Delta Flows
They’re keeping their heads down at Water, Parks, and Wildlife
The non-Delta legislators and other interests who passed last year’s comprehensive water package don’t think it can be improved upon with unimportant additions like legislative oversight or cost analysis for a peripheral canal. So they weren’t interested in AB 2304, introduced by Assemblymember Alyson Huber. On April 27, the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee couldn’t even come up with a second to Assemblymember Mariko Yamada’s motion to at least vote on the measure. No one had to take a stand.
Committee chair Jared Huffman thinks Huber’s proposal would have made it harder to block a large conveyance facility before the full legislature, which he insists that he intends to do. He described the measure as “too broad,” “too blunt,” and “unwise.” Yamada, the Committee’s only Delta representative, countered that the legislature had abdicated important responsibilities with regard to conveyance to the Delta Stewardship Council. She noted that if there is nothing to hide, then no one should object to continuing the discussion in a transparent way.
The most telling remark came from Assemblymember Juan Arambula of Fresno, who said he was reluctant to give the Legislature any more authority.
Yes, he really did say that.
We’re keeping an eye on the Delta Stewardship Council
Restore the Delta has filed a conflict-of-interest complaint with the Attorney General’s office regarding DSC appointees Gloria D. Gray and Richard Roos-Collins. As we reported last week, Gray is a board member for the West Basin Municipal Water District in Los Angeles, a position which also places her on the board of MWD. So she represents interests that rely on Delta water exports. Roos-Collins serves on the BDCP steering committee, an entity whose recommendations the Stewardship Council is supposed to review.
RTD has also learned that the DSC staff is recommending that CH2MHill be chosen to provide the primary support for developing the Delta Plan. CH2MHill is already heavily involved in the BDCP. This whole process is looking more and more like a game of musical chairs, with no chairs actually removed.
Magic Kingdom meets water sleight-of-hand
A trip to Disneyland is always fun, right? On May 14, you could take a working vacation to attend the 3rd Annual OC (Orange County) Water Summit at the Grand Californian Hotel at the Disneyland Resort. The title: “Capture the Flow.”
The speakers: Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez; Paul Rodriguez (“actor, comedian, and water activist”); Joel Kotkin, author of “The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050”; Robert Boller, Vice President of Sustainability for Kendall-Jackson Winery; and Curt Schmute (“expert on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta”).
(Mr. Schmute acquired his expertise on the Delta as the Principal Engineer and Water Resources Manager for Metropolitan Water District.)
The cost is $125. Of course, you might not want to pay $125 to hear Paul Rodriguez tell you why agri-business needs more water.
Delta Flows April 19, 2010
Delta Stewardship Council launched on April Fools Day
by Karen Medders
April 1st was more than just April Fools’ Day; it was also the seating of the Delta Stewardship Council, which happened to coincide with the West Coast Salmon Summit hosted by Congressmen George Miller and Mike Thompson. RTD had called supporters out to attend the Salmon Summit, which contributed to a glaring absence of Delta supporters at the historic seating of the Stewardship Council. The absence of Delta support in the room was noted by one of the public commentators.
The first order of business was for the Council to elect their Chair. Not surprisingly, Phil Isenberg was unanimously elected Chair. No Vice Chair was elected.
Then the appointees were introduced. Sacramento Supervisor Don Notolli holds the only seat guaranteed to represent any Delta interest on the Council by virtue of the fact that he is the Chairman of the Delta Protection Commission. Besides Supervisor Notolli, we have Hank Nordoff, Patrick Johnston, Randy Fiorini, Phil Isenberg, Gloria Gray, and Richard Roos-Collins, who was absent.
Judge Ronald Robie officiated the swearing in of the Council. Judge Robie, a former head of DWR, reads and interprets water laws, some of which he wrote years ago.
Mr. Isenberg called Judge Robie “one of the best water judges in the state; he wrote the laws.” Resources Agency Director Lester Snow told the newly sworn in Council that one of their goals should be to keep the Council’s actions out of Judge Robie’s court because “he’s not a friend of ours.” It is hard to know whose friend Snow thinks Judge Robie is, but there was chuckling in the room by those thinking the BDCP and Alternative Conveyance are done deals. Time will tell.
Conflicts of interest right from the start
Attending with Gloria Gray were friends and family and a representative of the Latino Water Coalition, along with approximately a dozen water district representatives. Gray is a board member of the West Basin Municipal Water District, a Los Angeles County water provider that depends on the Delta for a large share of its supply. That imported Delta water is distributed by the Metropolitan Water District, the largest single municipal buyer of Delta water. Gray is also a Metropolitan board member by virtue of the fact that West Basin is a Metropolitan member agency.
In fact, besides four independent Delta representatives, the auditorium was full of water exporters gloating over the fact that yet again, their millions of dollars and bullying ways have stacked yet another public entity in their favor.
Supervisor Notolli asked if the relationship of the Delta Conservancy to the Council would include more local representation and address the concerns and interests of the stakeholders living and working within the Statutory Delta.
The answer was that the Conservancy will have 11 members, is required to be located in the Statutory Delta, and will consist of 4 state appointees, 2 governor’s appointees and one appointee from each of the five surrounding counties to make up the total of 11. One would hope the Assembly and Senate would appoint representatives of greater Northern California interests. The counties have made their appointments; the state has not.
With respect to county activities, Isenberg mentioned there is inherent suspicion between local, state and federal governments; the Council should constrain, limit and contract the local-to-state plan. He also stated “local governments are not obligated to have state-wide perspectives.” (Isenberg didn’t say it, but it appears that the reverse is also true: The state government is not obligated to consider the local perspective.)
The Conservancy is expected to roll out on its own after the first fiscal year. The Conservancy is projected to be a multi-billion dollar entity within five to 10 years. (That does tend to happen when you are the “land grabber.”) It is this writer’s opinion that it will be imperative to not only follow and keep up on the machinations of the BDCP, but to actively participate in the Conservancy’s agenda. With billions and billions of dollars in land assets private and public at stake, we must ensure the Conservancy plays “fair” with stakeholders inside the Statutory Delta as well as ALL of the citizens of California.
Among several issues that were discussed or questioned at length was the Conflict of Interest Code the Council must adopt for itself. Chris Stevens, legal council for the DSC stated he would let the members know when the ex parte rules take effect so that there will be no “conflict of interest” triggers.
On that note, Restore the Delta would like to see an official letter of resignation from Gloria Gray, stepping down from her post on the Board of Directors of Metropolitan Water District to sit on the Delta Stewardship Council. In a letter dated March 26, Assemblyman Jared Huffman asked Gray to choose whether to serve the council or her local constituents.
According to the Sacramento Bee’s Matt Weiser, conflict also surrounds Richard Roos-Collins. He is an attorney for the Natural Heritage Institute and serves on the steering committee of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. Since one of the Delta Stewardship Council’s roles is to review the BDCP, this also looks like a conflict of interest.
And then, of course, as previously reported by Restore the Delta, Phil Isenberg’s lobbying firm was representing the Irvine Water Ranch, while Mr. Isenberg was heading up the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force.
A cozy little oversight relationship
Among the DSC’s tasks as outlined in the legislation, the first five are
- To make early appointments and establish of bodies and entities;
- To establish the Delta Independent Science Board;
- To appoint the Lead Scientist;
- To consult with the SWRCB to appoint the “Water Master” and;
- To work with federal agencies to coordinate the Delta Plan, as long as there is funding to interact with same federal agencies.
Now we move on to another legislated responsibility of the Council, and that is its Appellate authority with the BDCP. This looks more and more like the fox guarding the hen house.
Joe Grindstaff slipped right over from being CALFED Director to being Acting Executive Officer of the DSC. He has been representing the California Bay-Delta Authority on the BDCP Steering Committee. Grindstaff mentioned that at the next BDCP Steering Committee meeting, he will step down due to potential conflict of interest; however he wishes to remain in an ex officio capacity.
The Council has authority to overturn any decision made by the BDCP; it also has the authority to hear appeals from all concerned entities with regard to the BDCP. But in fact, the Council was established specifically to further the BDCP process as one of the responsible entities for the permitting process. They are to comment on the Conservation Plan prior to submittal for the EIR process, yet they have appellate authority over their own decisions.
The Council must consult with the SWRCB to appoint a Water Master—a very important Council function. Another role of the SWRCB under the new Delta Plan is to determine the minimum water flow criteria upon which conveyance will be based. Chairman Isenberg asked, “If SWRCB can’t come up with the flow criteria in a timely manner, then what does the Council do?” No one seems to know.
CALFED redux?
As the DSC has officially taken over the failed CALFED program, the council has also inherited quite a bundle of preexisting conditions. For example, it inherited the appropriated funding for CALFED to apply to start-up of the Council.
It also inherited existing Delta Science Research programs totaling $23,116,000. The Executive Office Expenses total $2,411,185, of which $320,528 is payable to Metropolitan Water District of Southern California for the BDCP. What does this mean? CALFED was paying or covering MWD expenses for the BDCP?
This is taxpayer money, and if MWD can get state/federal funding for its activities on the BDCP, certainly it would only be equitable to provide the same amount of money for local, independent and, right now, volunteer efforts in the BDCP process.
CALFED receivables include $750,000 from US Bureau of Reclamation, $300,000 from USGS, and a whopping $9 million from DWR, totaling $10 million in monies owed now to the Council.
Spreck Rosekrans, of the Environmental Defense Fund, said that some critics of the new legislation believe the Council has merely inherited or taken over the failed CALFED, instead of creating something new that answers the intentions of the legislation.
The roll-over appointments from CALFED to the DSC are:
- Joe Grindstaff, Interim Executive Officer
- Keith Coolidge, Chief Deputy Executive Officer
- Clifford N. Dahm, Ph.D., Lead Scientist
- Anke Mueller-Solger, Ph.D., the Delta Stewardship Council Lead Scientist for the Bay-Delta Interagency Ecological Program.
- Lauren Hastings, Ph.D. Deputy Executive Officer for Science
- Chris Stevens, Acting Chief Counsel
- Curt Miller Assistant Director for Legislation
- Terry Macauley, P.E., Acting Deputy Executive Officer for the Delta Stewardship Council
- Livia Page, Assistant Executive Officer for Administration for the Delta Stewardship Council
One can appreciate Mr. Rosekrans’ statement regarding watching out for the same old, same old…that it is imperative new blood and perspectives on a national and international level are brought to bear on the Delta Independent Science Board and the science that will be relied upon to determine not only flow criteria, but science legitimacy of the BDCP as well. It is their science that will drive our future one way or the other. Supervisor Notolli also expressed concern that the Council will be a repeat of the failed CALFED.
Where is reduced Delta reliance in all of this?
Another point driven home at this meeting was mandated reduction of reliance upon the Delta for continued water supply. Actions undertaken by the Council should focus on issues and actions outside as well as inside the Statutory Delta.
Randy Kanouse of EBMUD spoke first, congratulating the Council on its formation. He also mentioned the Council will be forced to make “Solomon-like decisions” with very difficult tasks to accomplish. Mr. Kanouse also recommended the Council have extremely capable staff who provide written materials well before any announced meeting dates. And he advised Council members to allow themselves plenty of time to be briefed by all perspectives, and to digest all available options to the decisions to be made.
Jonas Minton of the Planning and Conservation League handed out PCL’s Eight Affordable Water Solutions to Achieve the Co-Equal Goals. Mr. Minton also pointed out that actions must occur outside the Delta, not just within. He suggested the Council consider two smaller diversions of a 5000cfs canal conveyance and a 3000cfs tunnel. Also, given the state of California’s economy at this time, he recommended withdrawing the Water Bond, waiting two years or so, and readdressing the bond issue with a smaller bond that would have a better chance of being passed.
Ron Jacobsma of Friant Water Authority commented that with the inter-relationship of the BDCP to the Council, “if the BDCP fails, the Council fails.” Not a bad idea is it?
Chairman Isenberg scolded the representative from the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) with a reminder that CDFA has a responsibility to submit a report to the Council no later than 01/01/11. This paper must allow time to be submitted to the DPC; then the DPC will submit the paper to the Council. Isenberg stated that any delay in submission of required reports from both state and federal agencies delays the Council’s decisions.
We are all concerned with the aggressive schedule of deadlines.
Gary Bobker of the Bay Institute spoke on the legislated outcomes the Council must provide:
- The Council has been tasked to define desired outcomes for the Delta;
- The Council must develop a plan that achieves those goals. However, again, the actions must take place outside the Delta more than within.
- California has been mandated to reduce further reliance on the Delta water. What is being done to reduce that reliance? There is a disconnect between proposed actions and the actual reduction of reliance on Delta water. Where is the link? That must become a priority.
As with anything related to the Delta and its water, ecosystem and culture, much is at stake here. The Council is the first step California lawmakers have enacted to address this complex issue.
For those of us that reside in or just love Northern California with all of her blessings, this Council is just another layer of government enabling an exporter water and power grab. We need to stay on top of Council activities to ensure that all requirements of the law are met.
The Delta is not an industrial water pumping facility here to make resource-depleting economic development of Southern California possible. Nor is it here to line the pockets of members of Westlands Water District pockets with billions of dollars over time, enabling them to acquire government-subsidized water for resale on the open market.
The Delta is a beautifully created, abundant ecosystem that has done a pretty darn good job of meeting all of the demands placed upon her. But she is maxed out. It is up to our collective inventiveness to find or invent those technologies that truly enable us to become more self-sufficient and responsible with the types of demands made upon our environment.
If technology actually found ways to meet our human demands without requiring those needs be met by free-flowing waters, wouldn’t that also meet the co-equal goals?
Delta Flows April 14, 2010
Yes, fish are better off with more water
In March, the National Research Council committee charged with evaluating the biological opinions on Delta fish reported that more scientific analysis was needed to determine what specific environmental triggers would indicate when water diversions should be reduced. But the report also found that “Most of the actions proposed by two federal agencies to reduce water diversions in the California Bay-Delta in order to protect endangered and threatened fish species are ‘scientifically justified’.”
It’s Fuller vs. Stripers Again
You had to get to the Capitol early on April 13 to get a seat in room 437, where the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee was again going after striped bass as predators in the Delta. Bass fishermen and their supporters had packed the room. Committee Chair Jared Huffman had put this bill (AB 2336) first on the agenda, undoubtedly to allow the room to clear for other matters later.
Of course, Huffman saw this swell of opposition coming (after all, we went through a similar process last fall). He had persuaded author Assemblywoman Jean Fuller to amend the bill. Instead of focusing on striped bass predation, the Delta Independent Science Board will now be instructed to consider “impact of invasive species and non-native species, water quality impairments, and predation on native species.” In other words, other stressors besides the flow reductions caused by the water projects.
Funny. We thought the National Research Council committee was already doing that. And the State Water Resources Control Board, which is supposed to be looking at flows but would like to look at stressors instead. And the BDCP, which is already committed to blaming anything but flow reductions for the situation of fish in the Delta. Surely the Delta Independent Science Board itself would have gotten around to this anyway, even without AB 2336. So this piece of political theater was pretty much redundant, as Huffman pretty much admitted.
Despite the many people speaking in opposition to the bill, it passed out of committee. But one opponent made a particularly astute observation: ALL those agricultural crops grown in the San Joaquin Valley, like cotton, almonds and pistachios are nonnative species.
Another worrisome bill also passed out of the committee that day. This was Huffman’s own bill, AB 2092, regarding fees for planning and administration for the Delta Stewardship Council. This is where we get right down to the “beneficiary pays” provisions for funding the Stewardship Council. The bill originally required the SWP and CVP contractors to pay for “planning and administrative costs.” This sounded reasonable to the Audubon Society, NRDC, and the Nature Conservancy, but a lot of water districts and growers’ groups balked. So the bill has been amended to say “specified costs.” Whatever that means.
Also amended out of the bill was the part that would have made beneficiaries responsible for paying for the costs of implementing the Plan.
Huber reintroduces her sensible canal proposal
Assemblymember Alyson Huber is reintroducing a bill, AB 1594, that would prohibit construction of a peripheral canal around the Delta without a full fiscal analysis and a vote of the legislature.
Last November’s water package completely omits legislative oversight, merely leaving it to the Delta Stewardship Council to decide whether the BDCP is consistent with the co-equal goals for the Delta.
Huber’s bill prohibits the construction of a peripheral canal (defined to include any facility or structure that conveys water directly from a diversion point in the Sacramento River to SWP or CVP pumping facilities south of the Delta) unless expressly authorized by the Legislature.
It further requires the Legislative Analyst’s Office to complete an economic feasibility analysis prior to the enactment of a statute authorizing the construction of a peripheral canal.
The bill would also require that the construction and operation of a peripheral canal not diminish or negatively affect the water supplies, water rights, or quality of water for water users within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta watershed.
Rollout of the bill is scheduled for Monday, April 26. The bill is scheduled to be heard by the Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee on April 27.
Riverkeeper gets it wrong
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is in New York state this week to be honored by the Riverkeeper, a Hudson River environmental organization. (The Hudson River is the watershed that supplies water to New York City.) Riverkeeper will be honoring our Governor at a Fisherman’s Ball for his environmental advocacy. Obviously Riverkeeper didn’t bother to look into the effect of Schwarzenegger’s policies on California’s rivers and fish.
A quick scan of Riverkeeper financial supporters turned up a Resnick—not Stewart, but Jeff. He is Treasurer of the Board for Riverkeeper. He is also a managing director at Goldman Sachs (Global Head of Risk Management and Trading for Goldman’s Commodities and Money Market Businesses), and he used to work for Chevron in San Francisco. One online source reports that Lynda Resnick, Stewart’s wife, has a stepson named Jeff. Probably just a coincidence . . . .
Speaking of predation . . .
If you value private enterprise and free markets, and have any sympathy for small growers and processors, you may appreciate the situation of Ali Amin, a Persian immigrant who owns a pistachio processing plant and is trying to compete with agribusiness billionaires Stewart and Lynda Resnick.
Amin has filed a lawsuit in Fresno County Superior Court claiming the Resnicks violated California public utilities laws by profiting from selling water to farmers who weren’t members of their Bakersfield-based water company, Westside Mutual Water Co. The Resnicks’ plant processes almost two-thirds of the nation’s pistachios. Amin’s suit alleges that growers were lured by water supplies to sell their nuts to the Resnicks’ plant, costing Amin $5.5 million in revenue.
An AP story dated April 11 quotes Lynda Resnick as saying, “”We’ve done more for the pistachio than anyone ever since it was planted in the Garden of Eden . . . . My husband should be canonized for all the work he’s done.”
OK, but let’s have a refresher here on where that water came from.
In the 1980s, the Resnicks bought Central Valley farmland as a hedge against inflation and gained access to water contracts attached to that farmland. In the mid-1990s, Resnick and other Kern County agricultural users gained control of the Kern Water Bank—the largest underground water storage facility in the nation—after negotiations with DWR.
Although the Kern Water Bank had been developed with public money—$74 million from DWR and $23 million in taxpayer-approved bonds—the state eventually ceded ownership to a local water agency. Ownership of the bank ultimately was transferred to a joint powers authority including the local water agency, the Resnicks’ Westside Mutual Water Co. and four water districts.
(The same kind of joint powers authority—with taxpayer subsidized costs and private profit—was written into the language for surface storage facilities developed with money from the water bond coming up on the November ballot.)
The Resnicks ended up with a 48 percent stake in the Kern Water Bank. At one point, their water holdings were more than twice the size of the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir.
This provided them with the water to grow the pomegranates (as in POM Wonderful), pistachios, and “Cutie” sweet orange/Chinese mandarin hybrids that Lynda Resnick has marketed so successfully. We won’t get into the issue of growing permanent crops like this with water that has to be transferred and stored. What we will point out is that between 2000 and 2007, records show the state paid the Resnicks $30.6 million for water previously stored in the Kern Water Bank as part of a program to protect Delta fish – that didn’t protect Delta fish.
But back to Mr. Amin and the pistachios. The California Public Utilities Commission requires most mutual water companies to register as public utilities and subject their rates to state regulation if they sell water to nonmembers for profit. This is supposed to prevent price gouging. Westside didn’t register with the PUC.
Amin’s suit alleges that Westside evaded the law by selling water to nonmembers at a profit.
According to the AP article, “Assemblyman Huffman and Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, said those allegations in the Amin lawsuit touch on a broader debate about whether companies should be able to profit from taxpayer-funded waterworks amid a drought.”
Restore the Delta doesn’t think taxpayers would see anything here to debate.
Says Amin, “You feel like David fighting Goliath. . . . If they’re allowed to keep doing this, the rest of the independents and small growers won’t be able to compete.”
The Resnicks typically win in court. They sued to kill the California Pistachio Commission, a board farmers paid to do generic marketing for pistachios. After spending more than $2 million in legal fees, farmers gave up and voted to disband the commission three years ago.
The Resnick’s corporate control over a part of the state’s public trust — water, with its delivery and environmental use being financed for the Resnicks by California’s middle class, is a perfect example of why Americans’ are developing collective outrage. But, we need to stop and ask ourselves is where our outrage should be directed? Yes, elected official need to be held accountable. That’s why we vote. But, the real problem is corporate control (by big dollar players like Resnick) of our political leaders and our government agencies – all at the expense of California’s citizens. Corporate control of government leads to environmental programs that don’t produce results (and we want good environmental results), and an economy that works against the free market. To solve this problem, we must work for political reform.
The lions share, but only if they have to …
by Brett Baker
At the March 25th BDCP steering committee meeting, Resources staff Jerry Johns raised the issue of permitting for the Barker Slough pumping plant, which feeds the North Bay aqueduct (part of the State Water Project that serves Napa and Solano Counties) and for the intakes to supply the once-through cooling facility at Mirant Power plant. Johns suggested that this permitting be rolled into the BDCP process. A possible connection from new diversion facilities in the Northern Delta could be sought to meet the needs of contracts with users in Napa and Solano County. Johns pointed out that this wouldn’t divert any more water from the Sacramento River; it would just give it a different destination.
This proposal was met with firm opposition by both Roger Patterson of Metropolitan Water District and Jason Peltier of Westlands. They asked for an additional document and explicit language regarding inclusion of auxiliary diversions, including information on the quantity and capacity of intakes for which permits were being sought. This included the new EBMUD facility at Freeport. MWD and Westlands clearly don’t want other water agencies piggybacking without having shared in the financial commitment shouldered by the agencies pushing BDCP.
Kim Delfino, of Defenders of Wildlife, pointed out that regardless of how permitting was to take place, the effects of the diversions should be included and analyzed in flow models and the impact accounted for in the BDCP. Carl Wilcox, CDFG, cautioned that exclusion of additional projects not go too far, referencing North Delta Levee projects.
Next, Delta Science Program member Dr. Cliff Dahm made an hour-long presentation on the “Logic Chain,” an analytical approach supposedly being applied to the current BDCP process. Dr. Dahm highlighted the importance of accounting for a comprehensive set of factors contributing to a species decline and the importance of arranging and analyzing such factors in a hierarchical fashion. He reasoned that formulating a top-down approach to the overall conservation strategy should result in fewer surprises in the end, and also urged the group to attempt to identify and estimate a measurable desired benefit to associate with each conservation measure.
Resources staff and Potentially Regulated Entities (PREs) seemed uneasy with the idea of assigning any numerics to their conservation strategies, perhaps because of the liability/accountability that would accompany promising such outcomes.
From the perspective of RTD staff, one of the most glaring flaws in the current logic chain is real lack of an integrated analysis of water quality impacts on the Delta at large. Currently water quality issues seem to have been cherry picked, violating Dahm’s suggested top-down approach. An inordinate amount of focus has been given to the anoxic or dead zones in the Stockton Deep Water Ship channel, while factors which contribute to the lack of dissolved oxygen in the channel and degrade water quality in the San Joaquin River at large (i.e. selenium-laden and salty drainage water) remain off the table. When these “stressors” are brought up, the steering committee dismisses them as being outside the identified project area and being “the responsibilities of agencies outside of this room.”
Which agencies might those be? Why can’t we get them in the room?
Will fishermen need “take” permits next?
By Brett Baker
The April 8th BDCP steering committee meeting was kicked off with an announcement by Karen Scarborough that State and federal agencies have agreed upon a timeline for the completion of the Draft BDCP in November of this year. However, the draft EIR/EIS will not be out until sometime in 2011, which is later than originally planned by the Resources Agency and it’s fast-fading administration.
Some hope this will allow for consideration of the work of the National Research Council on “how to most effectively incorporate science and adaptive management” into future management efforts in the Delta. But some of the PREs are annoyed by the delay. Roger Patterson of MWD expressed his concerns with holding up BDCP’s progress for another “crackerjack report.”
Next, Jason Peltier passed around a picture of four men who had caught their limits of salmon (4×2 = 8 adult fish) and complained about the injustice of forcing farmers to fallow fields while recreational anglers are being allowed to “take” these endangered fish for sport. As the picture circulated, Peltier went through some fuzzy math (dividing salvage numbers from the Tracy Fish Collection Facility by the total number of hatchery reared salmon fry released by DFG) to support his claim that these four men limiting out in one day of fishing had an equivalent impact to one day of operating the pumps.
The National Marine Fisheries Services representative rebutted the figures Mr. Peltier had just thrown out, but was outnumbered at the table by contractors. Ara Azhderian, Water Policy Administrator for the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority, piled on, ranting over the social injustice of putting people out of work for others to take advantage of a public resource. Talk about the Pot calling the kettle black! Not looking for a fight, the NMFS rep conceded the argument and a few closing comments were made, Peltier got off his grandstand, and the meeting continued.
A presentation was the given by a member of the National Research Council (NRC) on their report: A Scientific Assessment of Alternatives for Reducing Water Management Effects on Threatened and Endangered Fishes in California’s Bay Delta available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12881. The presentation was pretty general and lacked any real findings, much like the report. The NRC members also requested input from Steering Committee members, kind of a “help us help you” sort of offering.
The USF&WS representative took the opportunity to thank the NRC for their hard work and support of the biological opinions for which F&WS had taken so much heat.
This RTD staffer looks out the window and rejoices to see more beautiful black storm clouds rolling in from the Pacific. Rain, baby, rain! As our Delta levees are holding strong through yet another wet winter, I take comfort in the fact the every drop of precipitation that hits the ground in California this year helps to dilute the arguments that feed this beast that is the BDCP. We just need to be sure that it doesn’t get a new source of nourishment with passage of the water bond in November.
Restore the delta's Blog 