Feinstein amendment is a water grab
To read this piece on-line click here.
Its plan is overreaching, unjustified and unfair. It could wipe out the remaining Sacramento River salmon runs, permanently eliminating the Pacific Coast fishing industry jobs that were already under assault from drought and the mismanagement of our river systems during the Bush administration.
Its plan would harm Northern California water supplies and water rights. And it would undercut and paralyze recent significant statewide collaborative water efforts.
Members of Congress from across California, Oregon and Washington oppose this plan, as do California state legislators and county supervisors. Newspapers from Los Angeles to Sacramento to Oregon oppose it.
What we all understand is that times have changed. There has been a gradual but important shift toward the understanding that without a healthier bay-delta system, neither fisheries, cities nor farmers will ever see their water-supply situation improve.
That’s why the Governor’s Delta Vision Task Force argued that state policy must restore the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta ecosystem and create a more reliable water supply for California.
That’s why state lawmakers wrote a package of water bills last year, and that’s why water agencies, environmental groups and others have worked together on a comprehensive Bay-Delta Conservation Plan. That’s why I have pushed through bills in Congress for Republicans and Democrats across our state to establish innovative water-recycling programs that free up freshwater and help industry, agriculture and municipalities.
That’s also why I convened a series of meetings last summer with Sen. Feinstein and Reps. Costa and Cardoza, the Obama administration and others to work together to accomplish our shared goals of an improved Bay-Delta estuary and an improved California economy. Out of those meetings, we collaborated on several efforts, including getting $100 million into the House jobs bill in December to fund the Obama administration’s action plan for California water needs, including significant ecosystem restoration, drought relief, water quality improvements, and enhancements to the federal-state partnership.
It is regrettable that some of the people who had joined in this collaborative, fresh thinking have now turned against the state’s better interests. The Westlands Water District plan is a major step backward. And so is the fact that Westlands resigned this month from the Association of California Water Agencies to focus instead on lawsuits to get what they want.
We know that fixing the bay-delta estuary’s problems will not be easy. The heart of our state’s water system suffers from many ailments and requires a wide-ranging cure. One approach that will not fly, however, is the outdated idea of unilaterally changing water policy without the basis of sound scientific analysis.
Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, is the former chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/25/EDVM1C78C3.DTL#ixzz0getUYN3k
Fish out of water? Peripheral-canal opponents claim lobbying and political donations have tainted decision process
By Alastair Bland
To read this article on-line click here.
The endangered Delta smelt is an important species in the waterway’s food chain. Its decline has been linked to the massive pumps that send Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta water to Southern California.
The three-year public process that could lead to construction of the controversial peripheral canal connecting the Sacramento River and the Delta to Southern California has been steered by private interests and campaign contributions, claim conservation groups opposed to the watery delivery project.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg helped broker the deal that placed the $11 billion water bond on the November ballot.
Resnick’s office had not responded by press time.
When asked if Resnick’s contributions had influenced Steinberg’s decision, the senator’s spokeswoman, Alicia Trost, defended the process.
“Naysayers of the bill favor a status-quo approach, which the science indicates only makes the Delta more susceptible to further degradation or a possible catastrophic event that would bring economic and environmental calamity to the Sacramento region’s residents and businesses,” Trost said. “The Legislature and the unprecedented coalition that supported the bill overcame three decades of political and regional fighting and inaction by passing the historic bipartisan water package last year.”
Resnick has actively opposed restrictions on Delta pumping. On February 5, a federal management plan designed to reduce Delta pumping and protect the region’s endangered species was temporarily halted by U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger. Environmental groups filed a countermotion on February 8, and the restraining order was lifted.
However, the protective management plan remains under formal review and Resnick recently asked political ally Sen. Dianne Feinstein to review the science which resulted in the federal mandates, also known as biological opinions. Feinstein, who has received $29,000 in campaign contributions from Resnick, responded promptly by setting a weeklong January hearing with the National Academy of Sciences in Davis, where expert witnesses testified that continued water curtailments were unnecessary.
Feinstein had not responded by press time.
According to Tina Swanson, executive director of The Bay Institute, further review of the biological opinions is unnecessary.
“The science in the biological opinions is extremely sound,” said Swanson, who attended the Davis meetings as an invited speaker and expert on Bay-Delta ecology. “[The opinions] have already been reviewed multiple times, and I don’t see a need to go over it again.”
Opponents of the canal believe it could irreparably damage the already failing Delta ecosystem by removing too much fresh water for its fish populations to survive. Some research presented to the task force, however, said that building a canal to circumvent the Delta could ultimately reduce pump-related mortality of young fish.
“Most of the scientific evidence presented to us strongly suggested that moving the pumping from the South Delta would avoid or substantially minimize the destruction of important fish species during key times of the year,” Isenberg said.
But UC Davis fisheries biologist Dr. Peter Moyle is skeptical about any benefits a canal might provide for the Delta ecosystem. The dual-conveyance system, he said, will likely destroy the remaining fisheries. A single-canal conveyance could work, so long as the canal fully replaces Delta pumps, which are known to kill juvenile and adult fish. Water outtake via the canal must also never be increased from its current levels and should, in fact, be reduced.
Moyle recently co-authored two reports, one with UC Davis and another with the Public Policy Institute of California, in which he expressed his views. The task force ultimately recommended the dual-conveyance system opposed by Moyle. Isenberg said the task force believed that a well-designed-and-operated dual-conveyance system “looked like the best approach.”
Canal opponents agree with Moyle that a dual-conveyance system could be the worst option.
“The ecosystem will collapse,” said Bill Jennings, executive director of the CSPA.
Zeke Grader, the executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, also doubts either a single-canal or dual-conveyance system will benefit the Delta’s fish.
“They aren’t going to build this thing to help fish,” he said. “They’re building it to take water. [Canal advocates] have always said that things will get better for the fishery, but not once in 50 years have conditions improved for the fishery.”
Instead, said Grader, long-term increases in pumping and water exports have been followed by long-term declines in fisheries health.
“They say this package will give us money for the fish, but what they need to eventually give is water, because that’s what salmon need,” Grader pointed out. “As one of my aids once said, ‘Salmon don’t swim in money.'”
Senator Feinstein Shuts Out Delta Communities and Fishermen From Water Export Talks
Despite requests from Restore the Delta for a meeting with Senator Feinstein’s staff, and despite repeated requests from fishing community representatives for a copy Senator Feinstein’s amendment language for increased water exports from the Delta, the proposed amendment language has been kept mostly secret. According to Restore the Delta Campaign Director, Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, “Those who would be most affected by implementation of the Endangered Species Act waiver – Delta farmers and commercial salmon fishermen – have been once again left out of the discussion process, as they were during the 2009 California legislative water package discussions.”
Although, as reported in today’s San Francisco Chronicle, Senator Feinstein’s amendment was not included in the present jobs bill, Restore the Delta has learned that Senator Feinstein is seeking other ways to move her legislation forward.
In stark contrast, Restore the Delta understands that the Westlands Water District, some additional water contractors, and some members of Congress have seen the language included in Senator Feinstein’s proposed amendment. Once again those who want Delta water are working to control any and all legislative discussions by funding media spin and political contributions. Barrigan-Parrilla adds, “Westlands leaders and Stewart Resnick of Paramount Farms clearly have access to the Senator that everyday Delta people do not.”
Therefore, Restore the Delta urges Senator Feinstein to recognize that Delta residents are dependent on protection of public resources. Barrigan-Parrilla adds that Delta residents “have an equal right to participate in representative governance” as do corporate irrigators. “The people of the Delta and related fishing communites must be given the opportunity to create a sustainable economic-ecological future for Delta communities and fisheries.”
Delta Flows Newsletter for 2.10.10
If Schwarzenegger and the development interests that put him in office have their way, only projects without influential backing would have to meet environmental standards under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
It started last year with an Assembly bill streamlining some CEQA requirements to construct a new NFL stadium in the City of Industry. Now, it looks like wealthy developers from all over the state will be hiring lobbyists to get them CEQA exemptions.
The Governor’s proposal, which will probably be included in a trailer bill to this year’s budget, would exempt about 100 major construction projects across the state, both public and private, from California environmental laws. The plan would block the power of the courts to review 25 projects each year from 2011 through 2014. The administration-through the cabinet level Business, Transportation and Housing Agency-would have final authority over those projects.
The proposal distributes exempted projects in counties around the state-ten in Southern California, five in the Bay area, five in the southern Central Valley, and the remaining five from around the state. Not just transportation but also refinery, water, and sewage projects could be exempted.
Having achieved “co-equal” status in the Delta, it looks like the environment will be denied similar status in other parts of the state, at least until ignoring the environment produces impossible-to-ignore health threats.
This proposal is based on the flawed assumption that what is good for the environment is bad for business and jobs. But even the State Building and Construction Trades Council, representing 160 unions, says that shortchanging environmental standards doesn’t create more jobs.
And let’s not look for things to be any better if Democrat Jerry Brown goes back to the governor’s office. Last year, Candidate Brown got a total of $50,000 in four separate donations from billionaire agribusiness power couple Stewart and Lynda Resnick. The Resnicks already have the ear of Senator Dianne Feinstein and the influence to have 15 scientists and other experts impaneled to come back with a different answer than the current biological opinions on smelt and salmon in the Delta.
Brown had agribusiness giants J. G. Boswell Corporation and Salyer Land Company against him 30 years ago in the last peripheral canal battle, because they thought the environmental safeguards were too strong. It looks like he is already maneuvering to be on the same side as agribusiness this time around.
|
The BDCP Continues to Wander in Wonderland
At the February 4 meeting of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan steering committee, everyone finally got a look at some details about conveyance alternatives.
Mike Cherry, a member of the Delta Habitat Conservation and Conveyance Program (DHCCP) team, gave a PowerPoint presentation on Conveyance Options Comparisons which analyzed and compared impacts/cost of construction of three alternatives: eastern, western, or underground. All three projects have an estimated project construction time of 6.25 years, not including litigation, permitting, or logistical delays. These kinds of delays appear to be more likely with the tunnel option because no one has ever built anything like this before. Conveyance Land Costs estimates: Mitigations costs are estimated to be lowest for a tunnel. Rough mitigation cost estimates are $241 million for a Western Alignment, $247 million for an Eastern Alignment, and $87 million for a Tunnel. Land costs are lower for a tunnel, but the tunnel would require new energy sources (transmission lines not included in estimates) and a 750 acre forebay somewhere in the Pearson district. A major unknown: “pump procurement.” Engineers don’t know if they can actually get the pumps they’re using in their design, how long it would take to build them, or what the pumps would cost. Although a tunnel will have less impact on the surface land, including levee maintenance and improvement, it will require 40-plus miles of subterranean easements that were not included in project cost projections because no one knows what such easements would cost. Also, a tunnel will require five 105-foot above-the-ground surge shafts or relief valves to release pressure and prevent tunnel collapse. And the risk analysis showed that the tunnel presents the highest degree of difficulty for repair should there be a catastrophic event. Based on bypass flow numbers currently being plugged into the models, any one of the facilities is expected to be able to move about 3.6 million acre feet (MAF) in an average year, about 2.3 MAF in a dry year, and about 5.7 MAF in a wet year. In spite of (actually because of) all the unknown variables and costs, the tunnel option seems to appeal most to contractors like Bechtel. A tunnel requires less mitigation and offers the greatest potential for cost overruns. No one, including Friant Water Users (which is helping to pay for the process) feels like they have enough solid information or a clear enough description of the proposed final project to comment on the EIR. Also there are fissures in the group: Westlands Water District’s Jason Peltier complained about the lack of unity exhibited by EBMUD’s public criticisms of the BDCP. Everyone knows that, as Peltier pointed out, “We can’t live in the world we’re in.” As always, the question is why anyone would want to put any more effort into a creating a world that can only be sustained by moving vast amounts of water around. |
|
Meanwhile, out at the pumps…
Judge Wanger, always good for throwing surprises our way, has eased curbs on Delta pumping, but not, apparently, because of problems with the biological opinions. The judge’s new order doesn’t take issue with the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) salmon science, its Endangered Species Act Biological Opinion, nor the merits of the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative that tried to restrain strong reverse flows in the southern Delta, which may be sucking the baby salmon to their deaths at the pumps. The problem, apparently, is that the Bureau of Reclamation didn’t file the necessary NEPA (National Environmental Protection Act) compliance paperwork. Let’s see: NMFS identifies the problems for protecting ESA-listed salmon associated with the federal Bureau of Reclamation’s Tracy pumping operations. NMFS, in consultation with Reclamation, crafts solutions to those problems. But Reclamation fails to file the necessary compliance paperwork for their own pumping operations at the Tracy pumps. Reclamation has no problem with filing NEPA paperwork for their water district customers, but they can’t get it right in working with a fisheries agency from the Department of Commerce. Of course, someone at Reclamation probably knew exactly how this would play out. |
|
UOP Sponsors Water Forum at McGeorge
There is no cost for the event, but advance reservations are recommended. For information, contact Margit Aramburu at maramburu@pacific.edu or 831-415-0905. |
Yolo Basin Foundation is sponsoring California Duck Days, its annual wetlands festival, on February 19th and 20th. The Yolo Basin Foundation is associated with the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area in the northern portion of the Delta.
Duck Days officially begins with a Welcome Reception and wildlife art exhibit on Friday evening, February 19th, from 5:30 to 7:30 pm at the Davis Art Center . The reception is free and open to the public. The event will continue all day Saturday, February 20th, with workshops, field trips, fishing, and other on site activities. Mallard ducklings and live raptors will be on display.
There is a charge for Saturday’s activities, and pre-registration is encouraged due to limited space on field trips. Information on the event can be found on the Foundation’s website: http://www.yolobasin.org.
Delta Flows Newsletter for February 1, 2010
National Resource Council Committee Meets about the Delta
The 15-member National Research Council (NRC) Committee on Sustainable Water and Environmental Management in the California Bay-Delta met for the first time last week at UC Davis.
This is the panel appointed by the National Academy of Sciences at the request of the Departments of Interior and Commerce to review the biological opinions on Delta smelt and two species of salmon that led to some reductions in water project deliveries last year.
The panel was formed in response to the request of Senator Dianne Feinstein, who was responding to the request of billionaire Stewart Resnick, owner of agribusiness giant Paramount Farms, who didn’t like any science that led to reductions in his water deliveries. The underlying message to the panel: Look at the data, then go back and come up with a different answer.
The NRC panel will consider whether there are any “reasonable and prudent alternatives” (RPAs) that would protect fish species and habitat but have less impact on “other water uses” than reducing exports, which was the recommendation of the biological opinions. A report on that is due from the committee this spring.
In a second report, to be issued in the fall of 2011, the panel will focus on incorporating science and adaptive management into programs for managing and restoring the Delta. The advice in his report is intended to coordinate with the Bay Delta Conservation Plan.
Last Monday, the NRC panel heard primarily from people who worked on the biological opinions, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Tuesday, the panel was briefed as well by a collection of outside experts, ranging from the highly respected to the seriously questionable. RTD staff wondered whether the inclusion of some of these “experts” was intended to get all the purchased and fringe science out of the way at the beginning. RTD staff also questioned why an in-Delta expert was not included in the presentation committee.
Those pushing for more consideration of “reasonable and prudent alternatives” would like the panel to blame fish declines on a variety of other stressors rather than water diversions.
What about toxins? But Carl Wilcox of the Department of Fish and Game said that for smelt, there are few direct links to toxins; declines are linked to diversions, salinity, and habitat changes.
What about invasive species and poor water quality? But UCD fisheries biologist Peter Moyle, told the panel that the amount of water exported from the Delta system is the primary threat.
DWR’s Jerry Johns made an interesting argument for maintaining water diversions: He said that SWP infrastructure such as the San Luis Reservoir is useless without those diversions. “We’ve built it—of course we have to use it.” Johns also said that controlling exports hasn’t benefited smelt. Well, let’s talk about the condition of smelt populations when controls were finally put in place.
Take an immensely artificial system, apply esoteric modeling and statistics, and you can get just about any information you like. You can get competing graphs such as the panelists saw on Tuesday.
Tina Swanson, Executive Director of the Bay Institute, brought everyone back to earth with some home truths: Old and Middle River flows in the South Delta are negative three-fourths of the year. The magnitude of water project operations has increased as fish have declined. The RDAs the committee is being asked to reconsider were designed to minimize impact on water deliveries.
Swanson noted that little attention has been given to how effectively the water projects are managing water resources. She said they aren’t being managed sustainably, so that a “fairly modest drought” created havoc. The biggest driver was not fish protections but how deliveries were managed in the first year of the drought. During the first year of the too much water was taken from the reservoirs.
But you can’t tell that to people like those from Fresno who sought during the open mike period to enlist the panel’s sympathies for San Joaquin Valley joblessness. From them, the panel heard that reductions in water deliveries were the cause of every economic problem in the Valley. Restore the Delta reminded the committee of Dr. Jeffery Michael’s work (University of the Pacific) on the link between Central Valley unemployment and the housing bust.
Richard Deriso, chief scientist at the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (TUNA?) told the panel (remotely, by WebEx) this his analysis of Delta smelt population and survival data showed that methods used by USFWS were “flawed.” According to the Sacramento Bee’s Matt Weiser, Deriso’s analysis was done for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California at the request of one of the attorneys representing MWD in a lawsuit against the federal smelt protections.
Other purchased science was delivered by Scott Hamilton, who spoke on behalf of the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta. Most of this coalition’s officers work for Paramount Farms, and Hamilton is a resource manager for Paramount Farms. Hamilton presented data suggesting that more fall flows would harm smelt.
Hamilton also brought in a fish specialist, Bradley Cavallo of Cramer Fish Sciences, who pointed out that there are other things—such as upstream weirs and better hatchery management—that we could do to protect salmon. But even if we did all those things, wouldn’t salmon still need enough water?
Consultant BJ Miller said the committee needs an organized data set, including the whole range of environmental stressors, and offered to provide it. David Fullerton of MWD agreed that “data is lying around like gold nuggets” and encouraged the committee to go collect some for themselves.
Very likely the NRC panel members will do that. The few questions asked by the panel suggest that they understand where the weaknesses in the various arguments may lie. RTD doesn’t think that any amount of honest data analysis will support trying to restore fish and habitat while removing water from the system. We trust that the committee’s expertise and academic integrity will be equal to the extraordinary political, financial, and cultural pressure being applied to the process.
Senator hosts exhibit of local artist’s Delta photos
Photographs on public display in Wolk’s office
SACRAMENTO—As part of her ongoing effort to increase awareness of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta at the State Capitol, Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis) is hosting an exhibit of photographs by local photographer Rich Turner featuring scenes from the region.
“This is a wonderful opportunity to celebrate a local artist, as well as the Delta’s cultural, ecological, and economic significance,” said Wolk. “I invite everyone to visit my office and explore the Delta through Rich’s extraordinary photographs.”
The collection on display in Wolk’s office is drawn from a body of work taken over 30 years. The show, “California Delta: rural charm and natural beauty,” includes Turner’s photos of Delta landmarks including Grindstone Joe’s Island, Happy Harbor, and Honker Cut, as well as landscapes featuring cornfields and sloughs, cargo ships and sheep ranchers tending to their flock.
Turner says he began exploring the Delta during his time as a photojournalist at The Record in Stockton.
“After the stress of meeting daily deadlines, I’d be driving home and I’d just conveniently miss my exit on the freeway. I found and fell in love with the Delta,” he said. “The light would be magic. I started keeping an extra camera loaded with Kodachrome. Of course, now the image making is all digital.”
Those after-work trips to the Delta became a ritual of “creative therapy” that continues to this day, Turner said, adding, “I always come back feeling refreshed.”
Turner entered the world of print journalism as the first full time photographer at the Roseville Press-Tribune after traveling the world, including Antarctica, as a Navy photographer. He then worked for 16 years at The Record—first as a photographer, then as a Director of Photography. He now owns a fine art, aerial and commercial photography business.
Turner’s photographs will be on public display through March 26 in Wolk’s office, located in Room 4032 of the State Capitol. Examples of his work are also available at his website: turnerphoto.com
Restore the delta's Blog 