Save the California Delta Alliance (STCDA)

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

We had put the word out to try to get attendees to the Contra Costa Water District meeting last Wednesday, to complain about the CCWD deal with the Delta Tunnels. We wanted people to complain because the CCWD negotiated a secret closed-door deal with the DWR to drop their protest against the salt water intrusion caused by too much pumping in exchange for a guaranteed slice of the pie. See the East Bay Times Editorial. Their deal secretly cut a deal that sold out their constituents as well as Delta fish and farmers.

Did anyone try to attend the meeting? I know lots of people started submitting comments opposing the action.

http://www.eastbaytimes.com/editorial/ci_29742556/east-bay-times-editorial-secret-twin-tunnels-deal

In the previous post, I disclosed that the Contra Costa Water District has sold out to the DWR on the Delta Tunnels.

Contra Costa Water District Sells Out

They aren’t the only Northern California water district to follow this route. Santa Clara Valley Water District is also working on an agreement with the DWR.

If you live in the Santa Clara Valley, protest their plans to support the California Water Fix. Go to their website, find their contact form, and submit your comments.

Our comments count!

The Contra Costa Water District is “selling out” to the DWR/State on the Delta Tunnels.

ACTION(S): Attend the meeting Wednesday April 7 at 6:30 or, if you cannot, send in your complaints via their website contact page. Or do both!

Background:

The CCWD signed a “deal” with the DWR is selling the Delta down-the-river. The district had agreed to withdraw its protests against the twin tunnels in exchange for getting a big slug of higher-quality Sacramento River water from the new tunnels.

Really? Well, the water district claims it wouldn’t be getting any more water than before, but just taking some of it directly from the Sacramento.

Let’s think about this. Why would the DWR give CCWD this “free” water? If the CCWD pumps were going to be able to continue to supply water to Los Vaqueros Reservoir for Contra Costa users, what is the problem? The DWR keeps claiming that the new tunnels will not affect Delta water quality, that they would be operated responsibly, blah, blah, blah.

Obviously, by settling, the State is “admitting” that there will be adverse impacts from the California WaterFix project on water quality. That also points out the inadequacy (or errors) of the modeling and environmental impact analyses carried out by DWR and Reclamation.

What can you do? COMPLAIN to the CCWD about this deal.

ACTION 1

The CCWD will be holding a public board meeting this week:
Wednesday, April 6, 2016
6:30 – 9:00 PM (Meet at 6:20 if you want to group with others protesting the action)
Where: 1331 Concord Avenue, Concord, CA
That is the best way to insure they see the public is opposed to this action!

What if you, like me, can’t make that meeting?

ACTION 2

Send your complaints directly to their General Manager, Jerry Brown (yes, there’s another Jerry Brown mucking with our Delta).

Go to their website contact form.

Enter the required fields and in the Comments, it is important to start with:
TO: Jerry Brown, General Manager. This will insure the route it directly to him.

Sample Comments (replace/reword with anything you feel appropriate):
TO: Jerry Brown, General Manager.
I oppose having the CCWD sign the CCWD “deal” with the DWR. If the DWR and the Delta Tunnels are truly going to be operated responsibly, as the state claims, then there is no need for “Insurance.” Signing this agreement is a vote for the Delta Tunnels, a vote to let the state destroy the rich fertile farmland in the Delta, a vote to turn the estuary into brackish saltwater. This agreement helps the state move ahead with their tunnels. If the tunnels turn the Delta into saltwater, will you have communities to serve? If the farmlands turn salty, if the fine Brentwood corn can no longer be grown here, what will happen to the communities your water district serves?

This is not an “insurance policy,” it is bad business. Please do not sign this agreement.

Save the California Delta Alliance (STCDA) would like to “Welcome Aboard” a new Board Member. Susan Silva is now the Treasurer of STCDA.

Susan has boated in the Delta for 29 years and says, “The delta is my home, and I am passionate about restoring and protecting the Delta, farmers, communities, bird life.” She and her husband, Terry, are members of the DBYC and the Weber Point Yacht Club.

Her financial background includes 45 years in construction accounting – all aspects of financial accounting including AR, AP, banking, monthly financial statements, and audits with 2 employers.

Susan will be replacing Judy Smith who is moving to Bend, Oregon. We would like to express our great thanks to Judy for being our Treasurer for the past years and handling the job so effectively and well, as well as passing out flyers and providing other support at various events. And for being such a pleasure to work with. She will be missed.

Dams, Dams, and more Dams:

• Some Won/Some Lost: The state partially listened to concerned communities (Good) but still installed one of the three proposed salinity dams this year, the False River Dam (Bad). That dam caused the destruction and damage the locals were concerned it would (Bad). It was removed when promised (before the salmon runs) in November (Good). The state is proposing to install the False River Dam again in April (Bad).
• Even More Dams?: Five more gates (or dams) have been proposed, but to-date this remains a study and has not gone forward for review.

Bad Legislation:

• Good News: Another bad Bill sponsored by the San Joaquin agricultural members which would have devastated the Central Valley salmon populations was brought up to the new 2015 Congress in January but did not pass the Senate. The fish win.
• Bad Executive Order: In April, Gov. Brown issued Executive Order B-29-15 which streamlined the permitting and review of emergency drought salinity barriers (and expedited the False River Dam).

California WaterFix (aka Delta Tunnels):

• Here Comes the New Plan (Same as the Old Plan): Gov. Brown released a new plan in July 2015 to replace the defeated BDCP Tunnel Plan, named the “California WaterFix.” It is the same old BDCP plan regarding the Tunnels, but without any pretense that it will help the Delta or the environment.
• Rushed Comment Period: Two pseudo-meetings were held in the Northern Delta in July. Protesters attended. The scene was like something from the 1960s at Berkeley. Hundreds crowded onto the sidewalk in front of the Sacramento Grand Sheraton protesting to an un-listening governor bent on building water tunnels. Thousands of comments opposing the tunnels were submitted.
• The permitting process started for the Delta Tunnels. The Army Corp of Engineers has not been open to postponing the permit process until the California WaterFix EIR is final, nor were they willing to come to Discovery Bay so that communities in the South could meet with them. (Bad)
• SWRCB Hearings Announced: The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) announced the schedule for hearings in 2016 concerning the permits for the tunnels. This is the next battlefront. STCDA is preparing their protest to submit by January 5, as required by the STCDA process. The battle continues into 2016. This could be a positive turning point against the Delta Tunnels. (That would be Good).

Four Delta Island Proposal

• Metropolitan Water District plus two large Central Valley water districts push to buy four Delta islands (Bad).
• At the end of 2015, the deal had not been completed because of prior restrictions on those islands’ use (Good).

Westland’s Wins – Northern California’s Losses:

• In August, Westlands farmers try to destroy the Klamath Basin. Destroying the Delta isn’t enough for them. (Bad)
• In September, a bad-for-the-Delta agreement was reached between the U.S. Government and Westlands which would relieve Westlands of its $350 million debt for their portion of the Central Valley Project and would lift limits on the size of Westlands farms eligible for subsidized water deliveries. As of the end of the year, this has not yet been approved by Congress.

2015 Progress Made:

• Working Together: While the California WaterFix (Delta Tunnels) plan is still high on Gov. Brown’s must-do list, the Northern California legislators, communities, boaters, and environmental groups continue to be united in battling to defeat the tunnels. No, Gov. Brown. We will not “Shut Up,” nor will we stop educating the public on the damage the tunnels would do. More people are understanding the real issues involved with the Delta Tunnel. Our legislators continue to work to replace the Delta Tunnels with viable water plans.
• Large Coalition Pushing the SWRCB to Reject the Plan: A large Coalition (including STCDA) sent a letter to the State Water Board, urging them to reject the demand by water agencies to abandon the ‘unimpaired flow’ approach in the update of the State Board’s update to the Delta’s water quality control plan. In other words, to do what the 2009 legislature dictated to the Delta Plan/BDCP: To start with the Delta Flows report. That report proves that the Delta cannot continue to be the single source of water for the state – other projects and plans are needed.
• Delta Independent Science Board Slam: In October, the Delta Independent Science Board Slams the California WaterFix.
• Four Delta Island proposal stalled: The Four Delta Island proposal is stymied and hopefully will not go through.
• STCDA ready to continue the Battle: The Save the California Delta Alliance Board of Directors vote to continue the battle into 2016. In addition, all of the Board members and our Legal Council have agreed to remain in their positions. (Thank you).

Happy 2016! Together we will Save the Delta!

If one of these four Delta islands is planned to be a giant muck pond, that could be horrible! In a new article on the controversial sale of four Delta islands to Metropolitan Water District, it says: “One of the islands also could serve as a temporary repository for the mounds of dirt (the muck) the project would create,” referring to the Delta Tunnel project. Wait – what?

If they use Web Tract or Holland Tract, the poor residents of Bethel Island will have smelly winds. If Holland Tract or Bacon Island, extend that to Oakley, Knightsen, etc. For boaters, Holland and Bacon Island are right next to favorite anchorages. All are near popular marinas and boating waterways. Yuk.

If it is true that there is a plan to use one of these for their muck ponds, it’s nothing that has been put in the project plan that underwent public review. The project was being sold on the merits of two islands used as reservoirs during wet years to release in dry years, two used as “habitat islands,” (although independent review by the county discounted any real environmental benefit from how the habitat islands are being planned).

Read More Here…

WRITE YOUR U.S. CONGRESS REPRESENTATIVES and OBAMA today (or soon) … It’s not to late for us to still try to have input into a “deal” being made with Westlands Water District. Details below. This deal still needs to be approved by Congress.

Westlands Water District is one of the worst offenders of overusing Delta Water. The district is on the west side near I-5. The deal would guarantee the district vast amounts of California’s water to sustain the irrigation of toxic soils filled with selenium. This is horrible for the Delta, for Taxpayers, and for California.

Read more here …

In July, we submitted comments regarding the Delta Islands project (officially SPK-1901-09804, SDEIS Delta Wetlands Project, San Joaquin & Contra Costa Counties, CA) which proposed converting two Delta Islands into wetlands habitat areas (Holland Tract and Bouldin Island), and converting two Delta Islands into reservoir islands (Bacon Island just west of Mildred Island and Webb Tract north of there). The latter two are on the tunnel route, so helps them pre-purchase some farmland without going the eminent domain route. I opposed the plan for many reasons:

1. The plan supports the Delta Tunnels
2. The reservoir islands, to be useful during drought years, would likely raise the need for more dams, like the False River Dam installed this summer
3. They will be constructing intake and discharge pumps near the South Delta anchorages of Mildred Island and “The Horseshoe,” likely to ruin the peaceful anchorages for months if not years.
4. They will be locating the docks in the main recreational ski runs near Mildred and Connection Slough, wiping out a significant portion of the recreational areas.

Here is the map showing the islands that were part of the

In addition, the plan includes habitat restoration on a small portion of Chipps island which is already owned by the southern water districts.

See more in the KQED article: Massive Delta Land Buy.

There are an important set of meetings coming up that may be more open to citizen input than past meetings. We will be getting more information out and are looking at one or two bus trips up to Sacramento to support these meetings.

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) will be holding evidentiary hearings to review the petition to add the new diversion points for the California WaterFix project (i.e., for the Delta Tunnels). The State Water Board will also hold a pre-hearing conference on January 28, 2016 and January 29, 2016, if necessary.

The hearing itself will commence Thursday, April 7, 2016 and is planned in two parts:

• Part I will focus on the potential effects of the Petition on agricultural, municipal and industrial users of water, and conditions that should be placed on any approval of the Petition to protect those users.
• Part II will focus on the potential effects of the Petition on fish and wildlife and recreational uses and conditions that should be placed on any approval of the Petition to protect those uses, including consideration of appropriate Delta flow criteria for the California WaterFix Project. Part II of the hearing is not planned to commence until after the environmental and endangered species act compliance processes are completed.

The upcoming California WaterFix hearing dates are as follows:

• Jan. 5, 2016 (Tuesday) 12:00 noon – Deadline for receipt of protests against Petition and Notices of Intent to Appear for Parts I and II of the hearing.
• Jan. 28, 2016 (Thursday) 9:00 a.m. – Pre-hearing conference to discuss the scope of the hearing and procedural issues and continuing, if necessary, on Friday, January 29, 2016.
• March 1, 2016 (Tuesday) 12:00 noon – Deadline for receipt and service of witnesses’ proposed testimony, witness qualifications, exhibits, lists of exhibits, and a statement of service for Part I of the hearing.
• April 7, 2016 (Thursday) 9:00 a.m. – Part I of the hearing.
• Date to be announced – Deadline for receipt and service of witnesses’ proposed testimony, witness qualifications, exhibits, lists of exhibits, and a statement of service for Part II of the hearing.
• Dates to be announced – Part II of the hearing.

The hearing and pre-hearing conference will be held:
Joe Serna Jr. Cal EPA Building
1001 I Street, Second Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814.