substantial amount of uncertainty regarding the Council’s role in regulating California’s water system, and folks on both sides of the table are struggling to gain a better understanding of the scope of the council’s authority under the language of the legislation.
Two panel discussions were scheduled for the Thursday meeting. They were listed as “Focused Panel Discussions” on the agenda, so I will try and keep this summary and analysis as focused as possible.
The morning panel’s discussion was to focus on the Ecosystem of the Delta. The discussion in my opinion was more focused “around” the ecosystem as panelists were questioned, rather explicitly, on building a northern intake, determining the agricultural value of the Delta as a place, and deciding how best to carry out restoration efforts in the Delta.
The Panel consisted of Roger Patterson (Metropolitan Water District), Carl Wilcox (California Department of Fish and Game), Bill Bennett (UC Davis), Gary Bobker (The Bay Institute), and Leo Winternitz (The Nature Conservancy). Russell Van Loben Sels, a local Delta farmer, was listed on the agenda, but wasn’t able to attend.
(Van Loben Sels has been out of the country and doesn’t recall being invited to participate. He doesn’t appear to have been a confirmed speaker, and there doesn’t appear to have been any attempt on the part of panel organizers to find another Delta farmer for the panel. That’s too bad. Plenty of Delta people in-the-know could have provided a local perspective on the Delta ecosystem to balance all those outside-the-Delta views.)
Fish Guru Bill Bennett of UC Davis Spoke most freely and directly addressed the flawed premises behind much of the science the BDCP and other faux scientific reports that have been coming out about the Delta. Each individual body has a view of the Delta in the future, and that view biases their reports. Bennett told the Council that they need to define what it is that they want for the Delta.
Bennett prefaced his remarks with a statement of his own assumption that we intend to have Chinook Salmon in the system in the future. He was serious, and I commend him for it. He suggested many areas where there is room for improvement. As an example, he mentioned the current status of our hatchery techniques and the potential for improvement, citing a need for expanding the diversity in techniques for releasing and acclimating fish into the river system.
Some of the panelists brought outlines of their talking points.
Carl Wilcox (CDFG) brought in a list of Fish and Game’s top three priorities:
Change the point of diversion for water exports from the Delta to the Sacramento River
Improve and increase tributary inflow to provide more natural hydrology within the Delta
Increase the amount of intertidal and floodplain habitat within the Delta as identified in Bay Delta Conservation Plan and Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan (ERP, formally CALFED ERP).
But when council members noted that both BDCP and CALFED seemed to lack justification for their goals and objectives, and asked Wilcox for some scientific or biological justification for DCFG’s objectives, Wilcox responded that these were longstanding policies of the Department. When asked for a graph, figure or page number where such justification could be found in any of the millions of pages of scientific literature or bureaucratic reports, he could provide none. “It doesn’t exist” was his only response.
Leo Winternitz (The Nature Conservancy) brought in some “Draft recommendations to address Delta Habitat Restoration Needs (Based on BDCP Habitat Restoration Objectives).” The two pager contained numerical acreage targets for restoration, with timelines for implementation, but was silent on the mechanism by which the lands should be obtained and what the justification for the targets was. They may just as well have been conjured out of thin air. It also made me question their math skills.
But let’s go over the targets for kicks:
90,000 acres of aquatic habitat:
65k acres tidal marsh
10K acres floodplain
5K acres Riparian Habitat
40 miles of channel margin habitat
at least 10K acres Seasonal and Managed Wetlands
up 200 acres vernal pool complex
As for terrestrial habitat:
· 2K acres Grassland communities
· up to 32K Agricultural habitat, mitigation and preservation
At one point in the discussion, the Council solicited examples of regulations the panelists would implement if they were in the Council’s position. Oddly enough, panelists struggled and balked. When asked for some scientific backing for the recommendations he had spent the last half hour expounding upon, Winternitz was only able to point to a picture from the Delta Vision Report (as if he had forgotten that the DSC chair’s name was on the by-line of the report) and spout some thoughts on what could be extrapolated from the photo, which seemed hardly enough to justify continuing the conversation.
I find it worth noting that when questioned about the appropriateness of the Legislatively-created Delta Conservancy being the exclusive body to carry out restoration projects, it was quickly pointed out that the law said “a” and not “the” body responsible for the work. This was supported by CDFG saying they didn’t see the Conservancy as being the “exclusive” body either.
[Restore the Delta is vehemently opposed to the governmental taking of lands for the use of habitat restoration or mitigation for past or future project operations. We believe that Delta communities are as deserving of protection as Delta fisheries. We maintain that the best plan for the Delta is the creation of a world class region where profitable, sustainable agriculture and habitat thrive together. The Delta holds the blueprint for sustainability within its past and its future.
Government agencies and other non-governmental agencies involved in the "Delta planning industry" bring nothing but economic harm to the Delta community by talking endlessly about taking 100,000 acres of Delta farmland out of production and by waving their maps and plans around at press conferences and agency meetings. Perhaps this is their intent - transforming the Delta from a unique and thriving region with need for some improvement (like most places)-into a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. But we also know that this approach will backfire on its promoters.
We recommend to the DSC and other governmental agencies that existing state lands (about 60,000 acres) be used first for wetlands habitat for fisheries. In addition, we find much merit in Dr. Robert Pyke's idea that sunken islands like Frank's Tract should be restored for fish habitat purposes.
Beyond those efforts, which would go a long way toward creating habitat, Restore the Delta believes that opportunities exist over time for habitat creation as part of upgraded levees. (It seems that most other countries in the world have figured out how to put habitat on secure levee banks along rivers; we should be able to do the same.) And if local farmers voluntarily make land sacrifices for habitat creation on their levees or elsewhere, they should be compensated.
We have spent years and may millions of dollars supporting Central Valley farmers with cheap water deliveries and other subsidies for growing cotton and almonds for export. Compensating farmers for helping with the restoration of Chinook Salmon, which we once canned at 5 million pounds per year in the Delta, seems to us a better use of public money. After all Delta fruit and veggies, wine, and salmon is the food of the gods - or at least the food of California culture - and are essential to a safe, secure, and sustainable local food supply.]
Back to the DSC story, Roger Patterson of Metropolitan Water district was on the panel as well, and as he was on the outer reaches of his expertise (I was unaware he qualified as an ecosystem expert), he kept his comments limited but focused. He promoted the findings of the most recent PPIC report and repeatedly urged the council to “ensure BDCP get plugged in.” He pointed out that there were restraints on the Council’s Authority with respect to a conveyance recommendation, saying that in his view the Council’s Delta Plan should be a backdrop for BDCP. You can’t blame the guy for doing his job.
The gravity of the law in the enabling legislation brings this discussion back to Earth. The Council seems well aware of the fact that they have been handed a monumental task to be completed on a ludicrously truncated time schedule. The guiding legislation did not sufficiently empower the Council to tackle all of the issues that face California’s water system
Solving California’s water problems is a task some on the council have watched go uncompleted for the better part of three decades (CALFED) at an astronomical cost to the taxpayers of our state and nation. Solving them in less than a year just isn’t possible, and if the initial drafts of the Delta Plan are any indication of what they intend to produce, I would suggest that they try and be a bit more selective with the quality of their words and less focused on the quantity. It would be a shame should all this time, money and resources go into yet another empty report that summarizes what is wrong with the system but offers no real world, on-the-ground.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
The afternoon panel contained five folks chosen to lead a focused discussion on their thoughts on Providing a More Reliable Water Supply for California. Although much of what folks had in the way of recommendations sounded good in theory, there was a real lack of specifics that could be utilized by the council.
Recommendations from Ellen Hanak (Public Policy Institute of California) were a bit too grandiose (i.e. regulate ground water use, urban/ag conservation, conveyance), shifting the focus away from tangible goals and dragging some of the discussion into an economic Never-Never Land. In this fantasy realm, as long as you can sell water at a profit, it is economically beneficial and therefore intrinsically “good.”
So the Council should aid in facilitating the long-term sale of water from agricultural uses to urban allocations, phasing out and reducing the production of what Hanak describes as low value agriculture crops. Later on, Phil Isenberg pointed out that having government facilitate the transfer of water from one region to another to be sold to the highest bidder might just sound bad to some people.
Council member Randy Fiorini asked Hanak why she recommended the State Water Resources Control Board be the body to implement groundwater regulation as opposed to more local and voluntary compliance as in AB 3030. She responded that things would have to get really bad before there would be sufficient participation in voluntary compliance. She said that what she was proposing wasn’t an adjudicatory action, but conceded that that might be the end result.
David Guy (Northern California Association of Water Agencies) spoke of optimization of public resources while adding that restoring a historic hydrograph was unrealistic. He called for “stabilization” of the Delta. I’m not sure what he meant by that, but I’m also pretty sure that isn’t what the legislation called for. He promoted the most recent PPIC report, then went on to give some lip service to promoting regional sustainability and the role of “supporting actors” outside the legal Delta.
Guy also talked about stabilizing the Delta, this time on levees, and prompted an inquiry from Gloria Gray about levee prioritization, which made me wonder:
There is some logical difficulty for arguing that the Delta is such an invaluable hub of the vast network that is California ’s water system, worthy of all the attention, public resources, and political debate and gridlock, while Delta Levee Maintenance funding sits in limbo. Improving the reliability of Delta levees and therefore the conveyance of water down our state could be achieved at a fraction of the cost of all the studies, reports, theoretical discussions, and public outreach.
The panel agreed that nothing is going to happen on the ground in the way of constructing conveyance for some 15-20 years at the very least (I’d say indefinitely, but everyone’s entitled to their own opinion). Delta levees need maintaining in the future, so I would think that it would be in everyone’s best interest to continue the funding of ongoing projects in the Delta. I hope to hear the Council recommend the same.
Jonas Minton (Planning and Conservation League) spoke well on his outlined “Top Four Actions To Achieve Co-equal Objectives.”
Get the SWRCB to start updating flow standards now for existing conveyance and set standards for new conveyance.
Prioritize Delta levees for improvement and approve funding consistent with those priorities.
Call upon BDCP and other stakeholders to conduct due diligence review of a 3,000 c.f.s. conveyance.
Work with Delta interests and other including Metropolitan Water District and Westlands on phased restoration projects.
Kamyar Guivetchi (DWR) spoke on the need for increased government oversight and data in pursuit of actually getting something accomplished. Good Luck! He also went on to lobby for the creation of what he referred to as the “Water Resources Investment Fund” to increase system wide efficiency and leverage funds in Integrated Regional Water Management Planning (IRWMP) to promote regional self-sufficiency.
Jason Peltier (Westlands Water District) took time to critique the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and regulatory cutbacks of water deliveries. He had a graphic showing CVP Storage vs Agriculture Service Allocation (1952-2010). Initial and final agriculture service allocations lined up nicely until 1989.
Then the effects of a drought kicked in; winter run salmon were put on the ESA list; and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act re-allocated over one million acre feet from historic uses to the environment. CVP operators and managers have been skittish ever since, delaying allocation decisions. On the surface, this seems to affect cropping decisions, but not enough to slow down Westlands’ replacement of annual crops with permanent tree crops.
DSC member Patrick Johnson requested total water use (project and ground water) data and cropping patterns from Peltier, who agreed to provide them.
Peltier then started out with a promising commentary on Delta levees, conceding that there has never been a levee failure in the Delta due to an earthquake, that risk potential and figures in DRMS may have been exaggerated, and that a Do Not Resuscitate list of Delta islands was helpful only for the sake of discussion. Then he digressed to a contradictory discussion about the inevitability of a changing delta landscape and “letting islands go” in the future, just as we have in the past (i.e. Franks Tract).Peltier defended the construction and design of a 15K cfs facility because ” We’re settled on 15,000.”
He went on to urge the council to divide their Plan into two sections: 1) a report and recommended actions in the Delta, and 2) other recommendations for areas outside the Delta. I believe that’s where issues like groundwater regulation and selenium impaired agriculture run-off would get lost in the discussion if he were full in charge.
At the end, Peltier appealed to his base one last time. He called for existing agencies to “do their jobs,” lashing out at fish agencies for having a narrow-minded pump-centric view of the world and expounding that the “little genius” to be found in BDCP was their earth-shattering ability to look at a suite of stressors. Genius? In BDCP? Well I guess, if genius is about holding onto dated ideas from the past. And, of course, we must consider the source.
For more information about Restore the Delta, go to: http://www.restorethedelta.org.
danbacher Current Post: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/03/22/18675338.php
The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) needs your help, according to Bill Jennings, CSPA executive director/chairman.
“Restoration of the Central Valley’s degraded fisheries depends upon better flows, habitat and water quality,” said Jennings. “And, the blunt fact is that water quality won’t improve until we control the largest source of pollution to Valley waterways: discharges from irrigated agriculture.”
Under enormous political pressure, the Regional Water Quality Control Board exempted farm runoff from reasonable pollution control requirements routinely demanded from everyone else, from municipalities to industry to mom-and-pop businesses. Until this exemption ends, fish will continue to live and reproduce in a toxic soup.
“The Regional Board is adopting new long-term regulations for irrigated agriculture. CSPA has launched a campaign to persuade them to meaningfully control farm pollution,” noted Jennings.
I join Jennings in urging you to join the Clean Farms – Clean Water Campaign. We need your voice, presence and donations to help protect fisheries and clean up our degraded Central Valley waterways!
Photo: An alarming report released by then UC Davis Professor David Ostrach in 2008 documented the maternal transfer of pollutants to striped bass fry in Central Valley rivers and the California Delta, resulting in stunted and deformed fry. The top fish is a normal striped bass larva from a hatchery mother. The bottom fish is an abnormal striped bass larva from a river mother. The green arrows indicate areas of abnormal fluid accumulation, yellow areas indicate blistering and dead tissue, and red arrow indicates skeletal abnormality/curvature of the spinal cord. Photo courtesy of David Ostrach.
12-9-08ostrach.jpg
The existing regulatory waiver covering discharges from irrigated lands expires in June 2011, and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board will consider a new long-term program at a hearing on April 7.
The Clean Farms – Clean Water campaign is attempting to gather together fishermen, environmentalists, farmworkers, Tribal members, environmental justice communities and others who support abundant fisheries and clean water to urge the Regional Board to establish an effective program that will ensure that pollutant discharges from irrigated agriculture are reduced and minimized.
Runoff from irrigated agriculture is identified as the largest source of pollution to Central Valley waterways and the Delta. Monitoring downstream of agricultural areas reveals that virtually all sites exceed water quality standards and almost two thirds are toxic to aquatic life. Pollution is identified as one of the principle causes of the collapse of Central Valley fisheries.
Agricultural pollution also threatens drinking water supplies and public health and is a major source of groundwater impairment. Inexplicably, irrigated agriculture remains exempt from routine requirements to protect water quality that have long been applicable to virtually every other segment of society.
The Regional Board is proposing a Framework, which will be followed-up over the next year with specific orders. Unfortunately, they propose to continue the same basic approach to regulating agriculture that has proved to be a dismal failure: i.e., ceding implementation of the program to industry advocacy groups.
Under this scheme, the Board doesn’t know who is discharging, what pollutants are being discharged, the localized impacts to receiving waters and whether dischargers are implementing measures to reduce or eliminate pollution or if those measures are working. Consequently, the Board cannot identify any improvement in water quality or any effort to stop pollution.
More information, including CSPA’s formal comments on the proposed Framework and PEIR can be found at the Clean Farms – Clean Water button athttp://calsport.org.
Continue Reading
We ask that you do three things:
1. Circulate this information to other interested individuals and organizations.
2. Submit comments to the Regional Board urging them to reject the proposed Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program Framework.
Comments on the recommended ILRP Framework can be sent electronically to Adam Laputz (AWLaputz [at] waterboards.ca.gov) or mailed to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, 11020 Sun Center Drive, #200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670; ATTN: Adam Laputz. Phone: (916) 464-4848; Fax: (916) 464-4645
3. Plan to attend the public hearing.
Date: 7 April 2011
Time: 8:30 AM
Place: Central Valley Water Board office
11020 Sun Center Drive, Suite 200
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
The Regional Board will hold 3 sequential hearings on the following:
· The Proposed Framework
· Adoption of the PEIR
· Continuation for the Ag Waiver for 3 Years
It is important that the Regional Board understand that agribusiness special interests do not represent the entire Central Valley community. Make your voice heard!
