danbacher 79 people have been arrested for asserting their First Amendment rights at Cesar Chavez Park since Oct. 6 when Occupy Sacramento began.
Photo: Renowned civil liberties lawyer Mark Merin speaks at an Occupy Sacramento news conference on Monday, October 24. Photo by Dan Bacher.
by Dan Bacher
Volunteer lawyers announced late Monday they will file a civil rights lawsuit against the City of Sacramento in federal court Tuesday on behalf of those arrested at Occupy Sacramento – and will ask for a temporary restraining to stop arrests at the Cesar Chavez Park demonstration.
“Similar federal lawsuits in other U.S. cities have resulted in an end to arrests,” according to Cres Vellucci, Occupy Sacramento spokesman.
79 people have been arrested for asserting their First Amendment rights at Cesar Chavez Park since Oct. 6 when Occupy Sacramento began. So far about half of those have gone to court on misdemeanor charges (6 months in jail, $1,000 fine).
“When the District Attorney refused to file charges last week claiming no laws were broken, the City of Sacramento took over the prosecution,” said Vellucci.
All were either defended by more than a dozen volunteer lawyers or the Public Defender office.
Details of the litigation will be released at a major press conference TUESDAY, 2 p.m. at the Federal Courthouse (5th & I Streets). Lawyers and plaintiffs will be available for comment.
Four more Occupy Sacramento protestors arrested for asserting their First Amendment rights at Cesar Chavez Park went to court today. Two of them are veterans, who made a statement about the horrendous injury to ex-Marine Scott Olsen at the hands of police in a raid at the Occupy Oakland site last week. Those arraigned were Daniel Garza (Iraq Vet), Gabriela DeOliveira, Sean Thompson and Kathryn Coke.
Vellucci also announced that Occupy Sacramento has filed a public records request to discover the true costs of the City of Sacramento’s suppression of First Amendment rights.
“The costs should be much more than than in Phoenix Arizona, where the city spent over $200,000,” said Cres Vellucci of Occupy Sacramento. “We have 18-45 vehicles and 40-80 officers at protests at curfew at Cesar Chavez Park.”
“We’ve also asked for all correspondence between police, city staff, mayor and city council about Occupy Sacramento. They have 10 days to respond (from last week),” noted Vellucci.
Activists at Occupy Sacramento have used increasingly creative actions to dramatize their protests of Wall Street control of US politics. Occupy Sacramento hosted two “Zombie Walks” on Saturday, October 29, two days before Halloween and Dia de Los Muertos (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/10/30/18696099.php).
Shouting, “What Do We Want? Brains!,” “Where do we want them? City Council!,” over 200 “zombies” from Occupy Sacramento marched from Cesar Chavez Park through the streets of downtown Sacramento on the afternoon of Saturday, October 29.
For more information about Occupy Sacramento, call Cres Vellucci, 916-996-9170, or contact: http://www.facebook.com/OccupySacramento, http://www.occupysac.com, Twitter@OccupySacto
See OccupySacramento LIVE now at: http://www.livestream.com/occupysacto or http://www.ustream.tv/channel/dummey
danbacher Occupy Sacramento hosted two “Zombie Walks” on Saturday, October 29, two days before Halloween and Dia de Los Muertos.
Photo of “zombie banksters” walking through the streets of Sacramento by Dan Bacher.
by Dan Bacher
Shouting, “What Do We Want? Brains!,” “Where do we want them? City Council!,” over 200 “zombies” from Occupy Sacramento marched from Cesar Chavez Park through the streets of downtown Sacramento on the afternoon of Saturday, October 29.
Christina Kay and other Occupy Sacramento organizers also led the “zombies” in chants such as “Zombies, united, will never be divided!” as they protested “the Nightmare on Wall Street.”
The Zombie Walk, headed by several “zombie banksters,” stopped at Wells Fargo and other banks after proceeding through the downtown mall.
At Wells Fargo, one “zombie” man held up a skeleton puppet proclaiming, “Zombies were the 99%.” A “zombie” woman also held up a sign saying, “Fatal Error – Capitalism Has Crashed – Install New System.”
The afternoon walk was followed by another “Zombie Walk” at 8 pm. The walks took place on Day 23 of Occupy Sacramento, one of hundreds of occupations that have taken throughout the U.S., Europe and Mexico starting with Occupy Wall Street in New York City to protest Wall Street bailouts and the corruption of the political system by corporate money.
As a fan of zombie movies including Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead and Revenge of the Living Dead, I applaud the creativity of the Occupy Sacramento organizers in embracing the “Zombie Walks” to draw attention to their protest against Wall Street.
More than 30 Occupy Sacramento protestors went to court for the first time last week – 79 arrests have been made since Oct. 6 when the occupation of Cesar Chavez Park began. Those defendants were given Nov. 3 dates to make a plea on misdemeanor charges (6 months in jail, $1,000 fine), according to Cres Vellucci, spokesman for Occupy Sacramento.
All were either defended by more than a dozen volunteer lawyers or the Public Defender office. More of those arrested will be arraigned next week.
All of those who appeared in court last week were arrested for “unlawful assembly” (409 pc), although the County District Attorney, Jan Scully, announced on Monday, October 24 she was not going to prosecute it, saying no crime was committed by demonstrators. Yet the City Attorney’s office is still planning on prosecuting the charges of violating city code.
“The unlawful assembly charge is a police or city-created crime,” said civil rights attorney Jeff Kravitz. “It cannot prevail in court.”
On October 24, Kravitz attended a news conference with defense attorney Josh Kaizuka and Mark Merin, who announced he had sent a warning letter to the city of Sacramento, threatening to sue for violating the civil rights of Occupy Sacramento protesters.
“Good folks in Cincinnati have filed a lawsuit alleging that actions which that city has taken, similar to what Sacramento has done in closing the public park where the occupiers are demonstrating, constitute a prior restraint on free speech and are therefore unconstitutional,” the letter stated. “We are prepared to file a similar action here to enjoin and declare unconstitutional the closure of the Park after stated hours, as well as to enjoin the continued arrests of persons claiming their constitutional right to assemble. We believe the chilling effect of these arrests is significant. Obviously, the use of scarce city resources for the arrest and booking of these peaceful demonstrators is senseless.”
Meanwhile, the Occupy Oakland General Assembly on October 26 passed a resolution calling for a general strike on Wednesday, November 2. “We propose a city wide general strike and we propose we invite all students to walk out of school,” the resolution stated. “Instead of workers going to work and students going to school, the people will converge on downtown Oakland to shut down the city.” For more information, go to: http://www.occupyoakland.org.
For more information about Occupy Sacramento, call Cres Vellucci, 916-996-9170, or contact: http://www.facebook.com/OccupySacramento, http://www.occupysac.com, Twitter@OccupySacto
See OccupySacramento LIVE now at: http://www.livestream.com/occupysacto or http://www.ustream.tv/channel/dummey
danbacher Congressman John Garamendi slammed the Bay Delta Conservation Plan for being “an exclusionary closed-door operation on a recklessly short time table.”
Chart comparing Central Valley chinook salmon collapse with Delta water exports courtesy of Water for Fish.
chinook-crash-vs-water-pl…
by Dan Bacher
Five powerful Northern California Members of Congress today criticized the Department of Interior’s announcement of a very brief window for public comment on a controversial Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) relating to the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build a peripheral canal or tunnel.
Today’s announcement by Interior said public comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 16, 2011, giving only a little over two weeks for people to comment on the agreement.
Representatives McNerney, George Miller (CA-7), Mike Thompson (CA-1), Doris Matsui (CA-5) and John Garamendi (CA-10) responded to Interior’s announcement by saying that although a public comment period on the flawed agreement is an important step, it is insufficient to fix the problem.
The Members reiterated that Interior must retract its support for the document and allow a minimum of 45 days for public comment, and that the process be opened up to include other key stakeholders left out of the discussions, including Bay Area, Delta and coastal communities, farmers, businesses, and fishermen.
In addition, the members encouraged their constituents to participate in the limited public comment period. Under today’s announcement, comments must be submitted by e-mail to BDO [at] usbr.gov or by mail to the Bureau of Reclamation, Bay-Delta Office, 801 I Street, Ste. 140, Sacramento, CA 95814 before 5:00 p.m. on November 16.
A coalition of Delta residents, family farmers, recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, Indian Tribes, environmental justice advocates environmentalists is opposing the construction of the peripheral canal proposed by the Brown and Obama administrations because of the dire threat it poses to Delta fish, farms and communities. Delta advocates believe the canal’s construction is likely to lead to the extinction of Sacramento River chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon, Sacramento splittail and other species.
The canal (”conveyance”) is being promoted by corporate agribusiness operations and southern California water agencies that are seeking to export more water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the largest and most significant estuary on the West Coast of the Americas.
“This comment period is an important step, but there’s still a lot of work to be done before we can be sure that this process is fair, equal and transparent, and that this plan is good for the Bay-Delta and our communities,” said Rep. George Miller, (CA-7) in responding to Interior’s announcement. “The failure of the Secretary to withdraw the Department’s endorsement of this flawed agreement leaves the special interests in the driver’s seat and the public interest in the back seat.”
“The Department of Interior has been pushing off the concerns of families and small businesses in the Bay Delta region for far too long,” said Rep. Thompson (CA-1). “Its most recent response is completely unsatisfactory – giving these people just two weeks to weigh in on a project that is five years in the making. I will continue to push the Department toward a contemplative, deliberate and open process that ensures that the Bay-Delta is restored and the needs of local communities are protected.”
“While I am pleased that the public will now be given an opportunity to give input on this MOA making the document more open and transparent, no one should have to ask for this type of disclosure on a project that will change our water system forever,” said Rep. Doris Matsui (CA-5). “The process must be transparent so that each region’s needs are appropriately represented. In regards to the Sacramento region’s needs in particular, we must ensure our flood protection needs are being met.”
“As it stands, the Bay Delta Plan has been crafted without the input of the people who reside in the Delta region,” said Rep. McNerney (CA-11). “While this short period for public comment is a step in the right direction, this announcement falls short of what is needed. More must be done to make it a truly fair process. I will continue to stand with the families, businesses and farmers who oppose any BDCP that includes a peripheral canal. Agriculture is the lifeblood of the Delta region, and a canal would devastate the local economy, turn our farms into salty marshes, and cost our region millions of dollars and countless jobs.”
“The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is critical to sustaining the life of communities across California and is an ecosystem of national significance,” said Congressman John Garamendi (CA-10). “I have worked for decades to protect this vital resource by building consensus and including all stakeholders. By contrast, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan has been an exclusionary closed-door operation on a recklessly short time table. The current Memorandum of Agreement must be rescinded and a new agreement forged, so that all interested parties have equal standing in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan process. I join my colleagues in calling for an open, inclusive and deliberative process that protects the ecology of the Delta for all Californians.”
The lawmakers recently held a series of meetings with Interior Department and California officials to express their concerns about the Memorandum of Agreement that the Department signed with water export agencies, an agreement that was developed and signed without input from Bay-Delta stakeholders.
The letter sent on Monday requested a written response from Secretary Salazar and explained that the process as it currently stands has established an unrealistic timeline for the completion of the plan and raises expectations of favorable outcomes for the water agencies that signed it.
The Representatives’ press release follows the alarming disclosure by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) that it has recruited Laura King Moon, the Assistant General Manager of the State Water Contractors, to assist in the completion of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. In a letter to Assemblymember Jared Huffman on October 13, Natural Resources Secretary John Laird explained King Moon’s status with DWR.
“Ms. Moon is working for the California Department of Water Resources, serving on loan from the State Water Contractors until the completion of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan,” said Laird. “She is responsible to and represents DWR solely, and is subject to all DWR rules, protocols and confidentiality agreements.”
Delta advocates are outraged by DWR’s hiring of King Moon, charging that she has a conflict of interest in her new position.
“This is a glaring conflict of interest,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Executive Director of Restore the Delta. “DWR is a state agency with responsibility for managing water wisely for all the people of California. Employing someone on loan from a special interest group to advance a planning effort that will benefit that interest group is wildly inappropriate. It sets the fox to guard the henhouse.”
For more information, go to: http://blogs.alternet.org/danbacher/2011/10/25/state-hires-water-contractor-rep-to-help-oversee-bay-delta-plan/
danbacher Fishermen, grassroots environmentalists, tribal members and clean water advocates have criticized the so-called “marine protected areas” created under the privately funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative for failing to protect marine waters from oil drilling and spills, pollution, corporate aquaculture, military testing, wave and wind energy projects and all other human impacts on the ocean other than fishing and gathering.
The failure to include aggressive protection of water quality in the designation of “marine protected areas” is particularly appalling when one considers the fact that the number of California rivers, lakes and coastal waters showing toxicity has increased dramatically since 2006, as exposed in a list of polluted waterways released on October 11. (http://blogs.alternet.org/danbacher/2011/10/11/california-waters-showing-toxicity-increased-170-percent-since-2006)
The alarming list, submitted by the state of California to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and finalized by the agency, reveals that more of California’s waterways are impaired than previously known. Increased water monitoring data shows the number of rivers, streams and lakes in California exhibiting overall toxicity have increased 170 percent from 2006 to 2010, according to Nahal Mogharabi, spokesman for the California EPA, in a news release.
“California has some of the most magnificent rivers, lakes and coastal waters in the country,” according to Mogharabi. “However, of its 3.0 million acres of lakes, bays, wetlands and estuaries, 1.6 million acres are not meeting water quality goals, and 1.4 million acres still need a pollution clean-up plan, known as a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).”
Ironically, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, a strong supporter of the initiative, recently received an exemption from a state ban on dumping wastewater in a marine protected area in the bay, according to Susanne Rust in California Watch. (http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/monterey-bay-aquarium-exempted-ban-wastewater-dumping-13231)
“Although famous for conservation and its sustainable and environmentally friendly practices, the Monterey Bay Aquarium is also one of the largest wastewater dischargers in the protected Pacific Grove area of the bay,” reported Rust. “Last week, the State Water Resources Control Board exempted the aquarium [PDF] from a state ban on dumping wastewater in a marine protected zone.”
In its brochure, the aquarium touts its environmental sustainability while admitting that its operation has a “substantial” environmental footprint.
“To achieve lasting marine conservation outcomes, we’re committed to an ongoing program of improvement that includes adopting sustainable business practices and encouraging others to do the same. Operating a large public aquarium requires substantial resources and a large staff, and we recognize that our environmental footprint is likewise substantial. We remain deeply committed to minimizing our environmental impact and to conducting our business operations in ways that reflect and advance our conservation mission,” the brochure states.
However, “the board decided the aquarium’s conservation and public education benefits far outweigh any dangers posed by the millions of gallons of treated fish, bird and mammal waste it dumps back into the bay,” Rust stated.
“The Monterey Bay Aquarium’s beneficial uses include extensive public outreach and education on the marine environment, basic water quality research, and research to determine the needs and improve the quality of existence for marine life,” David Clegern, a spokesman for the water board, told Rust.
While an angler is prevented from fishing in these “marine protected areas,” the aquarium receives an exemption from wastewater discharges. What type of environmental justice is this?
Ken Peterson, the aquarium’s communications director, responded that, “The so-called ‘waste’ from the aquarium is seawater piped in from Monterey Bay and returned to the bay after circulating through the aquarium’s exhibits to sustain 35,000 sea creatures: from giant kelp and strawberry anemones, to sharks, shorebirds and sardines.”
“It does not include water from the sea otter exhibit, which is diverted to a municipal treatment plant. It is virtually as clean when it returns to the ocean as it was when it came into the aquarium hours earlier — as rigorous daily water quality testing confirms,” he continued.
“Aside from rain runoff, all of our freshwater waste goes into municipal sewer lines for treatment, including the water we use to hose down our awnings and sidewalks, which we divert before it makes it into storm drains and flows into the bay,” he stated.
He added, “There’s no question that coastal waters, inside and outside of marine protected areas, are affected by human activities. The aquarium is part of an unprecedented research effort, the Pacific Nearshore Project, that’s trying to measure those impacts on marine life. Research efforts like this, and effective action to control significant sources of urban and agricultural pollutants, can make a real — rather than a rhetorical — difference for the health of our oceans.”
I agree that effective action is needed to control significant sources of urban and agricultural pollutants in our river, lake, bay and ocean waters. This must be done by rigorous enforcement of the state and federal Clean Water Acts – and by including aggressive protections against oil drilling and spills, pollution, corporate aquaculture, military testing, wave and wind energy projects and other human impacts on the ocean other than fishing and gathering in the enforcement of the Marine Life Protection Act.
Nonetheless, it seems strange that the aquarium received an exemption from a state ban of wastewater dumping in marine protected zone from the water board.
Things get even more bizarre when you consider that PG&E will start seismic testing next year to determine the earthquake safety of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant off the Central Coast, in the wake of the Fukashima nuclear disaster.
“The tests will be done using high-powered sonar guns, in near-shore waters along an 18 mile stretch of coast – with the potential of killing fish and marine mammals for up to 10 miles from the test site, most of which is in a so-called Marine Protected Area,” said Mike Hudson, President of the Small Boat Commercial Salmon Fishermenʼs Association. “That’s 180 square miles of death and destruction that’s perfectly legal in the MPA. Just don’t get caught with a fishing pole in that area.”
California game wardens often refer to “MPAs” as “marine poaching areas” because an already grossly understaffed warden force doesn’t have enough personnel to patrol new no-fishing zones, let alone the existing ones.
With the failure to aggressively tackle water quality in marine protected areas under the MLPA Initiative, I suggest that the acronym “MPAs” could also stand for “marine polluted areas!”
MLPA Initiative Background:
The Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) is a law, signed by Governor Gray Davis in 1999, designed to create a network of marine protected areas off the California Coast. However, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2004 created the privately-funded MLPA “Initiative” to “implement” the law, effectively eviscerating the MLPA.
The “marine protected areas” created under the MLPA Initiative fail to protect the ocean from oil spills and drilling, water pollution, military testing, wave and wind energy projects, corporate aquaculture and all other uses of the ocean other than fishing and gathering.
The MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Forces that oversaw the implementation of “marine protected areas” included a big oil lobbyist, marina developer, real estate executive and other individuals with numerous conflicts of interest. Catherine Reheis Boyd, the president of the Western States Petroleum Association who is pushing for new oil drilling off the California coast, served as the chair of the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force for the South Coast.
The MLPA Initiative operated through a controversial private/public “partnership funded by the shadowy Resources Legacy Fund Foundation. The Schwarzenegger administration authorized the implementation of marine protected areas under the initiative through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the foundation and the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG).
danbacher The lawsuit regarding the South Coast regulations is still proceeding forward. In the case of the South Coast regulations, the lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that there have been numerous violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the Commission’s environmental review of the regulations.
Photo of Stewarts Point (Danaka) in Sonoma County, located on the North Central Coast, by Dan Bacher. This area is sacred to the Kashia Pomo Tribe. Fortunately, the Tribe, after conducting a ceremony here on April 30, 2010, successfully pressured the Fish and Game Commission to reopen this area to tribal gathering and recreational fishing.
by Dan Bacher
A California Superior Court in San Diego on October 17 ruled in favor of the California Fish and Game Commission’s decision to implement “marine protected areas” on the North Central Coast under the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative – and against Coastside Fishing Club’s petition challenging the controversial marine reserves.
This decision was preceded by three court victories for the club, United Anglers of Southern California and Bob Fletcher. “This decision was disappointing, but not unexpected, since this decision supported the judge’s tentative ruling,” said Bob Fletcher, a plaintiff in the multi-tiered litigation.
“We are still evaluating our options,” said Darrell Ticehurst, Chairman of the Coastside Fishing Club and former member of the Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Lawyers for the fishing groups argued that the state required a development permit from the Coastal Commission to create the reserves, but the judge ruled that the permit wasn’t required, since it fell within an exemption under the Coastal Act.
Judge Ronald Prager wrote in the tentative ruling, “The designation of MPAs falls within an exemption in the Coastal Act for ‘establishment and control of wildlife and fishery programs.’ (Pub. Resources Code §30411(a).) Under this statute, the Coastal Commission is statutorily obligated to defer to Respondent where the MPA is concerned. Living marine resources fall within the definition of wildlife. Thus, no permit was required by statute.”
Fletcher said fishing groups are considering an appeal of Prager’s decision and are focusing on the final stages of the South Coast MLPA process.
The lawsuit regarding the South Coast regulations is still proceeding forward. In the case of the South Coast regulations, the lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that there have been numerous violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the Commission’s environmental review of the regulations.
On October 3, the Fish and Game Commission opened a 15-day public comment period for revised proposed regulations for the South Coast “marine protected areas” (MPAs) developed under the MLPA Initiative. During its September meeting, the commission outlined a proposed timeline to re-notice and finalize the South Coast MLPA regulations, resubmit them to OAL, and seek an anticipated effective date of January 1, 2012.
Revisions were made because the California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) rejected the regulatory package previously provided by the commission.
In a 9 page ruling on September 2, the OAL disapproved the regulatory package for “the failure to comply with notice requirements for modification of the regulatory text; failure to comply with the ‘Necessity’ standard of Government Code section 11349; failure to include all relied upon documents in the rulemaking file; failure to provide the reasons for rejecting alternatives that were considered; and failure to adequately respond to all of the public comments made regarding the proposed action.”
The regulations were developed in a process privately funded by the Resources Legacy Foundation, a private corporation, and overseen by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force for the South Coast. The task force included an oil lobbyist, marina developer, real estate executive and others with numerous conflicts of interest. In fact, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) and an advocate of new oil drilling off the California coast, chaired the task force.
danbacher
Delta advocates say King Moon has conflict of interest
by Dan Bacher
Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the president of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), has served to date as the classic example of the egregious conflicts of interest that dominate California water politics.
While calling for new oil drilling off the California coast, she served as the chair of the Blue Ribbon Task Force for the controversial Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative to create so-called “marine protected areas” on the South Coast. She also served on the North Coast and North Central Coast panels to create these “marine protected areas.”
As you can expect, the “marine protected areas” developed under the “leadership” of Reheis-Boyd and other corporate operatives fail to protect California marine waters from oil drilling and spills, pollution, military testing, wave and wind energy projects, corporate aquaculture and all other human impacts upon the ocean other than fishing and gathering.
Well, move over Reheis-Boyd, and make way for the new “poster girl” of conflicts of interest in California water politics, Laura King Moon!
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) has recruited King Moon, the Assistant General Manager of the State Water Contractors, to assist in the completion of the controversial Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), the plan initiated by state and federal water contractors to allow them to build a peripheral canal or tunnel in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. In a letter to Assemblymember Jared Huffman on October 13, Natural Resources Secretary John Laird explained King Moon’s status with DWR.
“Ms. Moon is working for the California Department of Water Resources, serving on loan from the State Water Contractors until the completion of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan,” said Laird. “She is responsible to and represents DWR solely, and is subject to all DWR rules, protocols and confidentiality agreements.”
“Ms. Moon’s history with the project, as well as her experience working with the many stakeholders concerned with the BDCP, will be a significant asset to DWR in achieving timely completion of this critical effort,” claimed Laird.
Delta advocates are outraged by the hiring of King Moon by DWR, charging that she has a conflict of interest in her new position.
“This is a glaring conflict of interest,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Executive Director of Restore the Delta. “DWR is a state agency with responsibility for managing water wisely for all the people of California. Employing someone on loan from a special interest group to advance a planning effort that will benefit that interest group is wildly inappropriate. It sets the fox to guard the henhouse.”
Jane Wagner-Tyack, Restore the Delta policy analyst, disagrees with Laird’s assessment that Moon’s “history” and “experience” with the State Water Contractors is a “significant asset” to the BDCP.
“From the beginning of this habitat conservation planning effort, ’stakeholders’ has been synonymous with ‘water contractors,’” said Wagner-Tyack. “The concerns of people in the Delta, recreational and commercial fishing interests, and cities and counties in the Delta region have been systematically ignored or over-ruled. With Moon assisting with communication at DWR, we can expect that to continue.”
“As a representative of the water contractors, I don’t think it is appropriate that King Moon was hired by DWR to work on the water contractors’ project,” said Dick Pool, administrator of Water for Fish and Secretary of the Golden Gate Salmon Association. “Most of us feel that DWR is way too cozy with the water contractors to start with. Rather than becoming more independent, they continue to represent the water contractors’ interests, to the detriment of all other water users in the state.”
In fact, Delta residents, family farmers, recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, California Indian Tribes and representatives of environmental justice communities have been completely excluded from the BDCP Management Committee that oversees the process.
News of Moon’s appointment follows Monday’s announcement by five U.S. Northern California Representatives demanding that the U.S. Department of the Interior withdraw from an agreement to continue their involvement in the BDCP.
Representatives John Garamendi, Doris Matsui, Jerry McNerney, George Miller and Mike Thompson slammed the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for being “developed behind closed doors” and giving water export agencies south of the Delta and in Southern California “unprecedented influence” over the BDCP process.
In a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, the Members of Congress demanded, “Interior should immediately rescind this flawed MOA and work instead to establish a successful BDCP process that is transparent and based on parity, and that genuinely puts the restoration of the Bay-Delta and its fisheries, the needs of local communities, and the quality of local water resources on par with other water supply goals.”
Delta advocates charge that the peripheral canal, by exporting more Delta water to agribusiness and southern California, would likely lead to the extinction of Sacramento River chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail, green sturgeon and other imperiled fish species. They also criticize the BDCP’s so-called “habitat restoration” plans for proposing to remove large tracts of Delta farmland, some of the most fertile on the planet, from agricultural production in order to irrigate drainage-impaired land owned by corporate agribusiness interests on the San Joaquin Valley’s west side.
danbacher On the heels of Senator Feinstein’s declaration in support of a ban on GE salmon last Tuesday, Senator Boxer finally stepped up last Thursday — but only halfway. She’s now signed on to the labeling bill!
“This is another big step forward, as we’ve been putting pressure on her to support this legislation for several months now,” said Marie Logan of Food & Water Watch. “But we need to let her know that we expect more.”
“Labeling will only protect consumers who know to watch out for the label; it will do nothing to protect the environment, or commercial fishermen whose livelihood may be impacted by the escape of this risky engineered salmon. We need an outright ban on GE salmon,” emphasized Logan.
Food & Water Watch has set up a call-in to thank Senator Boxer for supporting S.229, and encouraging her to support S.230 as well, to put an outright ban on the approval of this fish by the FDA.
“Let’s not forget that October is Salmon Mont,” she added. “There’s no better time to make sure that our senators know we’re paying attention. SalmonAid’s coalition is most powerful in times like these — when we can show our strength in numbers in support of legislation that will protect wild salmon populations up and down the West Coast.”
I encourage you all to make a quick call today! Call 202-609-9041 and you’ll be connected to Senator Boxer’s office.Here is the link to the Food & Water Watch action alert: http://action.foodandwaterwatch.org/p/salsa/web/common/public/content?content_item_KEY=10444
danbacher
The Representatives echoed the concerns of Delta residents, family farmers, fishing groups, Indian Tribes and environmentalists, who strongly oppose the state-federal plan to build the peripheral canal to export more water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River to corporate agribusiness and southern California. They oppose the canal because of the threat it poses to imperiled Central Valley salmon and Delta fish populations, Delta farms and Delta communities.
Photo of Sacramento River chinook salmon courtesy of National Marine Fisheries Service.
chinook_salmon.jpg
by Dan Bacher
Five Northern California Representatives today demanded answers on the current state of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) process – and called on the Interior Department to rescind a “flawed” Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that they say “was developed behind closed doors.”
The Members of Congress accused the memorandum of giving water export agencies south of the Delta and in Southern California “unprecedented influence” over an important public process concerning California’s fresh water supplies.
The Representatives echoed the concerns of Delta residents, family farmers, fishing groups, Indian Tribes and environmentalists, who oppose the state-federal plan to build the peripheral canal to export more water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to corporate agribusiness and southern California. They oppose the canal because of the threat it poses to imperiled Central Valley salmon and Delta fish populations, Delta farms and Delta communities.
In a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, U.S. Reps. George Miller (CA-7), Mike Thompson (CA-1), Doris Matsui (CA-5), Jerry McNerney (CA-11) and John Garamendi (CA-10) asked that the recent agreement between the Department and water agencies be rescinded and that the process be opened up to include other key stakeholders left out of the discussions, including Bay Area, Delta and coastal communities, farmers, businesses, and fishermen.
“Interior should immediately rescind this flawed MOA and work instead to establish a successful BDCP process that is transparent and based on parity, and that genuinely puts the restoration of the Bay-Delta and its fisheries, the needs of local communities, and the quality of local water resources on par with other water supply goals,” they wrote.
The lawmakers recently held a series of meetings with Department and California officials to express their concerns about the MOA that the federal and state governments signed two months ago with water export agencies, an agreement that the Representatives said was developed and signed without any input from Bay-Delta stakeholders. The agreement would clear the way for the agencies to commit an additional $100 million for consulting and planning work on a controversial peripheral canal expected to cost $12 billion.
The Department had previously told the lawmakers to expect an answer to their inquiries early last week, but failed to meet that deadline, according to a joint news release from the Members of Congress. The letter from the lawmakers requests a written response from Secretary Salazar by the beginning of next week.
“The BDCP planning process has failed to treat these affected groups in a fair and transparent manner, and we do not believe that the emerging plan is reflecting Bay-Delta constituencies’ concerns and interests,” they stated.
The members also wrote that the process as it currently stands has established an “unrealistic timeline” for the completion of the plan, and that it raises expectations of favorable outcomes for the water agencies that signed it. These concerns share several traits:
“They have the potential to harm the Bay-Delta, fishing communities, local farmers, and our constituents more broadly,” they said. “They compromise Interior’s ability to exercise its mandates to restore the Bay-Delta ecosystem and California’s fisheries, and to consider the interests of all stakeholder groups. And they were developed in closed-door negotiations with the water export contractors that excluded all other interests.”
The representatives also noted, “It does not appear that the federal government is taking seriously the goal of restoring endangered salmon or that it intends to operate the Central Valley Project to meet the statutory mandate to protect, restore, and enhance fish, wildlife, and associated habitats.”
Adam Fetcher, Press Secretary for the U.S. Department of the Interior, said Interior has received the letter and will respond directly to the Representatives.
“Secretary Salazar has been clear that California’s complex water problems require science-based solutions developed as part of a close partnership between the federal and state government, as well as all key stakeholders,” said Fetcher. “Transparency and accessibility for all parties in this process is a key part of our efforts to move forward with the BDCP as quickly as possible in order to address the all-important goals of a healthy Bay Delta ecosystem and a reliable water supply for California.”
Delta advocates fear that the construction of the canal and export of more water from the Delta will result in the extinction of Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail, green sturgeon and other imperiled fish species. In spite of widespread opposition to the canal, the Brown and Obama administrations are fast-tracking the BDCP process.
Restore the Delta, a coalition of Delta residents, business leaders, civic organizations, community groups, faith-based communities, union locals, farmers, fishermen, and environmentalists, applauded the Representatives’ letter to Salazar.
“We are very pleased that the Congressional Representatives from the greater Delta are calling for reform of the BDCP,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Executive Director of Restore the Delta. “The BDCP will not succeed without Delta communities, Delta landowners and fishing communities being at the table.”
The Bay Delta Conservation Plan will not only impact fisheries in the Central Valley and Delta, but the fish, communities and Indian Tribes of the Trinity and Klamath rivers. “The Trinity River is a Delta Tributary Watershed and is affected by the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan,” noted Tom Stokely of the California Water Impact Network.
The Representatives’ letter was sent less than a month after two infamous records were set on the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta as the water year ended on September 30.
First, 9 million Sacramento splittail were “salvaged” at the state and federal Delta pumps near Tracy in 2011. The previous record salvage number for the splittail, a native minnow found only in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system, was 5.5 million in 2006 (http://blogs.alternet.org/danbacher/2011/09/09/over-11-million-fish-salvaged-in-delta-death-pumps-since-january-1).
Second, the water projects pumped a record 6.5 million acre-feet of water from the Delta in 2011, according to government data compiled by Spreck Rosecrans at Environmental Defense. The previous record was 6.3 million acre-feet in 2005.
The full text of the letter is below.
October 24, 2011
The Hon. Kenneth Salazar
Secretary, Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington DC 20240
Dear Secretary Salazar:
We are writing to follow up our recent meetings with Interior officials and other participants in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) and to express our strong objections to the current direction of that plan.
The constituents we represent have a great deal at stake in the future of the BDCP process and ultimate plan. Delta, Bay Area and coastal communities, residents of the floodplain, farmers, businesses, fishermen, and the rest of our constituents could be profoundly affected by the BDCP. But to date, the BDCP planning process has failed to treat these affected groups in a fair and transparent manner, and we do not believe that the emerging plan is reflecting Bay-Delta constituencies’ concerns and interests.
Specifically, it does not appear that the federal government is taking seriously the goal of restoring endangered salmon or that it intends to operate the Central Valley Project to meet the statutory mandate to protect, restore, and enhance fish, wildlife, and associated habitats. Furthermore, we cannot accept proposals – including ones under consideration by the BDCP – that would harm Delta communities and the regional economy by eroding water quality for drinking and agriculture.
This is a critical moment, and we urge you to take concrete corrective actions now so that the BDCP process can succeed. Your Department recently signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with certain state and federal water export agencies that excluded other stakeholders. That agreement offers the signatories unprecedented influence over the process, and it raises expectations of favorable outcomes. While we appreciate your outreach to the Delta counties and to the environmental NGOs since the signing of the agreement, the existence of this unfair agreement continues to taint the process and must be withdrawn. At a minimum, we believe that Interior should retract its approval of the MOA and allow for a public comment period of 45 days.
The MOA creates a number of serious problems. For example, this agreement binds BDCP participants to an unrealistic timeline that has the serious potential to rush the many important decisions that have thus far been put off, avoid a full consideration of alternatives, and undermine the much-needed scientific analyses that remain to be done – analyses that many of the agreement’s signatories have resisted.
In addition, the MOA describes long-term guarantees of certainty to federal water contractors as “an essential element of a successful BDCP.” This is an unreasonable standard to establish, especially as no equivalent assertions have been offered to any other BDCP participants. We are additionally concerned that establishing certainty for the contractors as an “essential element” of the BDCP is in conflict with the many other federal responsibilities in play in the BDCP, such as doubling the populations of salmon and other anadromous fish as required by law, providing necessary water for wildlife refuges, preserving water quality and availability for Delta agriculture, and meeting the needs of other water users.
The agreement further establishes an unequal process going forward: the MOA invites the water export contractors to collaborate with the federal agencies on the responses to public comments, allows the water export contractors early and exclusive access to draft consultant work product, and gives the water export contractors direct control over the consultants who are writing the documents. California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office recently testified before the State Assembly about additional provisions of this document that “may be seen as favorable to the contractors,” including the fact that a public NEPA document may not be issued without explicit authorization from the water export contractors. This raises very serious questions about whose process this is, ultimately; if the water export contractors’ funding has given them control over the process, it would be to the detriment of the Bay-Delta and to the public interest.
The above concerns — along with the many others we have raised in our recent meetings — share several worrying traits. These are positions sought by the same handful of state and federal water contractors that have long dominated the BDCP process. They have the potential to harm the Bay-Delta, fishing communities, local farmers, and our constituents more broadly. They compromise Interior’s ability to exercise its mandates to restore the Bay-Delta ecosystem and California’s fisheries, and to consider the interests of all stakeholder groups. And they were developed in closed-door negotiations with the water export contractors that excluded all other interests.
Because we have not yet received a response to our request, we reiterate it here: Interior should immediately rescind this flawed MOA and work instead to establish a successful BDCP process that is transparent and based on parity, and that genuinely puts the restoration of the Bay-Delta and its fisheries, the needs of local communities, and the quality of local water resources on par with other water supply goals. That includes:
· Ensuring that all stakeholder involvement is fair, equal and transparent: all stakeholder groups should have equal access to BDCP draft documents and consultant products and equal ability to provide direction to BDCP consultants, and meetings involving the export contractors, state and federal agencies and the BDCP consultants should be open to all stakeholders.
· Establishing a realistic timeline that allows sufficient time to address the serious unanswered questions remaining before the BDCP, conduct the appropriate scientific reviews including of all alternatives, and comply with NEPA and other relevant statutes.
· Genuinely committing to the co-equal goals: any “certainty” under consideration for the water export contractors must be matched by equal, specific, and certain commitments to restoring the Bay-Delta to health as required by state and federal law.
· Maintaining state and federal agencies’ ability to implement other statutory mandates including, but not limited to, the CVPIA’s anadromous fish restoration program (including B2 water, the Restoration Fund, and other activities), the refuge water supply program, Trinity River restoration, and the requirement that beneficiaries must pay for the mitigation of any project.
· Ensuring that any final BDCP preserves water quality and water availability for farmers, families, and businesses in the Bay-Delta area, and preserves flood protection for communities in the region.
We are disappointed that we find ourselves in the present situation, and that the interests of our constituents are still facing these hurdles at this stage of the BDCP process. The public interest and the stewardship of the Department require that transparency and equal participation must be reestablished for all stakeholders in the BDCP as soon as possible. To that end, we reiterate our request for corrective action as to this MOA, and as you consider the Department’s next steps regarding the BDCP, we seek your commitment that you provide us with advance notice when making determinations that would affect our constituents.
For all of the reasons detailed above, we request a written response to this request by October 31.
Sincerely,
# # #
danbacher
While local and state groups are facing cuts in their programs, the CEOs and top staff of large environmental NGOs – referred to by some as “Gang Green” or “Big Green” – are raking in huge salaries, up to $1,196,037.00 per year.
Photo: David Packard (1912–1996) and his wife Lucile founded the David and Lucile Packard Foundation in 1964.
david_packard-226×300.gif
by Dan Bacher
Grassroots environmental organizations including the Friends of the River, American River Conservancy and California Native Plant Society have reported dwindling income in recent years, the result of declining government and foundation funds available due to the current Wall Street-engineered economic disaster. (http://www.sacbee.com/2011/10/10/3971670/conservation-nonprofits-squeezed.html)
Many organizations are having to lay off key staff, close offices and curtail their programs. Environmental justice, river advocacy and grassroots groups working to restore salmon and other fish populations have been particularly hard hit.
While local and state groups are facing cuts in their programs, the CEOs and top staff of large foundations and environmental NGOs – referred to by some as “Gang Green” or “Big Green” – are raking in huge salaries, up to $1,196,037.00 per year.
While big bucks continue to flow to these CEOs, thousands and thousands of people throughout the US, Mexico and Europe, inspired by the ongoing “Occupy Wall Street” protests in New York City, are protesting the disparity of wealth between the 1 percent on Wall Street and the 99 percent of people that are struggling to get by. They are also challenging the increasing influence that Wall Street corporations, who contribute heavily to the campaigns of the Democratic and Republican parties, exert over foreign and domestic policies, including promoting the stripping of environmental protections.
Nils Stolpe of http://www.FishNet-USA.com has uncovered some great financial information in his ongoing exposure of the big money behind corporate environmental NGOs and foundations that fund them. In this time of severe economic crisis, the “compensation” for CEOs and selected staff of the large ENGOs and foundations is very alarming.
Please note that the compensation listed is only from the organization – not necessarily the total compensation that person received from all sources – in the most recent year for which a Form 990 was available.
At the top of the compensation list is the Chief Investment Officer of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, who received $1,196,037.00 from the organization.
David Packard (1912–1996), the co-founder of Hewlitt-Packard, and his wife Lucile founded the David and Lucile Packard Foundation in 1964. While styling himself as an “environmentalist” in his later years, it is noteworthy that he served as Deputy Secretary of Defense under President Richard Nixon. “Packard served in this high-echelon position during Nixon’s secretive carpet bombing campaign against Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam War,” noted independent journalist David Gurney. (http://noyonews.net/?p=219)
Not far behind, the President & CEO of The Pew Charitable Trusts received $1,071,525.00.
The Sunoco oil company, headed by J. Howard Pew and Joseph N. Pew, Jr., set up the original endowment for the Pew Foundation, now called the Pew Charitable Trusts. Sunoco currently refines bitumen in Ohio and is planning to do so soon in Philadelphia. Sunoco has, through either Pew family members or current board members and CEO’s of Sunoco, held a majority of the board of trustees of the Pew Charitable Trusts to this very day. (http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=8351822347&topic=6972)
The Packard Foundation and Pew Charitable Trusts are paying these huge compensation packages while millions are out of work or struggling to make ends with minimum wage jobs.
These foundations fund efforts to promote controversial programs such as the federal “catch shares” program, an effort to privatize public trust fisheries, and California’s privately-funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative. The MLPA Initiative, overseen by oil industry, real estate, marina development and other corporate operatives, created “marine protected areas” that fail to protect the ocean from pollution, oil spills and drillling, corporate aquaculture, military testing and all human impacts on the ocean other than fishing and gathering.
The Packard Foundation is also notorious for funding studies promoting the construction of the peripheral canal (http://blogs.alternet.org/danbacher/2011/03/03/bechtel-and-packard-funded-report-greenwashes-the-peripheral-canal). A coalition of Delta residents, family farmers, Indian Tribes, grassroots conservationists and environmental justice advocates opposes the construction of the peripheral canal because it would likely lead to the extinction of Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail, green sturgeon and other imperiled species.
The President of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) received $432,742.00, while the President of Environmental Defense received $423,359.00. The Managing Director of the Pew Environment Group received $400,487.00, while the Executive Director of Environmental Defense received $347,963.00.
“And with salaries (and perks) ranging up into seven figures, is it any wonder that these people exhibit such a lack of empathy for people with real jobs – you know, the kind of jobs that depend on actually producing something tangible to justify a paycheck?,” said Stolpe. “And no, putting people out of work isn’t producing something tangible.”
“Anyone who has built a successful career – that is, successful as far as the size of their paycheck and their ability to climb the (ENGO) corporate ladder is concerned – by spending money earned by someone else isn’t likely to have much of an idea of what it would be like to be out of work or, it appears, to be particularly concerned when their actions have that consequence on others,” said Stolpe.
So while grassroots environmental organizations are struggling to pay for staff salaries, office expenses and campaign costs, top officials of foundations and environmental NGOs are raking in the “green,” just like the CEOs of Wall Street corporations.
Below is the list of the positions, organizations and total compensation from the organizations:
Chief Investment Officer, David and Lucille Packard Foundation: $1,196,037.00
President & CEO, The Pew Charitable Trusts: $1,071,525.00
President/CEO, David and Lucille Packard Foundation: $696,687.00
President, Natural Resources Defense Council: $432,742.00
President, Environmental Defense: $423,359.00
Managing Director, Pew Environment Group: $400,487.00
Executive Director, Environmental Defense: $347,963.00
VP West Coast, VP Land, Water and Wildlife, Environmental Defense: $304,626.00
Executive Director, Natural Resources Defense Council: $277,846.00
Development Director, Natural Resources Defense Council: $265,001.00
President and CEO, Ocean Conservancy: $261,111.00
Finance Director, Natural Resources Defense Council: $259,460.00
Chief Executive Officer, Oceana: $247,164.00
VP Marketing and Communication, Environmental Defense: $242,947.00
Executive Vice President, Oceana: $237,589.00
EVP/COO, Ocean Conservancy: $217,911.00
Communications Director, Natural Resources Defense Council: $213,737.00
Executive Director of Oceana in Europe, Oceana: $205,868.00
Senior Vice President for North America, Chief Scientist, Oceana: $203,272.00
VP Legal Affairs, Ocean Conservancy: $180,426.00
President, Ecotrust: $178,527.00
VP Resource Development, Ocean Conservancy: $172,381.00
VP Communications, Ocean Conservancy: $172,161.00
Jim Ayers Oceana Regional Director in North Pacific, Oceana: $170,114.00
Shark Conservation Program Director, Ocean Conservancy: $152,754.00
Managing Director, Ecotrust: $151,050.00
VP State Advocacy Center Director, Conservation Law Foundation: $141,141.00
danbacher by Dan Bacher
This news arrived at a time when the Obama administration is fast-tracking the approval of genetically engineered Atlantic salmon, promoting environmental destructive corporate aquaculture facilities and pushing the privatization of public trust resources through the controversial “catch shares” program.
Scientists from Simon Fraser University reported at a news conference in Vancouver on October 17 that the virus had been found in 2 of 48 juvenile fish collected as part of a study of sockeye salmon in Rivers Inlet, British Columbia.
“The highly contagious marine influenza virus, Infectious Salmon Anaemia (ISA,) has for the first time been officially reported after being found in the Pacific on B.C.’s central coast,” according to a news release from the scientists. (http://www.sfu.ca/pamr/media-releases/2011/lethal-atlantic-virus-found-in-pacific-salmon.html)
“Now it threatens both wild salmon and herring,” said biologist Alexandra Morton and Simon Fraser University professor Rick Routledge, whose laboratory led to the discovery of ISA in B.C. salmon smolts.
Morton is calling for removal of Atlantic salmon from B.C. salmon farms. “Loosing a virus as lethal and contagious as ISA into the North Pacific is a cataclysmic biological threat to life,” said Morton. “The European strain of ISA virus can only have come from the Atlantic salmon farms. European strain ISA infected Chile via Atlantic salmon eggs in 2007.”
Morton says ISA was first found in Norway in 1984. “Since then, there have been lethal outbreaks in every important salmon-farming region around the globe, with the exception – or so we thought – of B.C. Now we know for sure that it has hit B.C.
“The Cohen Inquiry revealed ISA symptoms have been reported in farm salmon in B.C. since 2006. The Fisheries Ministers have written me repeatedly that B.C. is safe from ISA. Clearly they are not in control of the situation,” Morton stated.
“If there is any hope, we have to turn off the source: Atlantic salmon have to be immediately removed,” she concluded.
Dr. Fred Kibenge of the ISA reference laboratory at the Atlantic Veterinary College in P.E.I. made the diagnosis and notified the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) of the positive results for the European strain of ISA virus, according to the release.
“ISA is a deadly exotic disease which could have devastating impacts on wild salmon and the many species that depend on them throughout much of British Columbia and beyond,” said Routledge. “The combined impacts of this influenza-like virus and the recently identified parvovirus that can suppress the immune system could be particularly deadly.”
The study results were released on the heels of a report by Food & Water Watch, a national consumer advocacy group, regarding the “troubling consequences” of factory fish farming. (http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/pressreleases/new-report-reveals-troubling-consequences-of-factory-farming-fish/)
Zach Corrigan, fish program director at Food & Water Watch, responded to the SFU report by noting that salmon farms present the “perfect conditions” for the spread of the deadly disease.
“While we cannot say for certain what caused this particular outbreak of infectious salmon anemia, salmon fish farms present the perfect conditions for it to spread like wild fire,” said Corrigan. “The salmon industry in Chile, for instance, was devastated by the same virus due to the filthy conditions inherent in factory fish farms.”
“Haven’t we learned anything from factory farming on land? It’s a bastion of disease. We should be pursuing closed-system, land-based fish farming methods instead of factory farming our oceans,” he concluded.
Caleen Sisk-Franco, Chief and Spiritual Leader of the Winnemen Wintu Tribe, emphasized that state and federal scientists should listen to the Tribes when they make their fisheries management decisions to avoid disasters, such as infectious salmon anemia spreading to wild salmon, from occurring. The Winnemem Wintu are attempting to restore native winter run chinook salmon, via eggs of the original strain of the transplanted fish now thriving in New Zealand, to the McCloud River above Lake Shasta.
“Putting all the ‘fish experts’ heads together, they still don’t have the historical memory of the tribes, who they refuse to listen to because they don’t have the post hole digger (PhD) initials behind their surname,” said Sisk-Franco. “Salmon hold the knowledge from the Creator directly; we should follow the salmon!”
The release of the report exposing the presence of infectious salmon anemia in wild fish on the West Coast couldn’t come at a worse time. The Sacramento River fall chinook salmon run, the driver of West Coast salmon fisheries, is recovering from an unprecedented collapse in 2008 and 2009. Salmon advocates point to a combination of record water exports out of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to agribusiness and southern California, declining water quality and poor ocean conditions as the key factors behind the collapse.
Meanwhile, the Obama and Brown administrations are fast-tracking the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to build a peripheral canal to divert more water to agribusiness and southern California water agencies. Delta residents, fishing groups, Indian Tribes, family farmers and conservation groups oppose the enormously expensive and environmentally destructive peripheral canal or tunnel because it would likely lead to the extinction of Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail and other imperiled species.
The breakout of a deadly fish disease in wild salmon populations is the last thing at we need at a time when salmon populations throughout the West Coast are in crisis. I agree with Alexandra Morton’s contention that Atlantic salmon, produced in environmentally destructive aquaculture facilities in British Columbia, need to be “immediately removed.”
