Posted by: Jan | May 19, 2012

Press Release – Congressmen Oppose Immediate BDCP Decision

California Members of Congress Demand that the Bay Delta Conservation Plan Be Fair and Equitable
Call the current delay the “the last, best opportunity” to improve the far-reaching plan

Washington, D.C. – Calling the most recent BDCP delay the “last, best opportunity to stand up to… unreasonable demands,” Reps. Jerry McNerney (CA-11), George Miller (CA-7), Mike Thompson (CA-1), Doris Matsui (CA-5), and John Garamendi (CA-10) called for specific steps to be taken for the BDCP to move forward in a fair and transparent manner. The five members from the California congressional delegation have been vocal in calling for changes to the BDCP and have demanded that any plan has significant input from the Bay-Delta region.

In letters sent today to Governor Jerry Brown and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, the lawmakers said, “We recognize that some are now calling for an immediate decision, but we believe that it is critical to get this right; a rushed and inadequate Bay-Delta planning effort will lead to increased litigation, uncertainty, and expense.”

“I will not accept any plan for the Delta that is harmful to the farmers, families, and small business owners in the Delta region. To date, the planning process for Delta water has been unduly influenced by wealthy water contractors from south of the Delta who would steal our water, costing us millions of dollars and countless jobs. This delay provides an opportunity for the state and federal governments to stand up to the water contractors and ensure that the BDCP includes the input of our region. I will continue to fight against any measures that would destroy the Delta and our way of life,” said Rep. Jerry McNerney.

“More than five years into this process, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan still hasn’t met basic legal or scientific requirements,” said Rep. George Miller. “This is the last chance to fix it, and that’s why this delay is so important: it gives the scientists time to get it right. The Bay-Delta’s health is key to California’s future – we can either work out a good plan that reduces reliance on the Delta, or we can end up with increased litigation, uncertainty, and expense.”

“So far in this process we’ve seen too many back-door deals that put the interests of South-of-Delta water contractors before our farmers, fishermen and local communities. Many of our families and small businesses that depend on the Delta would have their livelihood stripped away and the Delta’s diverse wildlife would be destroyed if these politically driven deals were put in place. Federal and state officials need to use this delay to come up with fair and transparent plan that is based on sound science so that our communities, businesses, fish, wildlife and environment in the Delta and north of the Delta are not harmed,” said Rep. Mike Thompson.

“A 50-year permit needs to be done not only right, but with due diligence and equitable treatment to all those affected. I want to see the federal and state agencies take this opportunity to put forward a process and a plan for the Delta region that recognizes the input they’ve received not just from south of Delta interests, but north of Delta interests as well. Our state can’t afford to get this wrong,” said Rep. Doris Matsui.

“As the lynchpin of California’s water system, the economic and environmental sustainability of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta must be made front and center in this discussion. It’s the law,” said Rep. John Garamendi. “In addition, using the best available science, we must focus on conservation, storage, and recycling to preserve our state’s ecosystems and to meet the water needs of nearly 40 million Californians.”

The full text of the letter is below.
——————————————————

May 16, 2012

The Honorable Ken Salazar
Secretary
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240

Dear Secretary Salazar:

We write in response to the recently-announced delay in the timeline for releasing additional details of the proposed Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). We believe that acknowledging the need for changes and additional scientific review is an important first step towards transforming the BDCP into a plan that meets state and federal legal requirements and into a process that is fair, transparent, and inclusive of communities in the Delta region and Northern California. We recognize that some are now calling for an immediate decision, but we believe that it is critical to get this right; a rushed and inadequate Bay-Delta planning effort will lead to increased litigation, uncertainty, and expense.

As you know, we have raised many objections during the skewed process that has led to this point. We have reached out to state and federal officials repeatedly, as a group and as individuals, to express our view that the BDCP is failing to adequately address the needs of our constituents and the health of the Bay-Delta ecosystem. Our concerns have been largely reinforced by numerous independent analyses and the release of draft environmental documents which show that the leading BDCP proposal will not meet biological goals and may even lead to the extinction of several species, including some of California’s iconic salmon runs. The recent “red flag” comments from state and federal agencies are just the latest indication that the BDCP must be overhauled if it is to be successful.

We also understand that, despite the many flaws with the BDCP, state and federal agencies still hope to make a significant announcement on the plan this summer. We would like to reemphasize our conviction that, before making a determination of a preferred project, state and federal agencies have an obligation to ensure that the BDCP will:

Vigorously and meaningfully engage local officials from the Bay-Delta region and Northern California in the BDCP process.

  • Reflect the best available scientific understanding of the Bay-Delta ecosystem’s needs as required by state law, including the reduction of water diversions from the Bay-Delta.
  • Demonstrate an understanding of the economic issues identified by the Delta Protection Commission’s Economic Sustainability Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
  • Fully analyze a complete range of alternatives, including non-diversion alternatives, the State Water Resource Control Board’s alternative, and proposals put forth by experts from the Delta and Northern California. A cost-benefit analysis of each alternative should also be conducted.
  • Define and meet biological goals and ensure that the preferred BDCP proposal is fully consistent with the best available science and relevant federal and state environmental laws.
    Protect water quality and reliability for farmers and communities in the Delta and Northern California.
  • Rebuild the Bay-Delta’s fisheries and the thousands of jobs they sustain.
    Preserve flood protection for communities in the Delta and Northern California and include a focus on levee improvements.
  • Commit to choosing, clearly and with intent, the “least environmentally damaging practicable alternative” as federal law requires.
  • Meet the requirements of state law by including alternative water supplies as a way to increase water supply reliability and reduce dependence on the Delta.

Our constituents have repeatedly demonstrated that they are ready, willing, and able to participate in a BDCP process that is truly collaborative and transparent. Despite the good intentions of our constituents, the BDCP has been dominated by south-of-Delta contractors with a long history of opposing balanced solutions to the challenges facing California’s water system.

The recently-announced delay in the BDCP may represent the last, best opportunity to stand up to the unreasonable demands of south-of-Delta water contractors and change the BDCP into a plan that can enjoy support throughout the entire state of California.

Thank you for your attention to this letter. We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Congressman Jerry McNerney
Congressman George Miller
Congressman Mike Thompson
Congresswoman Doris Matsui
Congressman John Garamendi

Leave a Comment

Posted in News and Events, Peripheral Canal, Press Release

Posted by: Jan | March 14, 2012

Senate Panel Hears from Angry Delta Residents on Delta Plan and Peripheral Canal

SENATE PANEL HEARS FROM ANGRY DELTA RESIDENTS ON DELTA PLAN AND PERIPHERAL CANAL
(reported by Michael Brodsky who attended the meeting representing STCDA)

Sacramento March 13, 2012.

The California Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water held an oversight hearing at the Capitol Tuesday morning to hear about progress in developing the Delta Plan and to hear about the planning process for the Peripheral Canal.

As expected, California and federal officials painted a rosy picture. Roger Paterson, Assistant General Manager for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, told the senators that a new Peripheral Canal would be good for the Delta. He denied that there was any water grab driven by souther California interests underway. He said that Delta residents should rest easy because MWD has the best interests of the environment at heart.

When it came time for public comment, the senators heard a very different story. Speaker after speaker complained that plans to build the Peripheral Canal were secretive, that the science underlying the supposed environmental benefits of the canal was faulty, and that MWD and the other water contractors were being given secret access to the process leaving the public in the dark.

The panel also heard criticism of the Delta Plan, in particular that the Delta Plan favors increased water exports to southern California with no meaningful requirements for water conservation. The Delta Plan, being developed by a newly minted government agency called the Delta Stewardship Council, will be the master plan for the Delta for decades to come.

The Peripheral Canal is being planned in a separate process called the Bay Conservation and Development Plan, or BDCP for short. After completion, the BDCP will become a part of the Delta Plan.

Both of these planning processes are nearing critical phases and it will be especially important for Discovery Bay residents to attend upcoming meetings so our voices are heard. STCDA will be organizing trips to Sacramento and sending out notice to members well in advance so Discovery Bay residents can let their voices be heard.

Leave a Comment

Posted in News and Events, Peripheral Canal, Press Release

Posted by: Th | March 14, 2012

STCDA submits comments on the draft “Delta Plan”

STCDA attorney Michael Brodsky submitted formal administrative comments to the Delta Stewardship Council on behalf of STCDA criticizing many aspects of the Delta Plan. The Plan is currently being developed and could change life in the Delta as we know it. See the formal administrative comments here.

Mr. Brodsky also sent the following letter to Wall Street Journal reporter Jim Carlton

Dear Mr. Carlton,

Mike Guzzardo asked me to contact you to provide my overview of Delta water issues. I apologize in advance for the length here but there are number of interrelated things going on and so far I haven’t seen any coverage that puts all the pieces together in a way that really gives the public an overview of what is going on so I thought you might find this useful.

From my perspective all of the present controversies are really framed by one thing: the water contractors have seized the levers of power. Not only is this Chinatown all over again, its Chinatown meets George Orwell: the huge new canal to divert Sacramento River water to Los Angeles is officially classified as a “conservation measure;” the move to privatize public water resources is advanced under the newspeak rubric of “public benefit;” the master plan to guide resource management of San Francisco Bay and the Delta for the next 30 years, called the Bay Conservation and Development Plan (BDCP) is being formulated with the water contractors in the driver’s seat and the dominant goal of building the Peripheral Canal to divert water to southern California.

1) The Peripheral Canal and the BDCP. Plans to build the Peripheral Canal in order to transport Sacramento River water around the Delta and directly to the export pumps, depriving Delta sloughs and rivers of water that currently flows through them, is being advanced through the BDCP process. The BDCP process was originally billed as a fair, balanced, and transparent planning process where all options to deal with Delta issues were on the table. As it turned out, the water contractors had secret and outsized influence from early on and the BDCP’s stakeholder meetings and other public relations measures are no more than a fig leaf for the water contractors to push through the Peripheral Canal.

Congressman George Miller has complained extensively about the inappropriate role of the water contractors in the BDCP. The San Jose Mercury news has covered the issue and editorialized about the favoritism of the BDCP process to water export agencies. I have submitted formal comments to the agency on behalf of MIke Guzzardo’s group (Save the California Delta Alliance) about the unlawfulness of the process.

2) The Canal Bond Measure. An $11 billion dollar bond measure will be submitted to California voters this November. The bond is billed as the “Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act.” Who could be against that? But this bond has nothing to do with the safety of drinking water . Drinking water standards are set by the federal and state governments and are in no way affected by this bill. Rather, the underlying purpose of the bond measure is to enable construction of the Peripheral Canal, shift costs from the water contractors to the tax payers, and further privatize public water resources. The bond measure states that its funds cannot be used for canal construction. However, it allocates billions for other critical costs associated with the canal. The exact mechanics of this are a bit too complicated to go into in detail here, but I would be happy to explain the details if you wish. Traditionally water infrastructure is paid for by the end users through the water rate structure. Here a new concept of “public benefit” has been introduced. But what public benefit really means is that the cost is shifted from the water contractors to the general tax base.

The water contractors have attempted to hide the true purpose of the bond measure from the public as follows: California law requires that for all ballot measures submitted to the voters, the California Attorney General has the duty to review each measure and prepare an impartial ballot title and summary of 100 words. From the 100 word summary, a condensed 75 word ballot title is drawn. The ballot title is what the voters see in the ballot booth when they place their mark for “yes” or “no.” The A.G. has a duty to prepare a title and label that are impartial and will not create prejudice either in favor or against the measure. Here, the water contractors have inserted language into the Canal Bond that purports to deprive the A.G. of authority to prepare an impartial summary for this measure. Instead, the water contractors have written their own summary and inserted it into the Canal Bond. If they have their way, the voters will see only the water contractor’s version next to where they place the X on the ballot.

In my view, this was patently unlawful when the legislature approved this scheme in 2010. If there was any doubt, subsequent case law on unrelated ballot measures has removed it. The A.G. has a statutory duty to prepare an impartial summary and the legislature (doing the bidding of the water contractors) does not have the authority to usurp this function. It remains to be seen how the A.G. will respond when the time comes to prepare ballot summaries, but her actions will certainly be closely watched. California law allows for a challenge to the ballot summary before it is submitted to voters. I would not be surprised to see a challenge to this ballot summary later this summer (from groups like ours if the summary favors the water contractors, or from the water contractors if it doesn’t).

I can provide you with the source documents (bill language, etc) establishing the above-stated facts as well as contact information for others familiar with the subterfuge associated with this bond measure.

3) The Delta Plan and the Delta Stewardship Council. Running alongside the BDCP planning process is another process to plan for the future of the Delta. Once adopted, the Delta Plan will be the top tier plan for the Delta. After the BDCP planning process is complete, the BDCP will be submitted to the Delta Stewardship Council (the agency responsible for promulgating the Delta Plan) and, if approved by the Council, will be incorporated as a part of the Delta Plan. The legislation that created the Delta Stewardship Council and authorized the Delta Plan requires that reliance on the Delta as a source of water be reduced. This was part of the grand bargain struck to allow for construction of the Peripheral Canal. It mandates increased conservation and development of local supplies (among other things) in order to reduce Delta exports. However, the regulations being proposed by the Delta Stewardship Council thus far ignore this critical requirement by simply stating that existing water conservation measures are going really well and nothing further need be required. The water contractors thus get their canal but don’t have to keep their end of the reduced Delta reliance bargain. I have submitted formal administrative comments on behalf of STCDA to the Stewardship Council addressing this issue.

4) The Consolidated Salmonid Cases. Operation of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project (the two vast systems of canals that export water from the Delta) is governed by biological opinions issued by federal regulators from time to time. The 2009 biological opinion mandated a number of measures to protect endangered fish populations, including water export curtailment. The water contractors challenged this biological opinion in court and in a surprising decision, departing from precedent and normal practice, Judge Wanger struck down the biological opinion. You are probably familiar with the controversy surrounding Judge Wanger’s decision to retire from the bench and go to work for the water contractors immediately after issuing the Consolidated Salmonid Opinion.

The case is currently being appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

5) Privatizing the Kern Water Bank. In a series of secret meetings, the State Department of Water Resources turned over ownership and control of the Kern Water Bank to private interests. The secret deal is being challenged in court and opponents claim that the deal “turned over control of a significant portion of California’s water supply to a cabal of agricultural barons including billionaire Stewart Resnick.” This is another example of the “public benefit” concept.

6) The 2-Gates Project. I believe the 2-Gates project was the original concern that got you in touch with Mike Guzzardo. I submitted administrative comments on behalf of STCDA challenging the science underlying this project (as well as addressing its environmental impacts). Currently operation of the export pumps near Discovery Bay is curtailed by court order because the pumps tend to suck up the endangered Delta Smelt. The water contractors are always looking for ways to get around this court order. 2-Gates is their latest attempt. The idea behind 2-Gates is that the smelt prefer muddy water (high turbidity). Their theory is that by operating the gates they can manipulate water quality so it is less muddy in the area surrounding the pumps. If the water is less muddy, the smelt will stay away and they can run the pumps full tilt. However, there is little evidence to support the theory that the smelt will respond in this way. Because of our comments and those of others regarding the lack of scientific support for the 2-Gates model, the project was put on hold. But the water contractors are sponsoring new research that will purport to prove their theory. The researchers are employed by the United States Geological Survey but I would not be surprised if the water contractors are paying the tab for the research (they certainly will pay for construction and operation of the Gates project if it goes through). And the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California hired the researchers who came up with the original smelt-turbidity hypothesis. The new U.S.G.S. research was originally planned as 4 year study but it is being cut short and the researchers are being pressured to write up their findings based on a truncated study. The whole 2-Gates thing was billed as a “demonstration project” to generally benefit fish in the Delta. This is nonsense. It has no purpose other than to allow vastly increased water exports. The water contractors have been roundly criticized for trying to hide the true purpose of the project by the Delta Science Panel, among others.

The Peripheral Canal is the water contractor’s long term plan to take more water, but even under the best scenario for them it wouldn’t be operational for at least 10 and probably 15 years. So the gates are a high priority in the near term.

Finally, I understand Mike took you out for a boat ride. I hope you enjoyed our Delta and got to meet some of the characters out on some of the islands out there. From grizzled Marina operators to farmers fighting eminent domain to make way for the canal you can’t beat the Delta for local color. You’re less than a 100 miles from San Francisco but you might as well be on another planet. The Post Office even delivers mail by boat out there.

Michael Brodsky
Law Offices of Michael A. Brodsky

1 Comment

Posted in News and Events, Peripheral Canal, Press Release, Two-Gates

Posted by: Jan | March 13, 2012

Stop the Delta Water Grab

This article appeared today in the SF Chronicle, page A-8. Written by Restore the Delta, it is one of the best write-ups I’ve seen that covers the current state of the politics and clarifies the issues. Worth duplicating here.

Despite Republican Reps. Kevin McCarthy, Devin Nunes and Jeff Denham’s protestations, the recent drought is not man-made. Historical records show California experiences drought about a third of the time. Adverse consequences of the recent drought result not primarily from endangered species protections but from decisions to plant permanent crops that depend on water deliveries that could never be guaranteed.

The original state and federal water project contracts promised farmers in the delta and upstream watersheds that the only water exported would be water that was surplus to needs in the areas of origin. The 5 million acre-feet of North Coast water was to be added to the system, but that water never appeared. Yet, for over 20 years exporters kept taking more and more water anyway.

Even with reduced water deliveries, many south-of-the-delta growers haven’t done too badly. In 2010, at the end of a three-year drought, California had a record almond crop. California supplies 80 percent of the world’s almonds, with most of those exported to China and India. In spite of what the congressmen suggest, these aren’t crops that feed America.

A growing portion of export water isn’t growing food at all. It’s being sold for development in arid parts of the state. People with rights to the water can make more money than through the difficult and uncertain job of farming.

A 2011 study by California Water Research Associates found that 100,000 acres of land in Westlands Water District was fallowed and retired beginning in 2002, well before the drought, because of severe salinity in the soils. No amount of water in the future will make that land suitable for farming.

Research by University of the Pacific’s Jeffrey Michael has shown that joblessness in the southern San Joaquin Valley has been increasing from single to double digits ever since the 1960s. That’s when the Central Valley Project began to supply irrigation water, allowing for intensive, industrial-scale agriculture that required seasonal labor. This region has had the highest unemployment rate in the United States even when there was plenty of surplus water to send south. Instead, recent unemployment is tied to the housing collapse, the foreclosure crisis and the recession they caused. Low-skilled workers have been hit especially hard, but no more in the San Joaquin Valley than in other parts of the state.

Letting water flow to the ocean isn’t wasting water. In addition to providing necessary flows for fish in the delta, outflows flush salts out of south delta waterways, keeping salinity down for growing crops on prime delta farmland. Freshwater flowing out through the bay and the Golden Gate also sustains ocean fisheries worth hundreds of millions of dollars to California’s economy.

The five-county delta region supports more than 1.8 million jobs, and Northern California and the North Coast support hundreds of thousands more. Many of these jobs depend on reliable supplies of fresh water. It is insulting to suggest that those jobs are of less value to California than the jobs of people in the southern San Joaquin Valley.

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act (HR1837) is an outright water grab – an attempt to subvert 150 years of California water rights law in order to further enrich the top 1 percent of agribusiness corporations. It will allow the federal government to pre-empt California’s ability to manage its own water resources. HR1837 must be stopped before it becomes law.

Jane Wagner-Tyack and Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla represent Restore the Delta. www.restorethedelta.org

This article appeared on page A – 8 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Read more

1 Comment

Posted in News and Events

Posted by: Jan | March 12, 2012

Nunes Bill HR 1837 – ilk

As you have probably heard by now, HR 1837 has passed the House of Representatives, despite strong opposition during the debate by pro-Delta leaders like Congressmen Jerry McNerney, John Garamendi, George Miller and others. This bill would allow for full pumping of water exports at the Delta pumps, take control of our water away from the state moving it to the Federal level, strip away water rights from Delta area landowners, and dismember the San Joaquin River Restoration Act – a component of Delta restoration. Goodbye salmon and bass, ducks and geese.

Fortunately, California senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer oppose the legislation, making its prospects beyond the House uncertain. And the Obama administration last week indicated the president would veto the legislation if it gets that far.

The Bill comes before the Senate sometime this week. Let’s hope it is squashed there.

I found these interesting stories/links about the Bill on the California Water Impact (www.c-win.org) website:

1 Comment

Posted in News and Events

Posted by: Jan | February 3, 2012

Good news for the striped bass and the Delta

If you have been as dismayed as I have been about the recent attempts to eradicate the striped bass (erroneous claims that the bass, instead of excessive exporting of water from the Delta, are the cause of the decline of the salmon) then happily note that the Fish & Game Commissions yesterday voted unanimously to reject the Department of Fish and Game’s striped bass regulation change proposal.

The proposal was introduced by the DFG as a settlement agreement resulting from a 2008 lawsuit. In that lawsuit, the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta claimed that striped bass are “harming” native species, including endangered Central Valley chinook salmon and steelhead and Delta smelt.

But the slight-of-hand being attempted is clear when you find out that three executives of Stewart Resnick’s Paramount Farms in Kern County founded the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta. Resnick is the politically connected Beverly Hills billionaire who has made tens of millions of dollars annually from buying and reselling water back to the public for a big profit. It’s the same profiteers who are making millions from water that are behind efforts to build the Peripheral Canal and recent legislation to give Paramount Farms easier access to water contracts (causing more and more excessive exporting) and water rights over family farmers who have farmed for generations. And bass fisherman have been loud opponents to the Two Gates and Peripheral Canal efforts these millionaires want in order to increase exports.

The article concludes: “Hoorah to the integrity of the Fish and Game Commission to see through this ‘fishery management by lawsuit’ and defend the autonomy of the regulation process. Particular credit goes to outgoing Commission President Jim Kellogg who, as his last piece of business in his term, declared striped a native species,””

Read the entire article at http://blogs.alternet.org/danbacher/2012/02/02/commission-votes-against-pursuing-striped-bass-eradication-proposal/

1 Comment

Posted in News and Events, Peripheral Canal, Press Release

Posted by: Th | November 16, 2011

Delta peripheral canal – your action required!

The Los Angeles Metropolitan Water District is proposing to build a peripheral canal around the Delta in order to divert more water to Los Angeles.  This may have disastrous consequences for Discovery Bay.  Right now the L.A. Water district and other water contractors are running the show for this canal project.
As a first step in responding to this canal, we need your help to get the Water Contractors out of the driver’s seat.  And we need it quickly !!!

Please send an email to BDO@usbr.gov .

You can just cut and paste the below language and/or add your own thoughts:

I am a resident of Discovery Bay and I object to putting the Water Contractors in charge of deciding the future of the Delta.  The Water Contractors should have no say in the environmental review of any proposed peripheral canal.  And when do we get our say?  We live on the Delta and stand to be most impacted by any canal.  You should appoint a representative to the steering committee for the canal to represent the interests of people who live in the Delta, earn their living from Delta related business, and use the Delta for navigation.

UPDATE: Our legal counsel Michael Brodsky has
sent the following document to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation director
Donald Glaser in order to allow us to appeal the impending decision
regarding the peripheral canal.The document is at the following link:

You can voice your support for the concerns outlined in this document by writing to:

Donald R. Glaser
Regional Director
United States Bureau of Reclamation
Bay-Delta Office
801 I Street
Suite 140
Sacramento, CA 95814

or by emailing BDO@usbr.gov

Leave a Comment

Posted in News and Events, Peripheral Canal

Posted by: Jan | February 27, 2011

Now it’s the US Government impacting the Delta

Provisions hidden in a bill the House of Representatives just passed will abandon the positive steps that have been made the past year in restoring the Salmon runs. Not only is this bad for the salmon, it’s terrible for the entire Delta region for many reasons. Losing the environmental provisions will affect all fish (bass fishing and the tournaments and income from that), wildlife (our ducks and geese – OK, we don’t like geese pooping on the golf course but they are pretty), the water quality in our back yards and golf course, Delta Farm water quality, Delta communities water sewage, health of those using the water recreationally and long-term our drinking water.

And the only positive benefit is to the big agribusiness special interests – Westlands millionaire farmers who should have “junior” farmer water rights who farm the arid farmlands west of Hwy 5. This isn’t about the family farmers or drinking water in LA.

There have been reports on this bill in SF Gates and Contra Costa Times. A good summary is from the “Water for Fish” newsletter article:

Fatal Salmon Provisions Pass the House of Representatives


On Saturday February 19th the House passed a Continuing Resolution Bill which is needed to keep the Federal Government running after March 4th 2011. The bill included three fatal amendments for California salmon. The first stops the spending of the National Marine Fisheries Service in enforcing the biological opinions that protect the Central Valley salmon and steelhead from extinction. The second takes away the funding from the San Joaquin River Restoration project and the third defunds the Klamath Basin Settlement agreement. The amendments were inserted into the bill by Representatives Devon Nunes of Visalia and Tom McClintock of Granite Bay. They were supported by the Republican majority and the bill passed. Our salmon supporters in the House fought hard against the amendments but were overruled in the vote.

The Senate now takes up the bill. If the Central Valley provisions stay in the bill, salmon recovery is hopeless. Not only does the bill wipe out the salmon populations but it destroys the positive state efforts that are now underway to balance water needs with ecosystem recovery. We must get them removed in the Senate. We need hundreds of letters to go to Senators Feinstein and Boxer to ask for help. Please write a letter and ask your friends to do the same. … Time is important. When the Senate gets back from the current recess, they will only have four days to address the bill before the March 4th cutoff.

2010 Fall Run Salmon Returns Improve. A 2011 Fishing Season Looks Promising
The seven year steady declines in fall run salmon counts turned around in 2010. Preliminary Fish and Game data shows that 133,014 fall run adults and 30,181 two year old jacks returned to the Sacramento San Joaquin system. These figures are over three times the returns of 2009. This may provide enough fish for a 2011 season but the crisis is not over. “

Call to Action


Anyone concerned should send letters or on-line comments strongly requesting our senators to stop this bill in the Senate. Or you can write your own message to the Senators via their web contact forms:

Sen Feinstein
Sen Boxer

———————————————
Sample:
Send to Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein

SUBJECT: House Continuing Resolution language to withdraw California funding for the implementation of the Salmon biological opinion in the San Francisco Bay and Delta and to withdraw funding for the San Joaquin River restoration project.

I am deeply concerned with the House Resolution which would destroy our Central Valley salmon runs.

The salmon biological opinion of 2009 is the only thing left standing in the way of a complete loss of the Central Valley salmon. All of the runs have declined more than 50% in the last few years and fall run and the ESA listed winter run have each declined more than 90%. In the interest of our jobs and the economic viability of our local businesses, I urge you to oppose and reject the language which would destroy the salmon and our livelihoods.

The State of California is now taking positive steps to solve its water and salmon problems. There is a good new law on the books and diverse parties are now starting to work together. Leaders of our industry and other stakeholders are now at the table. I don’t believe that federal legislation is needed at this time. We should give the state processes time to work. Solutions are needed, but sending wildlife to extinction to benefit a few agricultural interests is not a solution.

Leave a Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Posted by: Jan | January 23, 2011

Delta Plan Moves Ahead

It’s a new year and the Delta Stewardship Council is holding CEQA scoping meetings on the development of the Delta Plan. Meetings are scheduled in Clarksburg on January 24 and in Stockton on January 25.

  • North Delta – Monday Jan 24 (6:30 PM – 9:30 PM)
    Clarksburg Middle School Auditorium
    52870 Netherlands Road, Clarksburg, CA 95612


  • South Delta – Tuesday Jan 25 (6:00 PM – 8:30 PM)
    San Joaquin County Robert J. Cabral Agricultural Center
    Assembly Rooms 2 & 3
    2101 East Earhart Ave
    Stockton, CA 95206

A meetings will also be held in Chico Wednesday evening. Links to information on these scoping meetings are available at:

http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/calendar.html

PLEASE DOUBLE-CHECK MEETING PLACES AND TIMES AT ABOVE LINK.

There was very little Delta representation at the Concord meeting last week we hear from a couple of folks who did attend. At the meeting the council representatives re-stated their “coequal goals” – providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring and enhancing the Delta ecosystem. The coequal goals shall be achieved in a manner that protects and enhances the unique cultural, recreational, natural resource and agricultural values of the Delta as an evolving place.

Isenberg stressed that by establishing the goals as coequal, no priority may be given to one over another, hence the water supply can not be underscored below the health of the Delta.

The local attendee who emailed STCDA expressed strong concern for how this will affect us locally here in the Delta. But felt if we have any chance in this matter, it will be with them on our side. They will be establishing the laws that will govern us. Please do not hesitate to submit comment and urge others to do so.

We have until January 28th for public comment to be submitted to their website www.deltacouncil.ca.gov or via email at deltaplanscoping@deltacouncil.ca.gov.

Leave a Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Posted by: Jan | November 23, 2010

Westlands Pulls Support from BDCP

A Press Release from Westlands yesterday stated “Westlands Pulls Its Support from Bay Delta Conservation Plan In Response to Political Interference from Interior Department.” The Westlands Water District is responsible for the San Joaquin Valley farm irrigation district.

We think this could be a good thing. The BDCP process has been flawed from the start and its plans are a serious threat to Delta Communities and the Delta itself.

In their Press Release, Thomas W. Birmingham, General Manager of Westlands states “Through this action we are trying to get BDCP back on track,” or in other words, Westland wants any restrictions on the amount of water exported removed in order to continue to fund the BDCP.

The Sacramento Bee reported this morning that Westlands recently realized that Obama’s Interior Department is likely to demand reduced water diversions as part of a completed Bay Delta Conservation Plan. When this issue was raised at a meeting with a top Interior official in Washington two weeks ago, Westlands officials stormed out of the room.

The Press Release sounds like a Westlands scare tactic. Birmingham states “And without a project to fix the water supply problem, California won’t have the means to restore the Delta either.”

“Jonas Minton, a senior project manager at the Planning and Conservation League who monitors California water issues, noted the water agencies involved have never offered to pay for Delta habitat projects – only for new water diversion plumbing. So Westlands’ move may not jeopardize any environmental improvements associated with the waterworks.”

For the full Sacramento Bee article click here.

Leave a Comment

Posted in News and Events, Peripheral Canal

Older Posts »

Categories