Save the California Delta Alliance (STCDA)

This is June’s “Water War Update” Bay and Delta Yachtsman Magazine – Delta Rat Scrapbook – it deserves wider readership. Thanks to Bill Wells, “Delta Rat Scrapbook” writer for his continual efforts in support of the Delta:

“If you live in Northern California you are aware of the current scandal involving Linda Katehi, Chancellor of the University of California at Davis (UCD), hiring consultants to improve her image after students were pepper sprayed by campus police a while back.

I won’t go into all the sordid details here, but according to the Sacramento Bee newspaper, the university spent taxpayer funds to spy on local reporter, Dan Bacher. Dan is a friend of mine, and one of the best investigative journalists in California. He writes for the Fish Sniffer, the River News Herald & Isleton Journal, and other local publications.

Now, many of the scientists at UCD are involved with the Brown/Laird plan to divert the Sacramento River around the Delta via twin forty-four foot diameter tunnels, so I did not think it was much of a stretch to think they would want to keep an eye on Dan.

I asked him what was going on and he showed me a link to a UCD website that names Stuart Resnick and Riley Bechtel as two of Katehi’s advisors. Resnick is a California land and water baron, and a user of a lot of Delta water. Bechtel is the Chairman of the Board of Bechtel Corporation, a company that stands to get a lot of business if construction ever begins on the tunnels. According to my usually reliable sources at UCD, Katehi’s husband teaches a course in ethics at the university.”

My own comments: Maybe it’s just a “coincidence,” but during the whole BDCP/Delta Tunnels/California WaterFix debates, I have continued to be surprised that the UC Davis Scientists continued to weigh in favorably on the Tunnels, contrary to other independent scientists. Just saying . . .

Bay and Delta Yachtsman Magazine – Delta Rat Scrapbook.

(Revised 6/1)
Our Legal Council, Michael Brodsky, sent me an email last week saying “We Won!” He was referring to our law suit against the Delta Plan. After reviewing the legal document (ilk – legalese) I realized that not only did we win our law suit, but how great a lawyer Michael Brodsky is. We are so lucky we have him! Oh, and by the way, he has never charged us for his legal fees. And the time he has spent on Delta issues is, to quote Bernie, YUGE.

Save the California Delta Alliance (STCDA) was one of many plaintiffs who had filed suits against the Delta Plan, saying The Delta Plan promoted the tunnels and failed to protect the Delta or the environment.

Because of our win, the Delta Plan will need to be revised to include quantified or otherwise measurable targets associated with restoring more natural flows as required by the Delta Reform Act. This is big!

The plan also needs to incorporate options for water conveyance and storage systems. The loss of ground water storage and no mechanism for recharging the water table has been a center of our arguments from the start.

In addition, two suits were filed by the water contractors, saying The Delta Plan didn’t guarantee them enough water. Go figure.

The stacks of legalese that Michael submitted was amazing. He then attended multiple hearings and argued our case. To remind everyone, Mr. Brodsky has worked tirelessly on behalf of the Delta since the community met him in 2009.

October 2009 was the first Town Hall Meeting held in the Discovery Bay Elementary Gym. The purpose – to hear from the USBR about why they were planning on installing two dams in our waterways – one dam blocking boat traffic on Old River between Discovery Bay and Bethel Island, the other dam on Connection Slough between Mildred and Bethel. The two together would have totally blocked boat traffic whenever the Bacon Island Bridge was non-operational – and back then, it only operated certain hours and certain days, IF it wasn’t down for maintenance issues. The USBR was calling them “Fish Protection Gates” and claimed boat traffic could pass through on ebb tides. The gates would be open for 5-10 minutes every six hours, with the timing depending on the tides. Try to plan your boating excursion around that! So for most of us boaters, we considered them dams. The USBR also said they would only operate part of the year. But, the structure would narrow the river from 180 feet to 75 feet wide. It reminded me of the issue we had in Canada, going through narrow channels. That would create a class 3 rapid during the time of year when not operational and a boat tried to traverse it any time other than ebb tide. No thank you – I’m not taking my boat through there, ever.

The gym was packed to the hilt. The USBR representatives were taken aback. The night before, they had met with a small group of farmers in Fresno, about fifteen, who were very happy about the prospect of installing these gates/dams. Happy, because they were told that then the pumps could export even more water to them. That the gates/dams would block the Delta smelt from getting into the pumps and stop judges’ orders from halting the pumps. THEN they came to Discovery Bay. Five hundred angry boaters and citizens greeted them.

They gave their briefing about the benefits of these so-called Fish Protection Gates. I asked them about what the boaters were supposed to do. They responded with, “They can just go the other way when the gate on Old River is closed.”

I asked, “The other way? What about the Bacon Island Bridge? Will it be operational 24×7?”

They looked at each other and said, “Bridge?” They didn’t even know there was a bridge on Middle River that was often closed and which big boats couldn’t fit under.

But it was when Michael Brodsky stood up, that the meeting took a turn for the worse (for the USBR Project Managers doing the briefing). None of us knew who he was. An articulate, gentleman, who asked to be heard and strode to the front of the room to speak with the presenters.

“I’m a resident of Discovery Bay,” he started. “Why wasn’t I informed about this meeting until the last minute? I just saw signs as I drove into the community tonight?”

The USBR Project Manager hemmed and hawed. His opening statements reminded me a bit of Columbo, starting simple, then getting to the meat.

“Furthermore,” he continued, “I wondered what approval you are planning on before installing these gates. Have you filed your NEPA papers? Your CEQA?”

“Huh?” we in the audience looked at each other. “What’s that?”

The USBR Project Manager said, “We don’t need to file a CEQA report, or a NEPA. These are temporary gates”

“Yes you do,” the stranger countered. And he started listing off the reasons why this project needed to follow all of the National Environmental Protection Act and California Environmental Quality Act requirements.

Then he really got them. He said, “And what about the erosion behind the gates?” He had a more technical term for it. “Have you studied the erosion that will occur to the levees?”

The female project manager replied, “No, there will be no erosion . . ,” while her boss, standing next to her leaned over to her and said, “Yes there will be.”

We didn’t know him at the time, but Michael Brodsky has become the most valuable asset this community and the Delta has. He wouldn’t admit it, though.

Summary of the Delta Plan Lawsuit

There were seven lawsuits filed in all. Two were filed by water contractors (Metropolitan Water District, Westlands Water District, etc.) who rob us of our Delta water. They wanted to weaken what little Delta protections were contained in the Delta Plan. They lost on all points. Another suit was filed by the City of Stockton. Stockton argued that less water should be exported from the Delta, but unfortunately was unsuccessful.

Three other suits were filed by a number of local water agencies, Delta farmers, and environmental groups. And finally, there was our lawsuit. We worked closely with the three other “white hat” groups and all four lawsuits were successful in winning additional protections for the Delta and making it a bit more difficult for the water contractors to go forward with the tunnels. All of the white hat lawsuits made important contributions to the final victory.

The other good guys in these cases on our side are: California Water Impact Network, Friends of the River, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, AquAlliance, Restore the Delta, Center for Biological Diversity, Central Delta Water Agency, Lafayette Ranch, Local Agencies of the North Delta, Cindy Charles, North Coast Rivers Alliance, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association, and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe.

The bottom line is that the Delta Plan will have to show a meaningful effort to reduce reliance on the Delta as a source of exported water, do more to reduce harm from invasive species (including those nasty weeds!), do more to restore freshwater flows and put some numbers on how much water should be left flowing through the Delta, and promote options for conveyance and storage solutions. This last point means the Delta plan may not simply rubber stamp the tunnels.

We should be able to recover our court costs and may be able to recover some attorney fees from the losing parties, but the attorneys have to go back to argue for their legal fees.

I’m hoping Michael gets some his fees awarded – he deserves it! We are so lucky to have him.

However, there are three or four major cases still to go if we are to completely stop the tunnels. It could take years to collect any attorney fees from the Delta Plan lawsuit, so please donate so we can keep up the battle!

Or send donation check made out to “STCDA” and mail to:

STCDA
P.O. Box 1760
Discovery Bay, CA 94505

Good Sac Bee article May 7, Should California’s striped bass be vilified as native-fish killers? that investigates the question whether bass predation on salmon is part of the salmon decline. The article clearly concludes that no, they are not the problem at all. The only groups that are trying to push that idea, are those related to the Central Valley farmers. And, in fact, Sean Hayes, NOAA, says even if the bass were removed, other predators would take their place. Removing the bass would mess up the food chain, and bass eat only a small proportion.

But, as we know, the CV farmers and their advocates keep looking for “solutions” to the Delta problem without admitting it’s the water.

Then today, in the bee, I read a letter to the editor, grrrr:

Eliminate bass, save the salmon”

Re “In state’s water wars, striped bass vilified as predators of native fish” (Insight, May 7): An April 19 report to the state Water Resources Control Board by Dr. Sean Hayes of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration discussed multiple stresses that impact salmon. Hayes’ study confirmed the results of 25 years of similar studies: As few as 3 percent of migrating salmon survive their Delta journey.

Eliminating predatory bass and catfish won’t entirely solve problems in the Delta. Addressing hot spots in numerous areas where salmon numbers suffer their greatest losses should be the first focus of predator control, reducing effects of nonnative species in the Delta.

Allowing unrestricted fishing for bass or other predators in those areas would reduce risk to endangered salmon. That’s a step in the right direction toward a healthier Delta for everyone.

Mike Wade, Sacramento

Hmm, I thought. The Mike Wade I always see commenting on every Delta article is not from Sacramento. So I found an article from last month submitted to the Merced Sun-Star by Mike Wade, Modesto, Executive Director of the California Farm Water Coalition, a name I see often on rebuttal comments to any pro-Delta articles on the internet. The article, “What’s Eating the Salmon,” http://www.mercedsunstar.com/article73248392.html, had the same statements as the “other” Mike Wade’s LTE, opposite of what the Sac Bee article below states.

If you read in the article what Dr. Sean Hayes actually said, Mike Wade says the opposite. That’s just so cheeky. And such a ploy. Quote someone with great credentials, but twist what he says to make it sound like he said the opposite.

So I wrote my own LTE:

Title: It’s not the bass, it’s the water

Re: Eliminate bass, save the salmon (LTE May 18). The LTE submitted by Mike Wade, Sacramento, echoes a Merced Sun-Star article written last month by Mike Wade, Modesto, who is the Executive Director of the California Farm Water Coalition, the ongoing voice for farmers in the Central Valley.

That bass are a culprit in the decline of salmon has been rejected by the Fish & Game and by most scientists. Blaming the bass is just a decoy in the water wars. After a contentious meeting in Sacramento four or five years ago, where a prominent Delta commercial bass fisherman was pushing the Legislature to reduce water exports in order to improve the Delta for all fish species, one of the Central Valley water representatives was overheard to say, “Wait until he sees what we do to his bass!” Shortly after that, Central Valley representatives started pushing legislation attacking the bass.

The Delta problem is clear. The Delta needs more water flowing through it. The export levels increased significantly during the first decade of this century. The salmon and bass both declined as a result. Water flowing to the ocean isn’t “wasted,” as the farmers believe. It flushes out the Delta, taking the salmon with it to return to the ocean. It flushes out and cleanses the SF Bay. Increased exports and overplanting the Central Valley with orchards caused the demise of salmon, influx of invasive plant species, and lower water quality in the Delta. Other stressors exist, no doubt. But without enough fresh water, no other “improvements” can save the Delta.

Jan McCleery, Discovery Bay