FISHING 4 NEWS



Please support the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance

July 17, 2010             Headlines::     F & G Commission Passes North/ Central Central MLPAs

Editorial:
Stranded Chinook Salmon Successfully Rescued from Butte Creek

Readers, below you will find a media release from Cal DFG is regards to a fish rescue conducted on Butte Creek this past week. Cal DFG must believe that California anglers are a bunch of buffoons. On a personal level I was insulted by the news release and many in the sportfishing community (and groups fighting for salmon) felt likewise. In an attempted to gloss over the real issue of water diversion as the cause for the low flows and high water temperatures that stranded 100s of listed (
threatened)  salmon they use the term "thermal block" as if this is a natural occurrence. The very first sentence is a tip off of a dog and pony show press release when they use the term "fisheries experts", please.
The most pathetic part of the press release is when they write "A variety of factors may have delayed or altered the normal migration timing and pattern, including a late spring and cold high flows out of the Yuba River". I'm sorry, I laughed when I read that because we now have "fishery experts" claiming that somehow "cold high water flows" are to blame for the low numbers of fish returning to the river and may have altered their migration. We all know how detrimental cold high flows are to salmon. This is no laughing matter. This year's spring run is down by 95% from the 10 year average.
DFG management tries to spin the story that they somehow are saving the fishery when in fact they are again neglecting the true factors, too much water being diverted in low water years (three years ago when these fish hatched at the beginning of a three year drought). This fish rescue operation likely cost was $10s of thousands of dollars when all they needed was enough water to allow the fish to migrate through the lower river on their own.
To Supervisor Joe Johnson, I'm no fishery rocket scientist but  I feel that I can speak for the sport and commercial fishing community as a whole, that we have had it with this type of "fishery supervision" and are insulted by this press release. If DFG addressed the real causes for the fish stranding, too much water being diverted to agriculture and refugees maybe next summer you won't have to "rescue" any fish at all. But I'm sure you already neglected that advice from your own biologists.
Mike Aughney

CDFG News Release - Stranded Chinook Salmon Successfully Rescued from Butte Creek

California Department of Fish and Game News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - July 16, 2010
Contacts:
Harry Morse, DFG Communications, (916) 322-8962
Joe Johnson, DFG Fisheries Supervisor, (916) 358-2943              

Stranded Chinook Salmon Successfully Rescued from Butte Creek
State and federal fisheries experts arrived at Butte Creek yesterday, expecting to capture and transport 75-80 spring run Chinook salmon stranded in Butte Creek. They captured and relocated 123. The salmon, which are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, had stopped their migratory journey through the lower reach of the river because of rising water temperatures.
The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) combined efforts to rescue the fish. Staff netted the salmon, implanted radio transmitters in 22 of them and moved them upstream to cooler water, so they can continue their spawning migration.
"Due to the extremely low number of returning fish this year to Butte Creek, every fish is important," said Joe Johnson, DFG Fisheries Supervisor. "We didn't expect to find 123 fish, but we were prepared. We tagged all of them and place radio transmitters in two groups of fish in two areas. We want to find out how many of these stranded salmon will survive to spawn, and what the results are for this type of rescue."
Snorkel surveys conducted at the end of June only recorded 300 salmon in this area, instead of an expected 3,000 to 5,000. A variety of factors may have delayed or altered the normal migration timing and pattern, including a late spring and cold high flows out of the Yuba River.
The water in the Butte Creek pool where the fish were stranded is significantly warmer than the rest of the river, creating a thermal block that causes the migrating salmon to dive to the bottom in search of cooler waters. As long as the water remains warm, the fish will not move forward. This particular spot on the river has been a trouble spot for spring run salmon in previous years.
DFG fisheries staff and NOAA biologists solved the problem by setting seine nets to capture the stranded salmon. Biologists then used dip nets to capture fish out of the larger seine net and place them in a net pen. Each fish, some of whom weighed up to 30 lbs., was carefully moved from the net pen in dip nets by a line of workers to transfer the fish up a steep bank. The fish were then loaded into a hatchery truck and transported up river for release, thus moving them around the warm water thermal block.
This year, for the second time, DFG, NOAA and staff from the University of California, Davis implanted a percentage of the rescued salmon with radio tracking devices, while the rest were tagged with small, external colored tags. The trackers will enable biologists to monitor how rescued fish behave after being rescued and if they contribute to the overall salmon population.
Butte Creek's spring run Chinook salmon have been listed as a threatened species since 1999. More than $35 million has been spent by state, federal and private parties on restoration and recovery efforts on the watershed. Over the past decade, changes in habitat and water management have helped the population rebound somewhat, but Central Valley salmon populations can still vary significantly from year to year. Over the past ten years, the run has averaged 6,000 fish, but today, surveys indicate a much lower salmon return.  



The long decline of our salmon fisheries have been attributed to increases in water diversion out of the delta. We believe that the public and anglers alike must understand the root causes of the destruction of our fisheries and the players behind the scenes. The
increased exports from the Delta estuary have wreaked havoc on all Delta fisheries, especially salmon. Salmon fisheries can NOT return to health until the Delta recovers and the Delta can't recover until water exports return to pre 2000 levels.


The Monterey Plus Amendments
Overturning the Monterey Plus Amendments to Protect California’s Freshwater Ecosystems and Freshwater Supplies

In 1994, after negotiating for several months in secret at a resort in Monterey, the California Department of Water Resources and five State Water Project contractors executed the Monterey Agreement, which significantly modified the contracts of the State Water Project. Subsequently, the Department transferred public ownership of the Kern Water Bank, a 1-million acre-foot underground storage facility, to the agribusiness-dominated Kern County Water Agency, which in turn deeded the water bank to the Kern Water Bank Authority, a privately controlled joint powers authority.

After years of litigation and delay, the California Department of Water Resources has recently given final approval to the agreement, now called the Monterey Plus Amendments. These amendments fundamentally alter the State Water Project by:

• Eliminating the “urban preference,” which prioritized water deliveries to municipal customers during drought. This change results in widespread urban water shortages and higher utility rates for Southern California ratepayers.

• Illegally transferring state property in the Kern Water Bank to private entities and undermining the California Water Code by masking the purpose and place of water use.

• Increasing water exports from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, thus worsening water-quality problems and triggering the collapse of the Delta’s ecosystem and fisheries.

• Authorizing a new, deregulated market for buying and selling “paper water” — water promised by contract that can never realistically be delivered.

• Opening the door to privatizing the publicly financed State Water Project.

For the first time in State Water Project history, publicly owned water rights and facilities are in essence privatized and placed under the control of for-profit corporations. A number of privately financed “water banks” have come into existence, allowing, in some cases, more money to be made by selling water than by farming.

The Monterey Plus Amendments are the California Department of Water Resources’ second attempt at amending the long term water contracts. In 1995, three organizations successfully sued the Department and the Central Coast Water Authority over the inadequacy of the environmental impact report for the first attempt, called the Monterey Amendments. The courts agreed that, given the statewide implications of the first Monterey Amendments, environmental documents should have been prepared by the Department — not a local agency, the Central Coast Water Authority.

The Department issued a draft environmental impact report on the Monterey Plus Amendments in 2007 and released a final document in 2010. In June 2010, the Center for Biological Diversity, the California Water Impact Network, the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, and the South and Central Delta Water Agencies filed suit to overturn the Monterey Plus Amendments and force the return of the Kern Water Bank to state ownership and the return of all illegally secured profits.

The lawsuit, filed under the California Environmental Quality Act, alleges that the environmental impact report was deficient and failed to provide (1) an adequate project description, (2) adequate disclosure of project impacts, (3) an accurate description of the environmental baseline without the Monterey Plus Amendments, (4) evaluation of feasible alternatives, (5) meaningful mitigation to lessen project impacts on the environment, (6) an acceptable response to comments, and (7) substantial evidence to support conclusions of no significant environmental or ratepayer impacts.   

The lawsuit asks the court to vacate and set aside approval of the Monterey Plus Amendments and the environmental impact report and suspend all activities pursuant to the project until the Department has complied with all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and other applicable laws. It further asks the court to void the Kern Water Bank Exchange Agreement as an unconstitutional gift of a public asset and seeks a return to state ownership of the Kern Water Bank, a return of all of the ill-gotten gains from private use of the Kern Water Bank, and a prohibition of the Kern Water Bank Authority’s use of the Kern Water Bank.

Specifically, the Center's lawsuit seeks to vacate:

1. Article 18(a) of the Monterey Plus Amendments.

The original Article 18(a) required that, in times of drought, deliveries to agricultural users would be reduced before deliveries to urban users would be cut. This was known as the “urban preference.” As a matter of state policy and the California Water Code, during shortages, drinking water for people and water supplies for most of California’s industrial economy was superior to water used to grow surplus nonfood crops in the desert. The Monterey Plus Amendments change that to ensure that agricultural contractors, representing a small fraction of the California economy, would receive as much water during droughts as the South Coast, which comprises more than half of the state’s population and economy.

For urban Southern California, this change results in serious water shortages and increased water rates. Our lawsuit seeks to vacate the revised Article 18(a) and to reestablish the urban preference to protect people and California’s economy during our recurring droughts.

2. Article 18(b) of the Monterey Plus Amendments.

The State Water Project was planned to deliver supplies of as many as 4.23 million acre-feet of water, much of it imported from North Coast streams (the Eel, Van Duzen, Klamath, and Smith rivers). These rivers were declared wild and scenic in the 1970s and off limits to the State Water Project. As a result, the State Water Project was only partially built and has only been able to reliably deliver less than half the originally promised, contracted amounts of water. The original Article 18(b) provided for a permanent reduction in water deliveries in the event the entire State Water Project was not fully built out. Even though the Project has never been completed, the Monterey Plus Amendments eliminate this provision, thus allowing water contractors to continue to include and rely upon “paper water” in their contracts.

This change results in a reliance on interruptible paper water for permanent crops and urban expansion. Our suit seeks to reverse the modified Article 18(b) in order to preserve the state’s ability to bring unrealistic promises of water into balance with reliable water yields.

3. Article 21 of the Monterey Plus Amendments.

The original Article 21 addressed the sale of “surplus” water and prohibited the delivery of such water for purposes that would require a reliable and sustained delivery of water such as to homes, factories, businesses, and permanent crops. The Monterey Plus Amendments eliminate these restrictions and have made available the delivery of “interruptible water” to permanent development whenever the normal supplies had been made. This not only eliminates the safeguard against establishing economies based on unreliable water supplies — it also allows the massive increase in State Water Project Delta export pumping after 2000, triggering the collapse of Delta fisheries. For example, State Water Project exports increased from an average of 993,686 acre-feet in the 1970s to 1,925,758 acre-feet in the 1980s to 2,011,369 acre-feet in the 1990s to a whopping 3,078,838 between 2000 and 2006.

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the water supplier to agencies throughout the South Coast, gambled when it gave up its “urban preference” in hopes of securing even larger amounts of “surplus” water. In wetter years, the District was successful, but it never received more than 200,000 acre-feet from Article 21 in a single year, whereas in 2005, agricultural contractors received 531,000 acre-feet through Article 21. These deliveries of “surplus” water triggered Delta fisheries declines. Subsequent federal biological opinions under the Endangered Species Act to protect salmon, steelhead and Delta smelt, as well as court rulings on those biological opinions slammed the door on this gambit. Consequently, during the last drought, the District and its customer agencies were faced with water shortages and had to increase rates for water it delivered, which were in turn passed on to consumers and rate payers.

These increased exports from the Delta estuary during critical periods wreaked havoc on endangered fish species and California’s commercially valuable fall Chinook salmon runs. They also increased dependence upon interruptible water supplies. The lawsuit seeks to void the revised Article 21 and limit the use of interruptible sources of water to purposes that can withstand inevitable water shortages.

4. Transfer of the Kern Water Bank.

In 1987, the District established the Kern Water Bank as a “State Water Project conservation facility” that was integrated into the overall State Water Project operations as part of the State Water Resource Development System. In 1995, the California Department of Water Resources transferred ownership — on an interim basis, pending final approval of the first Monterey Amendments — of the Kern Water Bank to agricultural contractors, including the Kern County Water Agency, in exchange for 45,000 acre-feet of paper water — i.e., water that the Kern County Water Agency had never received and for which the agency was required to pay as part of State Water Project construction. In other words, the Kern County Water Agency received property worth many millions of dollars in exchange for something it had never received and which reduced the agency’s payments to the State Water Project at the same time. The very next day, The Kern County Water Agency transferred ownership in the water bank to the Kern Water Bank Authority, a privately controlled joint powers authority. Although still operated by the Kern Water Bank Authority, this transfer is subject to final approval of the Monterey Plus Amendments.  

The transfer of the Kern Water Bank to private parties violated the California Constitution and Water Code, among other provisions that prohibit the gift of state assets to private parties. The Center’s lawsuit seeks to void the transfer and recover all ill-gotten profits from the private use of public assets.  
* See http://www.c-win.org/monterey-plus-agreement.html and http://www.c-win.org/monterey-amendments-state-water-project-contracts.html.


A Major Pollutant Goes Unregulated

By Lloyd G. Carter

Nearly three decades ago, federal scientists discovered the cause of a massive die-off of fish and birds at the Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge in Merced County, 10 miles north of Los Banos. Selenium, a trace element scattered through the soils of the western San Joaquin Valley, had been dissolved by irrigation in the Westlands Water District and then funnelled in drainage water from the fields to evaporation ponds at Kesterson through a cement-lined drainage ditch called the San Luis Drain. As the selenium moved up the Kesterson food chain, it became more lethal until it caused the deaths of thousands of migratory birds and near total reproductive failure in some avian species.

In February 1985, the State Water Resources Control Board declared the Kesterson evaporation ponds a public nuisance threat and gave the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which operates the big federal irrigation project delivering northern California to the Western San Joaquin Valley, three years to stop the pollution or close the Kesterson facility. The next month, the Reclamation agency closed Kesterson and Westlands growers have been without drainage since then, causing nearly 100,000 acres of land to salt up and go out of production, a process known as salinization, which is occurring to this day throughout the world where irrigated agriculture is practiced.

Sibling embryos of the bird species Stilt collected from a single nest on the same day from a Tulare Basin evaporation pond in the Southern San Joaquin Valley in 2001. The overtly teratogenic embryo on the left, exhibiting stunted growth, no eyes, deformed bones (in the right foot) contained 72 parts per million selenium (dry weight, whole egg), while the overtly normal sibling, on the right, contained 16 parts per million selenium. Selenium triggered massive wildlife deformities in birds at the Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge in Merced County in the early 1980s. The deformities were caused by selenium in drainage water from the Westlands Water District moving up the food chain into the birds nesting at Kesterson. The federal government has never enforced international and federal bird protection laws in the Tulare Basin to halt the selenium poisoning. Photo courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).

Shockingly, nearly 30 years since scientific confirmation that selenium was killing migratory birds protected by international treaty, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not established wildlife protection criteria for selenium dumping in aquatic environments. Selenium is a strange element, which is a micro-nutrient in animals and humans but also highly toxic in amounts slightly higher than that needed for nutritional necessity. A dramatic example is an overdose of selenium given to 21 polo horses from Venezuela that were to compete in the U.S. Open polo tournament in April of 2009. They all died within hours of taking the selenium, which was given to the horses purportedly to help them recover from exhaustion.

Selenium continues to be popular on the vitamin and supplement market, being touted as a cure for everything from cancer to dandruff. Its dangers, particularly to fish and wildlife, are rarely mentioned.

Yet selenium continues to negatively affect fish and birds not only in the irrigated agriculture of the western San Joaquin Valley but also in other parts of the United States where coal mining or phosphate fertilizer mining occurs.

In mid-June, a federal judge in Charleston, West Virginia, acting in a suit filed by environmentalists, including the Sierra Club, ruled that Patriot Coal Company continues to dump selenium-laden mining waste into the watershed of Mud River in Appalachia, killing off the fishery. District Judge Robert C. Chambers criticized Patriot Coal’s Hobet Mining subsidiary and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection for failure to set a deadline for complying with state selenium limits at the company’s Hobet 21 mountaintop-removal mining complex. The judge ordered a hearing for August to consider issuing an injunction.

“Hobet’s track record of non-compliance and the WVDEP’s history of acquiescing to deadline extensions and other modifications to ease permit requirements suggest compliance is not likely without intervention on the part of this court,” Chambers wrote in a 55-page opinion.

More than two years ago, nationally recognized selenium expert A. Dennis Lemly said fish in the Mud River are suffering grotesque deformities evocative of selenium poisoning, including fish with two eyes on one side of the head and others with curved spines, eerily reminiscent of the deformities in Kesterson bird embryos. In a report to the federal court, which is looking into the selenium poisoning at the Hobet mine, Lemly predicted that continued selenium dumping in the Mud River by coal mining would put the river’s ecosystem “on the brink of a major toxic event . . . If waterborne selenium concentrations are not reduced, reproductive toxicity will spiral out of control and fish populations will collapse.”

And yet in January of this year, the U.S. EPA actually approved expansion of the Hobet mining operation, apparently oblivious to the spreading selenium problem.

In southern Idaho, both wildlife and livestock have died from selenium poisoning as a result of phosphate for fertilizer mining by several mining companies, including J.R. Simplot Company. According to the Greater Yellowstone Coalition (www.greateryellowstone.org), research by Simplot company itself on the effects of selenium released from one phosphate mine revealed that trout populations were being devastated in the Sage Creek watershed and downstream in Crow Creek. The report showed that selenium was causing declines of 20% and higher in creek trout populations.

The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality reported that the entire Blackfoot River and more than 90 miles of its tributaries – nearly 40 percent of the perennial stream miles in the Upper Blackfoot River watershed, along with their fish populations – are showing evidence of being poisoned by selenium. In August of 2009, at least 18 head of cattle died from eating selenium-
contaminated forage at the Simplot-owned Lanes Creek Mine, virtually at the headwaters of the Blackfoot River. These fatalities only added to the tally of hundreds of head of livestock already killed by selenium contamination.

The U.S. EPA has stood by for decades, unwilling to set a wildlife safety standard for water anywhere in the United States.

A little history is illuminating. Section 101 (a) (2) of the 1972 Clean Water Act stated that “[It] is the national goal that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife . . . be achieved by July 1, 1983[']”

Ironically, 1983 was the year that federal scientists, including the EPA, indisputably knew that selenium in elevated amounts was highly dangerous for critters living in aquatic environments. That 1983 deadline came and went with no selenium standard in place.

The EPA’s last Federal Register proposed revision of national selenium criteria (December 17, 2004) specifically stating “Therefore, this draft selenium recommendation is not designed to protect birds or terrestrial wildlife.” (Emphasis added.)

How much selenium can fish, birds and mammals in an aquatic environment handle? According to research in the early 1990s at an EPA laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon, one part per billion is about the safety threshold for fish and mammals. That’s about one drop in an Olympic-sized swimming pool. That report, by researchers Jeffrey A. Peterson and Alan V. Nebeker, was published in 1992 in the peer-reviewed Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology (Vol. 23, pages 154-162). Apparently, top officials at the EPA during the Clinton years, the Bush II years and the first part of the Obama administration, aware that cleaning up selenium contamination caused by irrigated agriculture on high selenium soils, coal mining and phosphate mining would cost those industries money, decided to shelve the Peterson/Nebeker report and as a result the EPA is still working on establishing a national selenium criteria for wildlife three decades after the Kesterson disaster.

The EPA has the responsibility and the authority to protect wildlife from selenium not only under the Clean Water Act but also under Executive Order 13186, signed on January 10, 2001, by President Clinton 10 days before he left office. That order is titled “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds;” and one part of it states “each [federal] agency shall . . . prevent or abate the pollution or detrimental alteration of the environment for the benefit of migratory birds, as practicable . . .” It must be remembered that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act was the law cited by the Reagan administration in shutting down the evaporation ponds at Kesterson in 1985. That was the last time any presidential administration has used the treaty to protect birds from poisoning by agricultural waste water in California.

And the same story applies here in the San Joaquin Valley. The February 1985 Kesterson cleanup order also included language that the Central Valley Regional Water Board begin addressing the problem of unregulated discharges of agricultural wastewater from federal irrigation districts north of Westlands. Those districts from Merced County north to the Delta receive their irrigation supplies from the Delta-Mendota Canal, which was completed in 1951, long before anyone uncovered the dangers of selenium in waterways (although rangeland selenium toxicity for livestock was known in the Dakotas and other states nearly a century ago). Thus, those Delta-Mendota Canal irrigation districts have been dumping their untreated Ag wastewater into the lower San Joaquin River for nearly 60 years. For the first 25 years after the Kesterson cleanup order, those districts operated under a waiver issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Board and continued to dump their toxics in the lower river. This year, the Regional Board granted those drainers yet another 10-year exemption! How is it a polluting industry killing off a river gets 35 years to continue business as usual?

The Regional Board’s exemption is being appealed to the State Water Board, but given the state board’s lax enforcement policies it seems likely it will merely rubber stamp the Regional Board’s exemption.

Those federal irrigation districts north of Westlands surround the 50,000-acre Grasslands Water District, which is a duck hunting district and wintering ground for tens of thousands of migratory birds on the Pacific Flyway. Thus, the districts are known as the “Grasslands drainers” and funnel their selenium-tainted wastewaters through Grasslands canals and sloughs into the lower San Joaquin River in an effort to reduce selenium loading into the river. The Grassland Bypass Project also includes the use of subsurface drainage to irrigate salt-tolerant crops in areas called “re-use areas” to reduce the volume of drainwater entering the river. Approximately 4,000 acres (three times the size of the Kesterson killing ponds) of land has been planted with salt-tolerant crops and irrigated with the high selenium drainwater. Re-use areas are also a crucial part of the proposed in-valley management plan for Westlands’ drainage, but on a much larger scale.

Monitoring of selenium levels in the Grasslands’ re-use area is required because these lands integrate with the landscape and provide habitat for wildlife. Critics claim the trade-off here is a cleaner river for a more polluted terrestrial landscape. More than 42 studies of birds have been found to use the 4,000-acre drainage re-use area. Selenium concentrations of up to 90 micrograms per gram dry weight in two bird species-avocets and stilts-were recorded in 2006 in the Grasslands re-use area, a value representing an astounding degree of contamination that rivals the lethal selenium levels documented at Kesterson.

The re-use area monitoring is a grim reminder of the enormous volume of selenium that exists within the soils of the western San Joaquin Valley (eroded from the shale of the Coast Range mountains), both in the Grasslands and the 600,000-acre Westlands district. The disturbing selenium levels in the re-use area are a reminder that the drainage problem for western valley agriculture remains unresolved and that the selenium genie is now out of the bottle. Experts say regulators need to shift the focus back to regulating selenium in the Valley, in addition to regulating selenium discharges to the San Joaquin River, the Delta and the San Francisco Bay (which is also affected by selenium discharges from oil refineries). However, the Regional Water Board, rather than doing its job, has decided to give the drainers/polluters another free pass for the next decade.

There is one bright spot in this gloomy picture. New EPA Region Nine Administrator Jared Blumenfeld seems interested in addressing the selenium problem in California. On June 14, Rep. Grace Napolitano, a southern California congressperson who chairs the House Subcommittee on Water and Power, and fellow California Rep. John Garamendi, wrote Blumenfeld and Bureau of Reclamation Regional Director Don Glaser to complain about the 10-year waiver granted by the Regional Water Board and urged that only a one-year waiver be issued.

Their letter noted, “Many Californians remember the horrific photographs of deformed ducks from Kesterson Reservoir, a scene that forced the Bureau of Reclamation to abandon their historic practice of dumping contaminated water and thinking it would just go away. Thirty years have passed since the first impacts of the agricultural drainage water first began to be seen. Thirty years when we should have been developing solutions rather than continuing to ask for waivers to continue to put Californians and their environment at risk.”

It should be noted, however, that Rep. Napolitano has never held a field hearing in the San Joaquin Valley to draw attention to the dangers of drainage water.

In any event, it is no longer a question of proving selenium’s dangers to aquatic ecosystems, wildlife and fish. The evidence is clear. It’s only a matter of political courage in the EPA regionally and nationally and more members of Congress demanding action. The U.S. Geological Survey is working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to draft selenium standards for the San Francisco Bay. Three decades late, but at least it’s a start. As things now stand, no one can state with certainty what the selenium loading of the lower San Joaquin River is doing to South Delta wildlife and fish.

However, the EPA needs to establish nationwide aquatic environment criteria for selenium, despite the complaints from mining companies and agribusiness that it will cost them money to be responsible for their own pollution. And the EPA needs to do it sometime this century, while there are still some fish in America’s rivers. Thirty years of stall-and-delay is enough.

To learn more about selenium, go to the U.S. Geological Survey’s Selenium Library at http://wwwrcamnl.wr.usgs.gov/Selenium/library.htm.

Lloyd Carter has been writing about Valley water issues for 40 years. His Web site is www.lloydgcarter.com.


CA WATER SUIT SETS NEW COURSE IN PUBLIC TRUST CASE LAW
Calistoga Deputy City Attorney Leah Castella on 23 April failed to convince Napa Superior Court Judge Ray Guadagni that anyone wishing to sue local agencies on allegations of violating the Public Trust Doctrine must sue the state’s resource regulating agencies instead.  On Monday, 3 May, the Court affirmed the tentative ruling it issued on 23 April that, indeed, a suit against the City itself was possible under California water law. The action means the City of Calistoga is headed for trial in early July in the ongoing case of Reynolds v. City of Calistoga.  The Public Trust Doctrine is an ancient, but still rarely applied, legal rule that rivers belong to the public and must be used in such a way that fisheries and other public assets (such as healthy river ecosystems) are fully protected.

Reynolds is attempting to sue the City of Calistoga directly for violation of the public trust for its alleged failure to comply with a Department of Fish & Game Code (Section 5937) which requires the owner of any dam to allow sufficient water at all times to pass through a fishway, or, in the absence of a fishway, to allow sufficient water to pass over, around or through the dam or diversion to keep fish that are present below in good condition.  The plaintiff has alleged that the City, as owner of the Kimball Dam, has violated its statutory duty under this section. The Judge has not yet decided whether the City is guilty of the allegations, just that it may be held directly accountable under that law instead of forcing the plaintiffs to derivatively petition the state water agencies for relief.  The City must still defend against the allegations at trial in July.  Also, this lower Court decision would have to be appealed and win in the appeals Courts before it has any wider application as California legal precedent.

 Regardless of whether the City is guilty or not, Monday’s ruling is a significant broadening of the right to sue under the Public Trust Doctrine as it applies to fish protections, and environmental groups have already begun to take notice.   “This new Superior Court ruling on Monday says that anyone who diverts water must provide enough flow for downstream fish and if they don’t they can be sued by anyone,” said Chris Malan, General Manager of the Napa-based Living Rivers Council and head of the North Coast Streamflow Coalition Northern Region.  Prior to the ruling the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) was the sole agency with jurisdiction to enforce water law. Anyone wanting to sue over excessive water diversions had to file a complaint with the SWRCB and it would decide whether or not to sue on their behalf – a remedy very rarely pursued. 

With the California State Attorney General’s office filing a “friend of the court” brief in mid-April on behalf of plaintiff Grant Reynolds in his lawsuit against the City of Calistoga, illegal diverters are put on notice that anyone can sue anyone believed to be killing fish by reducing the flows in a stream.  “That is a huge change -- allowing anyone to file against anyone else stealing riparian water from a stream and failing to provide bypass flows for fish and people downstream.”  Malan said environmental groups “all over northern California” are beginning to take notice of the Calistoga case.

Currently, Reynolds v. City of Calistoga is scheduled to go to trial in early July, 2010. The City is also charged with breach of contract, a charge that is not covered by the City’s insurance, leaving City water rate payers on the hook for potential damages and legal fees.  Recently, City officials admitted that a portion of the City’s water enterprise funds will be used to pay for the litigation. So far, legal costs have exceeded $312,000, according to City records obtained through a Public Records Act Request.   To see the full 6 May The Weekly Calistogan article by John Waters Jr. go to: www.weeklycalistogan.com/articles/2010/05/06/news/local/doc4be2287c17f65174301408.txt.

 


SALMON RELEASE CHANGED TO PREVENT ‘STRAYING’
On Monday, the California Department of Fish and Game released 2 million baby salmon, raised at Nimbus Hatchery near Rancho Cordova, into the American River instead of trucking them to Vallejo.  "What we're trying to do is to get the fish to imprint on this river," said Joseph Johnson, a Fish and Game senior environmental scientist, as he watched thousands of 3-inch salmon smolts shoot from a chrome tanker truck into the American River beneath the Jibboom Street Bridge in Sacramento. "They look really good. I think this is going to work just fine."

Tags recovered from adults in 2009 show that too few American River salmon are finding their way home.  Nimbus Hatchery recovered enough adults to meet its annual target of 4 million smolts. But 72 percent of the salmon that returned to the American River were actually born in other rivers, mostly the Feather and Mokelumne.  The problem, called "straying," means these salmon have lost one of their most magnificent and defining traits: the ability to find their birth river after three years in the ocean.  It also means they are probably breeding with salmon from other rivers, which thins their genetic identity and may harm the smaller number of salmon that still manage to spawn naturally, outside the hatcheries.  "Some are always going to stray, but this high percentage of straying is a great concern to all the fishery agencies," Johnson said.  "We have enough information to say this is one of the best options. But to validate it, you're going to have to get those returning adults back in three or four years."

The practice of dumping young salmon much lower down into San Pablo Bay was started in 1995 to help young salmon avoid the perils of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta on their trip to the ocean. These threats include predators like the non-native striped bass, urban and farm pollution, and water diversion pumps.  Johnson said the practice has helped boost the number of fish available to ocean fishermen. But he said it also probably contributes to straying, which threatens the species as a whole.  The state's other major hatchery, on the Feather River, has not seen such a high degree of straying and won't vary its release practices this year, said hatchery manager Anna Kastner.

Others are wary, including Dick Pool, owner of Concord-based tackle manufacturer Pro-Troll Fishing Products and founder of water4fish.org, an salmon advocacy group.  Pool believes the salmon released this week in the American River still face too many dangers in the Delta. He said they should be trucked to an intermediate point -- perhaps Rio Vista -- which would avoid most of the threats in the Delta, yet still allow the salmon to imprint on their home waters.  "In our opinion, the only thing saving the fishing industry right now is getting the fish around the Delta," he said.   To read the full 11 May Sacramento Bee article by Matt Weiser go to: www.sacbee.com/2010/05/11/2741383/salmon-release-changed-to-prevent.html.

 


FORMER BUSH OFFICIALS FIND WORK WITH LEADING PLAYER IN CA STATE WATER WARS
 A former Bush Administration official whose tenure was marked by systematic attempts to weaken endangered species protections has gone to work for a powerful California farm district that has the same aim in the Delta.  Craig Manson, Assistant Interior Secretary for Fish & Wildlife & Parks from 2001 through 2005, now serves as General Counsel for the Westlands Water District, the nation's largest irrigation district.  He joins another former high ranking former Interior Department official in the Bush Administration, Jason Peltier, who since 2007 has been the No. 2 official with the water district.   Manson's deputy at the Bush Interior Department, Julie MacDonald, has been consulting for Westlands in a lawsuit involving endangered species, according to district General Manager Tom Birmingham.

 "This is one of the longest-running abuses of the Bush Administration's revolving door I have ever seen," said Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez. "When they were officials in the Interior Department, they worked with their industry friends to tamper with scientific evidence and violate the law, and they helped send the Bay-Delta into a tailspin."  "Now," Miller added, "the whole gang is working together again to file lawsuits against efforts to restore California's salmon fishery."  Manson defended his tenure at Interior, saying, "We insisted there be good science behind every decision that was made. 

Still, three investigations by the Interior Department's Inspector General found that MacDonald's activities, with Manson's support, "caused considerable harm to the integrity of the (Endangered Species Act) program," to the morale of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and possibly harm to endangered species, Inspector General Earl E. Devaney wrote in December 2008.  "Her (MacDonald's) heavy-handedness has cast doubt on nearly every ESA decision issued during her tenure," he wrote. "MacDonald's conduct was backed by the seemingly blind support of (Manson).”  MacDonald resigned in April 2007, a month after the first of the investigations found numerous questionable actions, including leaking an email to the California Farm Bureau that it used in its unsuccessful lawsuit to remove Delta smelt from the endangered species list.

 A follow-up story by the Contra Costa Times showed MacDonald also participated in an unprecedented decision to remove Sacramento splittail from the list of endangered species even though that decision directly affected her property near Dixon.  The Inspector General's office later confirmed she heavily edited the splittail decision and it forwarded the findings to federal prosecutors, who declined to press charges.  The Fish and Wildlife Service has reopened the splittail question and will decide by September whether the fish should be put back on the threatened and endangered species list.  To see the full 10 May Contra Costa Times article by Mike Taugher go to: www.contracostatimes.com/ci_15057511?IADID=Search-www.contracostatimes.com-www.contracostatimes.com.



FRESNO COUNTY LEADS U.S. IN FARM SUBSIDIES  
Fresno County farmers lead the nation in harvesting farm subsidies and have collected nearly $1 billion since 1995, newly available Agriculture Department records show.  Other California counties are close behind. Kern, Colusa and Tulare counties rank third, fourth and fifth respectively nationwide for total farm subsidies received, with rice and cotton growers benefiting the most.  Payments to Fresno County farmers totaled $961 million between 1995 and 2009. Last year alone, the farmers took in $75.9 million.   “It’s a good thing, because it shows we are putting federal dollars to work,” Fresno County Farm Bureau Executive Director Ryan Jacobsen commented.  Only about 10% of California’s farmers receive subsidies, while the fruit and vegetable crops for which the state is famous are largely unsubsidized. Despite the abundant payments to certain Central Valley counties, California only ranks ninth among states for total subsidies received.

The newly available records update a popular subsidy database begun by the Environmental Working Group in 2004. The organization releases the information in hopes of influencing lawmakers to tighten payments, but its data is widely respected as accurate.  “We have a farm program that says the bigger you get, the more you’ll get from the federal government,” said Chuck Hassebrook, Executive Director of the Nebraska-based Center for Rural Affairs. “This database documents the truth about this.”

The Sacramento-based Farmers Rice Cooperative and the cotton-growing Dublin Farms and Hansen Ranches, both based in Corcoran, have topped all other subsidy recipients in California since 1995. For the Farmers Rice Cooperative, all of the money was passed through to the 750 individual farmer members of the cooperative, and no payments were received after 2006. Some public figures, too, have benefited from the federal farm subsidy program.  Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia, is identified as having received $57,193 in crop subsidies between 2001 and 2005. Nunes took office in 2003.   To see the 8 May Fresno Bee article by Michael Doyle go to: www.fresnobee.com/2010/05/04/1921365/fresno-co-leads-us-in-farm-subsidies.html?storylink=misearch.  To see a related 5 May San Francisco Chronicle article about how crop subsidies help the largest farms most go to: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/05/MN811D99NN.DTLTo see a 10 May Kansas City Star article about how a lavish farm-subsidy program hides some of the money trail, go to: www.fresnobee.com/2010/05/11/1928779/lavish-farm-subsidy-program-hides.html?storylink=misearch.


Broken Promises: Our Fisheries and Other Public Trust Interest
by Felix E. Smith  (Felix E. Smith has 50 years of experience working on water management, fish and wildlife issues.)
May 11, 2010 -- A promise was made to Northern Californians in the 1920’s and1930’s when the federal and state water projects were being proposed to protect area of origin rights and interests.  That promise was that only water which was surplus or excess to the needs of Northern California watersheds and water users would be exported.  This essentially means if you export water "do no harm" to Central and Northern California fisheries.  This promise was embodied in California law as a condition on the State Water Project and the Federal Central Valley Project.
 This promise has been broken again and again by the operators of the State Water Project and the Federal Central Valley Project. The needs of Central and Northern California streams and watersheds are frequently not being met.  Those needs include protecting our water and fisheries, associated public trust uses and ecological values.   The harm has been so great that the numbers of Chinook salmon and Steelhead and other fish species and their habitats have been greatly reduced to where the people have sought protection for these species under the Federal and California Endangered Species Acts.  Pushing Northern and Central California Chinook salmon and Steelhead numbers so low to require protection under the Endangered Species Acts, doesn’t equate to "do no harm".  Delta water quality is not healthy.
 Westside San Joaquin Valley corporate farms and Southern California water interests are now trying to gut the limited protection of Central and Northern California fisheries and associated public trust interests, so that water exports pumped from the Delta can be increased to a guaranteed amount per year in any given year.  These same interests want to ignore the past promises to take only water that is surplus or excess to the needs of the areas where the water originates. 
 This is not a” fish versus people” thing.  It is a people and people thing.  The harvesting and consumption of salmon serves as many, if not more human and small business needs than does the harvesting and consumption of land grown crops, and it does so without poisoning the land or polluting the aquatic environment.                            
 The promise that only water surplus or excess to the needs of Central and Northern California would be taken has been broken.  That promise must be kept.  The people must be ready to go to court, if the State Board fails or is non-responsive to the issues surrounding Watershed and Area of Origin protection and the limitation imposed by Water Code 11460 and 11463.   If we do not protect our “Area of Origin” and “Watershed Protection” resources, uses, and values for people, we fail to protect and safe guard our salmon fishes and we then fail in our public trust responsibilities for everyone’s children.  Our Grandchildren’s resources and opportunities are at stake.


Commission Delays Approval Of Limited Central Valley Salmon Season
By Dan Bacher

The California Fish and Game Commission today voted to delay the approval of a limited recreational salmon fishing season on Central Valley rivers until the next Commission meeting on May 5, but unanimously approved a recreational season on the Klamath River and the ocean salmon season adopted by the Pacific Fishery Management Council on April 15. During the teleconference in Sacramento, Neil Manji, Department of Fish and Game (DFG) Fisheries Branch Chief, said the delay in adoption of regulations for the Central Valley rivers was necessary to simplify the regulations as much as possible and to incorporate the late fall run Chinook salmon season into the regulations.
The PFMC decided on April 15 to allow the harvest of 8200 fish in the Sacramento, American and Feather rivers in a limited season, based on a projection of 245,000 ocean abundance of Sacramento River Chinook this year by federal fishery scientists. The 8200 fish allocation includes 1,000 from the Feather, 1,000 from the American River, 3600 from the lower Sacramento below Knights Landing and 2600 from the upper Sacramento from Knights Landing to the Deschutes Road Bridge.
Manji said that postponing action until May 5 would not delay any opening day for the public, since none of the seasons is scheduled to begin until July 31. “By delaying the vote, we want to make sure we are providing angling opportunities while protecting the species,” said Manji.
Commissioner Dan Richards said he was disappointed by the request for the delay based on “late submissions by third party interests” – and criticized the Department for not being prepared and “not doing its job.” “I’m one thousand percent for any expansion of any fishing seasons that can be backed up scientifically,” he emphasized. “My issue is that the Department had a range of an allowable harvest from 0 to 10,000 fish to work with – and 8200 fish falls in that range. These constant delays or extensions are foisted upon already overworked and underpaid staff.”
Nonetheless, Commissioners Richards, Richard Rogers, Jim Kellogg, Michael Sutton and Don Benninghoven voted unanimously to postpone the vote until May 5.
Under the proposed regulations, the Upper Sacramento River would be open to fishing from Deschutes Road Bridge to Highway 113 Bridge from Oct. 2 to Oct. 24 through December 12. This proposal would allow limited fishing for fall Chinook while incorporating the late fall season that anglers enjoyed over the past two years. Last year the late fall season was from November 16 to December 31. Manji wants to allow increased fishing opportunity in November for fall run Chinook while minimizing any impacts upon winter run Chinooks, an endangered species, by moving the closure date up to December 12.
Manji said this proposal incorporates both the limited fall Chinook season and the late fall run Chinook salmon season. “We recovered 3 winter run Chinook tags from December 6 to December 27, so we want to minimize the impact upon winter run Chinook this year,” he said.
The lower Sacramento River would be open from Highway 113 Bridge to Carquinez Bridge from Sept. 4 to Oct. 3.
The American River would be open to salmon fishing downstream from Ancil Hoffman Park from Oct. 30 to Nov. 29.
Finally, the Feather River salmon fishing season downstream from below the Thermalito Afterbay Outlet would run from July 31 to Aug. 29. Manji said that the Department plans to close the “outlet hole” to fishing, but is still evaluating a closure point. The proposed season calls for a 2 fish per day and 2 in possession limit. The Commission also unanimously adopted the 2010 Ocean Salmon Sport Regulations approved by the PFMC on April 15. Ocean recreational seasons will be as follows:

• The Klamath Management Zone from the Oregon border to Horse Mountain will be open from May 29 through September 6. Minimum take size is 24 inches.
• The waters from Horse Mountain to Point Arena will remain open through September 6. Minimum take size will increase from 20 inches to 24 inches beginning May 1.
•The waters from Point Arena to the United States/Mexico border will remain open through September 6. From May 1 through September 6, fishing will be allowed only from Thursday through Monday. Minimum take size will increase from 20 inches to 24 inches beginning May 1.

All zones have a limit of two Chinook salmon. No take of coho salmon is allowed. This decision to target fall run chinooks this year controversial, with anglers split over whether or not to have a recreational season after the fall run Chinook return was only 39,530 fish in 2009, the lowest on record.
Many charter boat skippers and party boat anglers initially opposed a recreational season, since they feared that the federal biologists’ estimate of 245,500 adult salmon this year could be wildly inaccurate again this year like it was in 2009. Last year they predicted a spawning escapement of 122,196 fish, but less than a third of this number of fish actually returned to the rivers and hatcheries to spawn.
Other recreational anglers argued that the anglers had to go with the “best available science” provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The federal biologists argued that the numbers of returning jacks and jills (two year olds) – 9,216 jacks (two-year-olds) in 2009 – pointed to a sufficient number of salmon in the ocean this year to allow some fishing. After the Commission teleconference, Bob Boucke of Johnson’s Bait, owner of Johnson’s Bait and Tackle in Yuba City, commented that it is “very unfair to allow a big season on the ocean, but not on the Central Valley rivers.”
During the teleconference, the Commission also approved the recreational fishing season on the Klamath-Trinity River system. The system willl have a recreational quota of 12,000 chinooks this year; last year an estimated 5500 fish were caught, according to DFG fisheries biologist Larry Hansen. The daily bag limit will be 3 chinooks, including 2 adults and one jack.
The collapse of Sacramento River fall Chinook salmon, the driver of West Coast salmon fisheries, resulted in a complete closure of recreational and commercial fishing in California and most of Oregon in 2008. Commercial fishing was again closed in 2009, while only a limited 10 day recreational fishing season to target Klamath River Chinooks in Northern California and southern Oregon ocean waters was allowed.  
Commercial salmon fisheries in California will be very limited again this year, but will include two four‐day openers in July south of Point Arena, and additional quota fisheries in the Fort Bragg area during late July and August. California and Oregon fisheries also include a catch‐and‐release genetic study during closed periods.
Although fishing is tightly restricted on the ocean again this year, it is important to realize that the collapse of Central Valley salmon populations wasn’t caused by overfishing, but was spurred by record water exports out of the California Delta to corporate agribusiness and southern California.
“Many factors have contributed to the historic collapse of the California and Oregon salmon fishery,” summed up Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fisheries Associations. “However, the operations of the State Water Project SWP and Central Valley Project CVP have played a critical and central role in the decline of salmon and the health of our rivers, streams, bays and estuary.”
To view excellent videos about the Central Valley salmon collapse and what you can do to restore the fishery, go to http://salmonwaternow.org


When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro – Hunter S. Thompson 
Schwarzenegger’s MLPA Initiative Officials Can’t Ever Get It Right 
By Dan Bacher 

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process is an absurd parody of marine "protection" that provides journalists like myself with bizarre stories that almost write themselves.  Over the past year, a contract boat mapping zones for the MLPA killed a blue whale off Fort Bragg, the Governor appointed an oil industry superstar to chair the Blue Ribbon Task Force for the South Coast, and numerous examples of corruption and conflicts of interests have been emerged in the process. 
Now the Department of Fish and Game and the MLPA Initiative staff in Sacramento cannot even get it right on the date that the controversial recreational fishing regulations for the North Central Coast go into effect!. According to one statement on the DFG website, “These adopted MPAs are scheduled to take effect on April 1, 2010” (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/northcentralhome.asp). 
However, the DFG’s release of March 9 announcing that a North Central Coast MPA Brochure is now available for recreational fishermen tells a different story. “This spring, new marine protected areas (MPAs) will go into effect along California's coastline from Alder Creek near Point Arena in Mendocino County, to Pigeon Point in San Mateo County,” the release proclaims. 
“This spring” encompasses all of the time from March 21 to June 20. Which day do the regulations go into effect – April 1 or some vague date “this spring?”  The brochure itself is even less helpful – it gives no start date for the closures! Why even publish a brochure if you are not going to provide anglers with a starting date for the closures? Of course, nowhere in this brochure can one find who funds the MLPA process. The Resource Legacy Fund Foundation, an unaccountable and shadowy private corporation, funds the corrupt process to further the cynical campaign of Schwarzenegger’s to privatize ocean public trust resources. 
Also, the brochure does not discuss commercial fishing, commercial seaweed harvesting and tribal seaweed gathering and fishing in traditional areas that will be banned by the new regulations.Will that be forthcoming in another brochure? I emailed my questions about the specifid opening day to DFG and MLPA Initiative staff, but I haven’t heard back from them yet. 
The new brochure titled "Marine Protected Area Information for Recreational Fishermen" is now available online at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/nccmpas_brochure_highres.pdf . You may also view a web-friendly version (smaller file size) online at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/nccmpas_brochure_lowres.pdf . 
In other MLPA news, the charges of corruption and conflicts of interest that many fishermen and environmentalists have leveled against the initiative were confirme
d recently by Bob Fletcher, former president of the Sportfishing Association of California. Fletcher claimed there was evidence that two members of the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force, Bill Anderson and Greg Schem, agreed "to sign off on everything else" in return for not putting a reserve in an area where both had marinas and business interests, according to Jim Matthews in his article in the San Bernardino Sun: http://www.sbsun.com/sports/ci_14523601 
On August 5, 2009, the California Fish and Game Commission voted to adopt its preferred alternative proposal, also known as the “Integrated Preferred Alternative (IPA),” for the MLPA north central coast study region, in spite of broad opposition to the measure from environmentalists, fishermen, divers seaweed harvesters and Indian Tribes. The IPA establishes 21 marine protected areas (MPAs, three State Marine Recreational Management Areas, and six special closures, in total covering approximately 153 square miles (20.1%) of state waters in the north central coast study region. 
Ironically, the California Fish and Game Wardens Association, the union of those charged with enforcing California’s fish and game laws, strongly opposed the adoption of new MPAs by the Fish and Game Commission, since they don’t have enough staff to enforce existing marine reserves on the Central Coast. “It is impossible for the warden force to effectively enforce existing regulations, much less new regulations that the Fish and Game Commission approves over our objections,” said Karnow in an outstanding opinion piece in the Sacramento Bee on January 31. (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/2500939.html). “Many of the regulations approved by the commission will not protect the natural resources of California. They will serve only one purpose; they will stretch the warden force ever thinner, which will eventually result in another warden’s on-duty injury or death.” 
Lester Pinola, the past chairman of the Kashia Pomo Tribe in Sonoma County, also asked the Fish and Game Commission to adopt a MPA alternative that wouldn’t remove the tribe from their traditional seaweed, mussel and abalone harvesting areas off Stewarts Point, but the Commission showed no respect for tribal sovereignty and fishing and gathering rights. To hear Pinola's great testimony before the Commission on August 5, go to: http://www.astral-arts.com/audiomovie/openthecoast.mp3
The Governor and Legislature should listen to game wardens, fishermen, Indian Tribes and seaweed harvesters and those who criticize the creation of new no-take reserves at a time of economic and environmental crisis when the state doesn’t have the money or staff to enforce its existing reserves. 
Now to add more confusion in an already confusing process, the DFG and MLPA Initiative staff can’t even get right the specific date that the North Central Region recreational fishing closures go into effect.


Crunching the Numbers
The following letter was submitted by Bill Divens to the PFMC at the Sacramento meeting. Bill has done an incredible job of breaking down the numbers and why he feels that the salmon projection numbers are far too high.

Comment for inclusion in the Briefing Book for the Apr 2010 Council Meeting - Salmon Management

I have serious concerns about any harvest of Sacramento River Fall Run Chinooks in 2010 based on the Sacramento Index Forecast of 245,483 salmon.
Given the predictive model’s ability to over-predict by factors of 4, the anomalous return of jacks to the Feather River Hatchery inflating the prediction and lack of historical precedent for a 3 times year over year increase in salmon population, it would be both reckless and potentially devastating to Sacramento River Fall Chinooks to allow any ocean, main stem or upper Sacramento River harvest. To allow a harvest would be to ‘Manage by Miracles” and, we all know the results of that management style.
While you might expect a person who would gain financially from a 2010 harvest to be overjoyed with this forecast, I am not. Unfortunately, I am doubly cursed with a PhD in Chemistry and 25 years of experience managing Silicon Valley companies. Numbers mean something to me and my business experience has taught me that past poor performance is, unfortunately, a good indicator of future results.

The following forms the basis of my concerns:

 Dysfunctional Model

While there is some correlation between salmon abundance and previous year’s jack return on the Sacramento, the correlation is tenuous at best. For proof, we need only look at the 2009 Salmon abundance prediction of 122,100 salmon and an actual return of 39,800. More simply, for every 4 salmon that the model predicted, less than 1 salmon actually materialized. The 2009 prediction was not an isolated incident. One need only look at the 2005, 2001 and 1998 predictions to see that the model can fail to predict actual returns by hundreds of thousands of fish. If the current prediction is off by the same amount as it was in 2009, we would see less than 82,000 Fall Chinooks – a number far below escapement goals.

Distribution of Jacks Used in the Model

If one were to make the highly optimistic assumption that PFMC has a functional model that would indeed predict 2010 Sacramento Fall Chinook abundance, there is another problem with the data that feeds the model. Jack distribution was strongly skewed toward the Feather River and in particular the Feather River Hatchery. Of the 9,216 jacks counted on the Sacramento, 4,620 were Feather River jacks while only 2,233 were Upper Sacramento jacks. This is important because the Upper Sacramento has historically produced more ocean caught salmon than any other California river sub-system. In the past the Upper Sacramento produced 3 – 5 times the number of salmon produced by the Feather.
Digging a little deeper into the numbers, we find that the 3,723 jacks that returned to the Feather River Hatchery was quite an anomaly. Refer to Table B-2 on page 194 of the Feb 2010 version of the Review of 2009 Ocean Salmon Fishery and you will see that over the past 40 years, only once, in 2004, did the Feather River receive more jacks than in 2009. Even in years preceding good salmon returns, the average number of jacks returning to the Feather River Hatchery was 1/3 – ˝ of the 2009 return.
In the midst of the Central Valley salmon collapse, doesn’t anyone find it odd that the Feather River Hatchery has a near record return of jacks while the Coleman and Nimbus received very low returns of jacks?
I suspect that there was an anomaly in hatchery operations, timing of release of the 2007 juvenile salmon from the Feather Hatchery or these smolt finding a particularly rich food source upon outmigration that was not found by their Upper Sacramento and American cousins that led to such a high hatchery jack return.  Inclusion of these jacks in the model is highly suspect at best. If one were to rightly assume that the Feather jack return is an anomaly and take the median of the 1971 – 2008 jack returns (1,370) as a more reasonable, but probably still high estimate for modeling 2010 returns, you would have to subtract 2,353 jacks from the Sacramento River Index model which would lower the number of jacks used in the model from 9,216 to 6,863. Plugging this number back into the model, you would project a Sacramento Index of 182,809 adult salmon, barely making the upper escapement goal range.
The skewed distribution of jacks toward the Feather and particularly the Feather River Hatchery is important because the Upper Sacramento run of Fall Chinooks is still depleted. Since the Upper Sacramento ecosystem has historically produced the lion’s share of California ocean caught salmon, we need to rebuild this run if we are to see strong ocean runs in the future. Any ocean season targeting Sacramento River Fall Run Chinooks will significantly harm these fish and at best delay recovery of the Upper Sacramento stocks.

There is No Historical Precedence for the Sacramento Making Minimum Escapement in 2010

Looking beyond the model, one needs to apply a little common sense when making harvest decisions. For natural systems, historical precedence is a good place to start. With the hand of man involved, we can see record setting declines in fish populations but rarely record setting population increases. When the rare population increases do occur, there is normally some very visible, heroic effort involved.
With just 39,800 salmon in 2009, for the current prediction of 245,483 Fall Run Chinooks in 2010 to be accurate,
we would need see a 6 times increase in salmon abundance over 2009. This has never happened and most certainly won’t this year. We need to then look at what increase over the 2009 return that we need to just make escapement:

 Lower End of Escapement – To meet the lower end goal of 122,000 salmon for 2010, we would need to see a year over year increase of a factor of 3. Has this ever happened? Not really. 1995 saw an increase in the Sacramento Index of approx. 2.2 over 1994. Unfortunately that was an anomaly with most year over year increases measured in percent rather than factors of 2 or 3. In other words with only 39,800 fall Chinooks in 2009, there is no historical precedence that should make us feel comfortable that we could possibly make even minimum escapement in 2010.

Given all of the above, I would urge the council to manage by fact rather than manage by miracles and to allow no salmon harvest targeting Sacramento River Fall Chinook in 2010.

Best Regards,
Bill Divens
Owner and Guide
Salmon King Lodge
bill@salmonkinglodge.com
www.salmonkinglodge.com
530-941-2398


Stuart Leavenworth: Feinstein says she's no Westlands 'shill,' but ...
By Stuart Leavenworth, Editorial page editor
The Sacramento Bee Published: Sunday, Mar. 7, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 6E

You know you've struck a nerve with an editorial when, on the very next business day, California's senior senator rings you on the telephone. That's how I found myself spending an hour on Monday, engaged in an animated but civil exchange with U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
Feinstein, calling me from her home near the nation's capital, was responding to a Feb. 27 editorial on her efforts to secure more water for the Westlands Water District, an agricultural giant in the San Joaquin Valley.  Westlands, a federal water contractor that lacks secure water rights of its own, has found itself vulnerable to cutbacks in supplies. Such cutbacks are the result of drought and court decisions aimed at protecting smelt and salmon in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Three weeks ago, it was learned that Feinstein was drafting legislation to override federal biological opinions that limit water pumping from the Delta on the behalf of fish. She came under a fair amount of criticism for that move, not just from us, but other newspapers, too. "I've been crucified by editorial boards up and down the state," said Feinstein.
For the record, I would not describe either of our two recent editorials on Feinstein as a crucifixion. The first one, on Feb. 14, began with these lines: "In her long and mostly distinguished career, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein has championed many environmental causes. At times she has also challenged environmentalists to consider interests other than their own. That's good."
Then it went on to suggest that Feinstein had made a serious error by drafting her measure – one she later dropped. Feinstein's main reason for calling was to complain that I hadn't made an attempt to obtain details of her bill language before publishing our editorials.
I acknowledged we hadn't sought that information, assuming she (like other senators) wouldn't provide details of a bill that hadn't yet been filed. In the spirit of openness, I then asked her to go public with the language of her amendment. She declined. What's the point?" she asked.
The conversation went on from there. I asked her why she was devoting such singular attention to Westlands and not some of the other interests hurt by California's water crisis – such as salmon fishermen. Feinstein responded that she regularly visits the west side of the San Joaquin Valley during harvest time. During her last visit, she said, "It was the closest to civil insurrection that I have ever seen." Undoubtedly it's tough for certain farmers around Fresno, my hometown. Many have had to fallow land. Some have had to rip up orchards.
On the other hand, as I noted to Feinstein, scores of Fresno farm operations spent the last decade planting almond orchards, even though they lacked secure water rights or adequate groundwater. Is it the government's duty to help farmers who have made such risky decisions?
Feinstein's only answer was that the Central Valley is a major exporter of almonds, and the state should do all it can to protect the industry.  From our conversation, it was clear Feinstein has bought into many of the talking points of Westlands – that smelt in the Delta are being wiped out by predators more than water pumps, that the Delta is being poisoned with ammonia from sewage treatment plants in Sacramento and elsewhere.
Several times, Feinstein made the claim that the state is in a "wet water year," and thus should be able to spare some for farms. Water, she said, was spilling from Shasta Lake. When I challenged her on that point, she responded. "Want to bet?" I could then hear her rustling through some papers before conceding that Shasta was well below its capacity.
Why is Feinstein going to bat for Westlands is this way?  Politics is one answer. Farm water is a huge issue for Valley Democrats trying to keep their seats this year. By putting pressure on the Obama administration to favor farmers over fish, Feinstein provides cover for vulnerable Dems, such as U.S. Reps. Jim Costa and Dennis Cardoza and U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer.
Yet as a U.S. senator who wants a long-term fix to the Delta's problems, Feinstein needs to be careful about playing favorites. Numerous water groups have an interest in the Delta. All are legitimate. All would like to get the same attention Feinstein reserves for Westlands. "To say that I am a shill for Westlands just isn't right," Feinstein told me.
Perhaps not. But given her actions of recent weeks, she will have to prove it.
 


Oregon, California Coalition Calls on Congress to Fix Klamath Deal
With the Klamath settlement negotiations over, wildlife and river groups push realistic restoration plan 

ARCATA, CAL and PORTLAND, ORE – After five years of controversial backroom negotiations over the fate of the Klamath Basin ended today, members of the Klamath Conservation Partners responded by calling on Congress to fix loopholes in the proposed settlement and eliminate provisions harmful to fish and wildlife. 
Initiated under the Bush administration, the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (a deal to apportion the Klamath’s water, or KBRA) and the Klamath Hydropower Settlement Agreement (a deal designed to remove dams, or KHSA), call on Congress to spend nearly $1 billion without any guarantee of dam removal. While the Klamath Conservation Partners—a coalition of local, state, and national advocacy organizations that includes former settlement parties—support the removal of the lower four Klamath River dams, member groups are concerned that insufficient science and unrelated subsidies may sink the potential for historic dam removal. 
“The settlement process had a predetermined outcome,” said Ani Kame’enui, Healthy Rivers advocate with Oregon Wild. “Slowly, river and wildlife groups realized that this process was not going to lead to a balanced solution for all of the Klamath Basin’s problems. Now that negotiations are complete, we will work with Congress to get real and lasting solutions that benefit fish, wildlife, and river communities.” 
Many longtime river advocates have joined forces with the Klamath Conservation Partners or rejected the settlement deal outright due to various concerns over river flows, dam removal timelines, and harmful provisions for wildlife. Just last week, two parties to the KBRA and KHSA negotiations, the Hoopa Valley Tribe and dam-removal advocacy group Friends of the River, based in Sacramento, announced their opposition to the proposed plans.  
The Klamath Conservation Partners is advocating for specific fixes to both the KHSA and KBRA that would solve some of the glaring problems that currently threaten basin-wide restoration, including:

  • Adequate river flows for threatened and endangered fish species based on the best available science.

  • A plan to phase out the harmful practice of leasing 32,000 acres of National Wildlife Refuge land for commercial agriculture.

  • Improved dam removal legislation to move forward independent of the controversial and subsidy-heavy KBRA.

  • The timeline for dam removal to be shortened significantly and for the Secretary of Interior to submit a decommissioning plan by 2012.

  • Dam removal to be funded through PacifiCorp customer contribution of $200 million (already passed through the Oregon legislature) and an independent $250 million general obligation bond in the State of California with a contingency plan for the federal government to contribute needed funds if the bond fails.

  • Interim dam operation conditions that provide for the adequate protection of fish, wildlife, water quality, and other aquatic resources.

“Now that the settlement agreements are no longer hidden by confidential negotiations, the general public and their representatives in Congress can finally get a look at these proposals, we can start to shine some light on the complex and controversial terms in the KBRA and KHSA,” said Jay Wright with the Northcoast Environmental Center, a group that left the negotiations in December. “Once we take the $1 billion shackles off of the dam removal deal and get a more certain and timely decommissioning proposal, we’ll be on our way to restoring the watershed.” 
Last week, Senator Jeff Merkley went on record as the only member of Oregon’s congressional delegation supporting the KBRA and KHSA. Merkley suggested that “Washington needs to take a serious look at how we get things done here in Oregon,” overlooking the fact that no Oregon environmental groups support the KBRA or KHSA. “It’s disappointing that Senator Merkley is supporting these old Bush initiated policies,” concluded Kame’enui. “We’re eager to work with the Senator and his staff to further educate them on the red flags in these agreements related to fish and wildlife that deeply trouble so many Oregonians.” 


Lobster Poaching of Shorts on the Rise in Orange County

Lobster poachers are feeling the pinch in Orange County. In the last two months wardens have investigated three cases involving the possession of significant lobster overlimits, with the majority of the lobsters undersize. In one case the suspect was convicted and is serving jail time for commercial sale of sport caught lobster. The two other cases are pending.
Poachers who profit from the sale of California's fisheries put the resource at risk, said Lt. Dan Sforza of DFG's Law Enforcement Division. Local lobster populations will suffer severe declines if poaching activity is left unchecked.
A "short" lobster that is smaller than the minimum size limit of 3Ľ inches carapace length. Take of short lobsters depletes the stock. The following exemplify cases made every day by California game wardens:
On Feb. 2, David Frederick of Norwalk was sentenced to 33 days in jail for selling 22 undersize lobsters for $85. Witnesses at the scene stated he had sold lobsters there many times before. Frederick is currently serving jail time.
On Jan. 29, Sione Palalaika Akau of Bloomington was found in possession of 39 lobsters, 38 of which were undersize, intended for commercial sale. He also possessed undersize kelp bass and California sheephead. Akau was cited for eight violations.
On Dec. 13, a father and son duo from Dana Point were found in possession of 22 lobsters, 21 of which were undersize. They were cited for four violations each. Fortunately, the lobsters were healthy enough to be returned to the ocean.
Regulations regarding sport take of lobster are designed to allow lobster the chance to reproduce at least once during their lives before they can be taken by an angler. Possession of three times the daily limit of seven lobsters is prima facie evidence they are possessed for the purpose of commercial sale. In each of the above cases, the suspects were extremely uncooperative with investigating wardens and made every effort to keep the undersize lobsters hidden. Failure to show fish or game to a game warden on demand is a misdemeanor violation of the Fish and Game Code.

Regulations related to lobster fishing can be found at
www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/pdfs/oceanfish2009.pdf


 


Big Ags Power Couple Banking On Brown, Feinstein

The Resnicks Manipulate Water Policy with Big Campaign Contributions
 by Dan Bacher

February 16, 2010 -- Stewart Resnick, the Beverly Hills agribusiness tycoon who owns 115,000 acres of farmland in Kern County, appears to be putting his bets on Jerry Brown as the winner of the gubernatorial race in the November election - even though Brown hasn't officially declared himself as a candidate.
 On November 11, 2009, Resnick and his wife, Lynda, the co-owner of the giant Paramount Farms and Roll Corporation, wrote four checks totaling $50,000 for the Brown campaign. The donations that the Resnicks made to Brown to date exemplify the enormous political influence of Resnick and other water barons exert over California water politics. The Resnicks are the largest tree fruit growers in the world.
 Delta advocates fear that campaign contributions from the Resnicks and other big water interests could heavily influence Brown's positions on the peripheral canal, the construction of more dams and the November $11.1 billion water bond. They also fear the Resnicks could pressure Brown to support legislative and administrative attacks on federal plans protecting Delta smelt and Central Valley salmon.
The Resnicks and executives of their companies have donated $3.97 million to candidates and political committees since 1993, mostly in the Golden State, a California Watch review of public records shows, according to the Center for Investigative Reporting, December 6, 2009.
 Roll International, one of the largest private water brokers in the U.S., makes millions of dollars in profit off marketing subsidized public water. Through a series of subsidiary companies and organizations, Roll International is able to convert Californias water from a public, shared resource into a private asset that can be sold on the market to the highest bidder, according to Yasha Levine, in How Limousine Liberals, Water Oligarchs and Even Sean Hannity are Hijacking Our Water, in an published in a number of publications.
 Resnick was heavily involved in the creation of Kern County Water Bank a controversial underground water storage facility in the southern San Joaquin Valley. The Westside Mutual Water Company, owned by Resnick, now owns 48 percent of the bank. One of the reasons why Central Valley reservoirs were drained so low over the past few years was to fill the water bank and southern California water reservoirs.
 The Resnicks have also written big checks to the campaigns of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and presidential candidates from both parties in the 2008 election. They contributed a total of $271,990 to Schwarzenegger's campaign coffers. They haven't contributed to the Republican candidates for Governor, Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner yet, but don't be surprised if they do.
 In response to my emailed questions about Brown's positions about the peripheral canal, new dams, the water bond and the biological opinions, I received the following response from "Ned," a staffer from Jerry Brown 2010.  "Thank you for your email," "Ned" stated. "While Jerry is considering a potential run for Governor, he is not a declared candidate. He has said that he will make a decision on the Governor's race by the filing deadline in March, until that time he is focused on his job as Attorney General. Should he declare a run for Governor, he'll begin to address all the issues and concerns that Californians will find important in choosing their next Governor."
 Bill Jennings, executive director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA), quipped about Resnicks contributions to Brown and others. Resnick is an equal opportunity contributor to candidates seekers. He gives money to everybody it doesn't matter if theyre Republican, Democrat or the Anti-Christ, hell try to buy their votes. For Brown to say that he doesnt have a position on the issues and then to accept major contributions from a guy involved heavily in water politics like Resnick is highly disingenuous, said Barbara Barrigan Parrilla, campaign director of Restore the Delta. The contribution to Brown is a prime example of how big agribusiness influences both political parties.
 Brown signed the original legislation that authorized the original peripheral canal bond in 1982, but voters overwhelmingly defeated the canal at the ballot box that November. Brown hasn't indicated his position now on the canal and new dams, but the other candidates have. Meg Whitman is a strong supporter of the peripheral canal, more dams, and increased Delta pumping.
 She acknowledged the humanitarian disaster resulting from 35-percent unemployment in some west valley towns and the threat to a region that grows a huge portion of the nations food, according to Whitmans Website, reporting on her visit to Fresno on May 29, 2009. (http://www.megwhitman.com). As governor, she said she would stick with her conviction that saving jobs takes precedence and would use emergency powers to order more pumping from the Delta. In the longer term, she supports more above- and below-ground storage facilities and the construction of a peripheral canal in addition to conservation efforts.
 Poizner is also a big backer of the peripheral canal. In an interview with the Bakersfield Californian on April 30, 2009, he stated, I do support more above-ground storage and I do support more water conveyance systems to get the water from where it is to where it needs to go, without completely destroying the delta.
 ---------------------
Obama Administration Convenes Panel at Resnicks Request
 The recent National Academy of Sciences Delta Panel held in Davis from January 24-28 illustrated the influence of the Resnicks money upon political decisions. Because of a letter that Stewart Resnick wrote to Senator Diane Feinstein, Feinstein pressured the Obama administration to conduct the review of the biological opinions protecting Central Valley salmon and Delta smelt.
 In the letter of September 4, Resnick claimed that the biological opinion to prevent endangered salmon and smelt from becoming extinct was "exacerbating the state's severe drought" because it reduced the water available to irrigate farmland. He claimed that "sloppy science" by federal fishery agencies had led to "regulatory-induced water shortages." "I really appreciate your involvement in this issue," he stated.
The administration invited representatives of corporate agribusiness, including Resnicks Astroturf group, the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta, and Southern California water districts to testify, but they invited no representatives of recreational fishing groups, commercial fishing organizations, Delta farming groups, California Indian Tribes and environmental justice communities, the people most impacted by fish collapses. 
The NAS Panel is a typical example of the pay to play corruption endemic to California and U.S. politics. The Resnicks and associates have contributed $29,000 to Feinstein and $246,000 more to Democratic political committees during years when she has sought re-election.
The Resnicks and other corporate agribusiness interests, southern California land speculators and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger are engaged in an intense Astroturf campaign to weaken pumping restrictions protecting threatened and endangered species under the federal biological opinions for Sacramento River Chinook salmon, Central Valley salmon, Delta smelt, green sturgeon and the southern resident population of killer whales.
 They are also pushing for the approval of a water bond that, combined with the water policy package passed by the California Legislature in November, creates a clear path to the construction of the peripheral canal or tunnel and Temperance Flats and Sites reservoirs. Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), who received $15,600 for his 2010 campaign from the Resnicks on July 30, 2009, strong-armed the water package through the Legislature in spite of strong opposition from his constituents and environmental, fishing and Delta farming groups.
 The canal will cost $23 billion to $53.8 billion to build at a time when California is in its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression - and the budgets for teachers, game wardens, health care for children and state parks have been slashed.
 Unfortunately, you can expect political influence by corporate giants like the Resnicks to increase even more, due to the recent 5-4 Supreme Court decision that blocks bans on corporate spending for political candidates.
 For a complete list of Resnicks contributions, go to http://californiawatch.org/data/resnick-and-associates-spend-nearly-4-million-campaigns


Gillnets Wiping Out Trinity Salmon Run
Tribal gillnets are literally wiping out the entire 2009 Trinity salmon run. It's tough enough the salmon have to make it through one gauntlet on the Lower Klamath but it's the second set of nets at the Hoopa reservation on the lower Trinity that are inflicting the biggest toll. The numbers of fish fighting their way to the spawning grounds on this important tributary to the Klamath are at all time lows. 

We have been highlighting this travesty for the past month and it finally looks like the main steam media is starting to pick up the story and bring it to light to those outside the fishing community. We encourage out readers to help us continue to spread this message.

For the week ending today November 4th only 16 king salmon made their way through the weir on the main stem Trinity at Willow Creek. That brings the Trinity river / Willow Creek weir count since October 1st to 111 fish. Cal F&G just posted a new message on their weekly Willow Creek weir count announcement to clarify actually escapement which reads "Attached is the most recent summaries for the weirs and hatcheries. An important reminder- the weir counts are not complete counts of fish passing the site, only a sub sample, usually less than 15% of the total number of fish passing the weir site, please do not cite weir counts as total counts. Also, all data is considered preliminary until final editing has been completed, please cite as such."

That's good news as it brings the total salmon escapement to roughly 740 fish.  This is still far too low of an escapement for a major river system and shows that F&G and the tribes have no idea how to manage this fishery. If the best they can come up with is a "clarification of the weir numbers" it only shows that they are more concerned in "covering their ass" than they are in engaging in their real mission which is supposed to be the "managing California fisheries and wildlife", and we wonder why our fisheries continue to collapse.

This over harvest of salmon was avoidable and in terms of the percentage of returning fish the gillnets have taken (harvested or whatever term one wishes to use) appears to be over 90% this year's entire Trinity fall run of kings. This complete disregard for sustainable runs will be felt for years and could lead to the continued closures of sport and commercial fishing along the California and Oregon coasts and both tribal and sport fishing in the lower Klamath in 2012 and 2013.

On October 22nd over 20,000 pounds of Trinity river salmon netted by Hoopa gillnetters (approximately 2000 + fish)  was intercepted by NOAA enforcement officers at a fish processor at pier 45 in San Francisco. Unfortunately the bust was unable to be prosecuted because the Hoopa tribe has never submitted a harvest plan. These processors sell to one so called "eco minded" chain (think health food) that profess that they sell only fish from sustainable fisheries".  My only question is that if you can't prosecute the netters why can't you go after the state licensed commercial fish buyers for purchasing illegally caught fish? This catch also violates three (of the total of four) the Hoopa tribal fishing codes.
Despite the fact that the Hoopa netters were busted with 20K pounds of "subsistence" fish (being sold commercially) that they broke their own laws to catch the netting continues unabated. Dozens of nets are still in the river and likely catching 100s of fish nightly. Yes, the tribes certainly are the stewards of the river, or at least it's demise.

This picture (left) taken the second week of September on the lower end of the Hoopa reservation clearly shows a series of three nets that are set bank to bank that allows little to zero escapement. The nets are set to capture all salmon moving up through a deep hole where the majority of salmon stage and rest. Due to competition, gillnetters always try to set below others making for little chance of escapement. These are just three nets of 44 that were counted. Tribal anglers call this subsistence fishing. With 44 nets stacked in just a small section of river  plunder  or rape may be a better choice of words. The angler who sent us this picture said every hole had two to three nets and was "impassable, unless the fish grew wings". 

Not all tribal members of the many along the Klamath and Trinity agree with what is happening. There are individuals and groups that are totally against gillnetting  but have little say on the fishery practices of others through their own counsel. Many agree that gillnetting is not sustainable and is destroying their true native fisheries. You will find only truth in that statement today on the lower Trinity.
 
Guides and businesses along the river are afraid to speak up for fear of reprisals and threats of violence. Personally I have received (and documented) many threats against me and even my children for exposing what I and many believe to be the over harvest of salmon by tribal gillnetters on the Klamath and Trinity rivers for the past many years.

To be fair it was white cannery operators who first wiped out the Klamath salmon runs in the early 1900s (pictured right) but runs recovered once commercial netting stopped. Then, like now gillnets and greed were the reason for the collapse. The only difference between then and now was that at that time no dams had been built and fishery laws were enforced to allow a come back. Today with no accountability on the tribes to properly manage their harvest the run is being wiped out yet again and maybe for good.

The Hoopa's are entitled to a 6000 fish quota this year. There is no telling how many fish of that quota they have caught (on top of the 2000 + they tried to illegal sell) because they have no harvest plan and don't report catches to any outside fishery agency.

Gillnetting  and sportfishing quotas are all based on wild ass guess (WAGS) theories of ocean abundance and river returns that are made months in advance. More often than not these WAGS are wrong and when they are overly optimistic can result in far too many salmon being harvested. This year again shows how overly optimistic WAGS result in far too many fish being harvested.

It's time for West Coast fishery managers (PFMC, CDFG, NOAA, USFW) to do away with the WAG and practice modern fishery management here in California.

Alaska has had great results in managing both sport and commercial salmon harvest by using sonar counters on many rivers.  I feel that sonar (or weirs where they are better suited) would be ideal to manage the Klamath and Trinity river fisheries. It would do away with the WAG and harvest would be controlled by escapement. That is sound management and ensures enough salmon make it back  to seed future returns.

(Pictured Left: One can clearly see the gillnet marks on this Trinity steelhead. The fish was just small enough to be able to push through the nets. Today a smaller fish is much more likely to survive as most larger brood stock salmon and steelhead are taken out by the nets)

The 101 bridge on the lower Klamath would be an ideal spot for a primary sonar counter or a weir. It's an area where the channel is small and the transponders could be easily mounted onto the bridge pilings to count all returning fish.

For instance if the Yurok tribe is allowed 20% of the in-river return for their commercial fishery they would be allowed to harvest no more (or less) of the escapement that moves past the counter at the 101 bridge.  10,000 fish move past the counter they could harvest 2000 fish, no more or less. 100,000 fish move up they get 20K, no more or less but no fishing until minimum escapement goals have been met ABOVE THE 101 BRIDGE.

Currently using the WAG,  Yurok tribal netters harvested over 35000 (+ DUE TO ALL THE UNCOUNTED FISH AND THOSE NEVER REPORTED) fish in just 17 days early in the season. In the time being sport anglers harvested just 3501 of their 32,000 fish quota in 2009. In 2008 sport anglers landed just 10% of their quota 22.5K fish quota but the Yurok tribe took their full allotment of 22,500 fish before 10% of the run even migrated above tide water.

To maintain an accurate count, sonar (or weirs) should also be installed at the mouth of the Trinity and in the main stem Klamath just upriver from the Trinity. Fish that turn into the Trinity could be counted at the mouth and again at the Willow Creek weir. The Hoopa's would be allowed to harvest their allotment of fish that make it past the Willow Creek weir, no more, no less but no fishing until minimum escapement has been met AT THE WILLOW CREEK WEIR.

Over harvest by subsistence netters on the lower Klamath has been a big problem for years but the actual impact in numbers of fish is unknown. By having sonar counters along the length of the river the true impact of legal and illegal gillnetting would be known and harvests and allotments could be adjusted to make up for these impacts in real time or loss of fishing rights in the following years.
 
Just a few ideas based on what has worked in Alaska which has tribal and commercial gillnetting, resident dip netting and sportfishing to manage on the same rivers. They are able to adjust fishery harvest in real time and always error on the side of the fish. It's a proven method of proper fishery management. After all what sense is there is spending 10s of millions to tear down dams and restore the rivers if tribal gillnetters continue to over harvest the brood stock.

It's time that for new styles of fishery management but unfortunately it's too late for Trinity river bound kings and coho this year. The over harvest this season will effect future seasons of both California and Oregon sport and commercial salmon anglers for the next several years. There can be a better future for salmon if we are bold enough to give up old practices and work together to rebuild the salmon runs.
We owe it to future generations to correct what we ALL have screwed up so badly.
Mike Aughney
fishsite@aol.com
----------------------
Editor's Feedback:
I want to thank the scores of readers who have written us about this story. This is a "live" story and we will continue to update it as weir counts, pictures and new information comes in. The message is getting out and we are starting to see some related stories. This one from WON written by Jim Jones makes some excellent points.  wonews.com/t-FreshReport_trinity_river_110209.aspx

And this one from the Record Searchlight in Redding  http://www.redding.com/news/2009/nov/08/are-gill-nets-decimating-klamath-and-trinity/

Many other emails have been from guides and local business owners (who for years have been muzzled by threats of violence from the tribes when they speak out) saying thanks for what they cannot risk saying. One was from Yurok tribal member who has been ostracized because he had spoken out against nets. In response to letters from some tribal members I will say that this issue has NOTHING to do with race. You can play the race card all you want but more often than not that is the first card played by the tribe (s) every time their netting practices are questioned. I only wish that the gillnetters in question were all lily white. Then I could come out with both barrels.
Unfortunately CDFG, NOAA, PFMC and USFW are a big reason this story ever came to be. They have done nothing to enforce harvest. Harvest plans that should have been submitted by the Hoopa's in the 1970s are still not filed. Cal Fish and Game wardens have the audacity to check sport anglers for their license and punch card while (and I have seen this twice the past five years) Yurok netters are shooting sealions right in front of them and they do nothing. Last and least, why does it take someone like me to state the obvious that sonar counters may be one of the best ways to manage harvest and escapement?
We have lost the Sacramento Valley salmon fisheries and in turn ocean sport and commercial fisheries worth 100s of million $$$$$$$$$ due to water diversion, greed and politics and now the Trinity to gillnetting and greed and for what? $50,000 worth of fish to the Hoopa tribe. This $50K worth of fish to the tribe will cost $10s of millions to the California economy come 2012.
My final question..... is when are Federal and State fishery managers going to start working with the tribes to manage these fisheries? If recent history is any inclination they will only step up when the run has completely collapsed.
I encourage sport anglers, especially those who live in the "State of Jefferson" to speak out about this travesty and to contact the media and their state assembly and congress members and ask for answers.
Mike


SF CHRONICLE EXPOSES ALARMING ELEMENT OF CA WATER BOND
An article in the San Francisco Chronicle brought attention to a small, little-noticed section of the $11.1 billion water bond act passed by the California legislature in a special November session.  The bond act will go before voters in November, 2010.  The provision, according to the Chronicle article, “specifically allows for the creation of joint power authorities.”  These authorities “may include in their membership governmental and nongovernmental partners that are not located within their respective hydrologic regions in financing the surface storage projects.”  These governmental and nongovernmental authorities “would own, govern, manage and operate a surface storage project.” 

The issue, of course, is that this provision amounts to an allowance for water privatization with the potential to bring massive profits to select individuals at the expense of the public good.  Lawmakers have said that the intention of the language is to provide flexibility for funding of the projects, and that the strict public benefits criteria and review processes should prevent any abuse of the provision. “Every dollar, every public dollar, will be spent on a public benefit,” said Senate President Pro Tem Darell Steinberg.  “That’s what the bond says and that’s what the state water commission will be charged with assuring.” 

The way the arrangement would work is that taxpayers would pay for a proportion of a storage project determined by the value of the public benefits created by the project, i.e. flood control, recreation, ecosystem restoration, etc.  This money would be given to the private entity, which would then be responsible for the remainder of costs associated with building the storage facility.  Any profits generated from this investment would be the private entity’s. 

 On 2 January, the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN) also published an article about four troublesome amendments to the so-called “Monterey Agreement” governing California water policy, which it believes must be overturned to avoid the privatization of California water resources and water infrastructure.  The now-notorious story of the Kern Water Bank’s conversion from a public resource to a profit machine for billionaire Stuart Resnick serves as a cautionary tale in the article.  Specifically, the four amendments that C-WIN believes must be overturned are the following:

1.     Elimination of Article 18(a). 18(a) established the “Urban Preference,” a safeguard to ensure that “in times of prolonged dry weather, agricultural allocations would be cut first.”

2.     Elimination of Article 18(b).  18(b) was meant to ensure that “the total amount of what was promised could actually be delivered.”  The difference between what is promised and what can be delivered is called “paper water.”  Because of the elimination of 18(b), there are about 2.37 million acre feet of paper water in the California system, which is extremely dangerous because it allows developments to be approved where in reality there is insufficient water.  “Reinstating Article 18(b) would mean that the Department of Water Resources (DWR) could reduce the overall …project contracts to what water the Department can actually deliver.”

3.     Kern Water Bank Given Away by State.  “As part of the Monterey Agreement, the DWR (Department of Water Resources) turned over a state asset, the Kern Water Bank (a 20,000-acre alluvial fan) to the Kern County Water Agency in exchange for the retirement of 45,000 acre-feet of paper water.”  This privatization allowed private corporations, most notably Resnick’s Paramount Farm, to buy surplus water from the SF Bay Delta, store it in the aquifer, and later sell it to the highest bidder, making millions of dollars off a public resource.  C-WIN recommends that the Kern Water Bank be returned to the DWR to be “used in dry times to fulfill the urban preference,” which C-WIN also recommends be reinstated.

4.     Lastly, Article 21 “enables state water contractors -- particularly those in the southern San Joaquin Valley and those under the umbrella of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California -- to make much greater use of surplus water in the State Water Project.”  This availability of cheap surplus water led to unprecedented levels of pumping during the wet years of the 2000’s, which ultimately caused ecologic collapse in the Delta ecosystem.

  While California lawmakers struggle to craft policies that will allow for efficient use and transfer of water in the Central Valley and beyond without compromising the Delta ecosystem or the public trust, the lucrative sales of water resources continue.  On 29 December, the Fresno Bee announced that “another farmer may be selling his irrigation water supply to Southern California for millions of dollars.”  The Irvine Ranch Water District, which serves a population of 330,000 in Southern California, has proposed to buy access to 1,700 acre feet of water for the reported price of $14.3 million from the Dudley Ridge Water District in Kings County, CA.

To read the 27 December article from the San Francisco Chronicle about the California water bond, visit http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-12-27/news/17461887_1_water-bond-storage-projects-state-s-water-system.  The 2 January article from the California Water Impact Network is at www.c-win.org/monterey-amendments-state-water-project-contracts.html The Fresno Bee update from 29 December about the possible Irvine transfer is at http://fresnobeehive.com/news/2009/12/another_farmer_may_sell_water.html.


California Waterloo – Tide of Debt May Shift from General Fund to Water Users

Patrick Porgans discloses how the Debt Affordability Report released by State Treasurer Bill Lockyer found that water infrastructure should be paid for by users, not the General Fund and the state's taxpayers as it has been for decades. Could this mark the beginning of the end for massive rip offs of water and taxpayers' money by Westlands Water District, corporate agribusiness and other wealthy water users, who have presided over the destruction of California's fisheries

"Profiteering water users have been getting rich at the expense of unsuspecting taxpayers, who incur insurmountable debt to keep unsustainable agricultural 'operations'20in the 'green' and out-of-the red," said Porgans. "Perhaps, as the Treasurer suggests, it is time for change." 

The report was released at a time when Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Darrell Steinberg and corporate agribusiness are pushing for the construction of a massive peripheral canal in order to export more water from the California Delta to southern California and agribusiness. The environmentally destructive project would cost anywhere from $23 billion to $53.8 billion, according to a recent draft report by Steve Kasower, economist.

Dan Bacher

------------------------------------------------

PRESS RELEASE: 5 October 2009 
Contact Patrick Porgans, Solutionist, Porgans & Associates, Inc. (916) 833-873 or 543-0780: 

California Waterloo – Tide of Debt May Shift from General Fund to Water Users 

On October 1, State Treasurer Bill Lockyer released the 2009 Debt Affordability Report. The report finds that, "further increasing the General Fund’s debt burden, especially in the next three difficult budgets, would require cutting even deeper into crucial services already reeling from billions of dollars in reductions." The Treasurer therefore found that water infrastructure should be paid for by users, not the General Fund. 

Have “we the people” been laboring under a misapprehension or can it be that someone in political office has finally come to his senses. For almost a decade Porgans & Associates (P&A) have voiced concerns about the rising General Fund debt being incurred by Californians to bailout State Water Project (SWP) and other water users. P&A diligently reminded Californians and the “leadership” of the fact that the SWP was sold on the premise that it would pay-for-itself; the beneficiaries, water and power users would pay. 

Furthermore, the SWP was also promoted on the premise it would unify the State. The record shows it has done neither. Conversely, the SWP is at the core of the Delta Collapse and the State’s never-ending water wars. 

Treasurer Bill Lockyer’s recent epiphany that water infrastructure should be paid by users is a far-flung cry from his support and position on General Fund/General Obligation Bond funding for water users when he was Senate Pro Tem, back in the 1990s. It was at that time, Proposition 204, the first of a series of General Obligation Bonds, ultimately totaling more than $18 billion were launched. Repayment of GO Bonds comes out of the General Fund. 

In fact, it was in the ante-chamber of the then Senate Pro Tem Lockyer’s office, back in the 1996, P&A openly tape-recorded former State Senator Costa (D), representing agricultural water use in the San Joaquin Valley, and the who’s who in California’s water contingent, caucusing an “impromptu” so-called “conference committee” discussion, pertaining to the General Obligation Bond poster-child bailout-funding scheme -- Proposition 204. 

During that discussion, Senator Costa was the only one seated in the room, in which there was standing room only. Patrick Porgans was the only uninvited participant who witnessed the ante-chamber “legislative” process first hand. 

Proposition 204, started out at about $250 million; however, before the discussion in the Senate Pro Tem’s anti- chamber was over, and the ink was dry on the proposed proposition, and all of the water users gave their input as to how many millions it would take for them to come on board the financially sinking SWP flotilla, the final number for Proposition 204 totaled $995 million, plus $776 million in interest. Total cost to the taxpayer is about $1.8 billion, which was more than what the entire SWP was sold to the voters back in 1960; which was $1.75 billion. 

Essentially, the GO bond-funding scheme was designed to keep the unsustainable agricultural sectors in the San Joaquin Valley from going bankrupt. Although, Treasurer Lockyer was a player in that get-the-public-to pay script, he is to be commended as the first major elected official to take up the Legislative Analyst Office and the Little Hoover Commission’s recommendations that water users/beneficiaries should pay. 

One wonders if his ephinany is a dollar short and a day late, after all, Proposition 204 was only the first of series of water and water-related General Obligation bond acts, commencing in 1996 through 2006; totaling $18.5 billion, with interest it is more than $30 billion. In reality, the “waterloo” that bought this ingenious-funding scheme to its end was the astronomical amount of debt that State incurred. The State is so far in debt that the only way it can get out from under its self-induced financial crisis is to cut jobs, essential services and contemplate selling off public assets. 

As P&A has stated, in its 79-page Sixty Day Notice to sue the government, about $6.5 billion in GO bonds were expended through CalFed, which, essentially turned out as a qualified failure to “fix” the Bay-Delta Estuary. Albeit, when you add in the interest for the CalFed debacle, the costs almost double. 

It has always been P&A’s objective to follow and expose the source and flow of money. In the process we have been very effective in shedding light on the underlying issues fueling California’s water crisis. 

Profiteering water users have been getting rich at the expense of unsuspecting taxpayers, who incur insurmountable debt to keep unsustainable agricultural “operations” in the “green” and out-of-the red. Perhaps, as the Treasurer suggests, it is time for change.


Governor Holds State Hostage to Peripheral Canal Water Bond

Governor Arnold "Fish Terminator" Schwarzenegger has told Legislative leaders that he wants a water package including a peripheral canal and dams on his desk by Friday night before he will act on 700 bills. He is in effect holding the State of California hostage to his plan to build a monument to his gigantic ego, the peripheral canal, a budget-busting government boondoggle estimated to cost $23 to $53.8 billion to build, according to an analysis by economist Steven Kasower. 

"Where are the adults in Sacramento?," asks Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, campaign director of Restore the Delta, in the latest Delta Flows e-news. "Yes, the Governor has told Legislative Leaders that he wants a water package on his desk by Friday night before he will act on the 700 bills sitting on his desk. But with a significant portion of the Legislature not in town, and members scattered all over the world presently, can that really happen?" 

According to a recently completed analysis by the East Bay Municipal Utility District on the proposed water bond and the Delta Water Package outlined in the latest Restore the Delta e-news alert, "The proposed $12B GO Delta bonds would result in debt service costs of nearly $780M/year to the General Fund for the next 30 years." 

Here are all of the ugly details of how the Governor's water bond would indebt Californians for years to come to build a project that would economically devastate coastal, Central Valley and Delta communities dependent on Sacramento River salmon and other fisheries and family farms on the Delta. 
Dan

 

Restore the Delta: Where are the adults in Sacramento? 
Yes, the Governor has told Legislative Leaders that he wants a water package on his desk by Friday night before he will act on the 700 bills sitting on his desk. But with a significant portion of the Legislature not in town, and members scattered all over the world presently, can that really happen? 

To read more about these events in Sacramento click here for an update from the Capitol Weekly, http://capitolweekly.net/article.php?_c=ybnf6scq2y5l9i&xid=ybl6q43i1glqv9&done=.ybnf6scq2yol9i# 

Why is the Governor pushing for this water package?  Why are legislative leaders following his lead?
According to a recently complete analysis by the East Bay Municipal Utility District on the proposed water bond and the Delta Water Package: 

"The proposed $12B GO Delta bonds would result in debt service costs of nearly $780M/year to the General Fund for the next 30 years." 

"The state budget deficit for the next three years is projected to be as much as $15B per year, and could climb even higher. Even these dire projections may not represent the worst case, should California's economy continue to slide. The $780M debt service burden would consume an increasing share of discretionary state funding, without counting the $1.3B annually that it will cost to service debt from resource bonds already approved since 2000. Which state programs are we willing to sacrifice to take on this massive, additional debt?" 

"State expenditures for resources-related GO bond debt have grown rapidly, from 8% of General Fund spending in 2000-01 to a whopping 36% in 2009-2010. Adding a $12B bond would simply break the bank. According to State Treasurer Lockyer, between now and 2028, the state will assume another $225 billion in general fund bonded indebtedness. This mounting debt burden is an unsustainable trend, and is already interfering with the state's efforts to address its growing environmental and resource needs." 

And it's not just costs from a GO bond. It is simply shocking to Restore the Delta staff members that the Governor and Legislative Leaders could be in favor of this package during this time of economic crisis. Look at what California's urban water users will be expected to pay, all to support agribusiness on the West side of the San Joaquin Valley. Also, according to the East Bay Municipal Utility District analysis: 

"The legislature has embarked on a major reform of the state's water system, heedless of the enormous costs involved, just when the state's financial condition has never been more dire. A realistic assessment of the total costs of the Delta legislation comes to $52B to $78B or more. This includes a series of huge capital projects: new Delta conveyance, construction of several new surface storage reservoirs, construction of other local water management and delivery projects, Delta levee strengthening, ecosystem restoration, and creation of three new state agencies and expanded state programs to prepare and implement the Delta Plan." 

"Of this total price tag, urban SWP and CVP customers (who comprise roughly 24 million Californians) located south of the Delta will pay between_$42B and $68B, likely to be amortized over thirty years. First, these customers will pay all of the costs of new Delta conveyance, which are estimated between $18B and $44B. As they comprise 70% of all Californians who reside within the Delta watershed, their cost share of all other components of this water package (totaling approximately $34B) will add another $24B. Paying this huge price tag via water user fees on the water bill will result in more than doubling of the water rates for these customers, as well as additional huge annual water rate increases for many years into the future." 

"The costs of new Delta conveyance includes the construction cost of building a canal or tunnel on an eastern or western alignment, plus necessary levee upgrades to continue through Delta operations, new rights of way, mitigation and relocation of impacted facilities/infrastructure. The reason for the range ($18B-$44B) in estimated costs of new Delta conveyance is that a tunnel will be substantially more expensive than an open canal." 

"All users of water from the Delta watershed will have to pay the $16B cost of new programs and projects in the "Delta Plan. These costs include: 

·$14B in levee repair and strengthening, plus new staffing costs for the Delta Plan. 

·$2B for ecosystem restoration not included as part of the new Delta conveyance." 

So to be clear, Delta landowners and communities, which have riparian rights and rights to the use Delta water for beneficial use, will now have to pay for the restoration and mitigation needed from 50 years of excessive water exports. And if that's not enough... 

"It is expected that these activities will be funded through a surcharge or fee on water use. $16B in state water fees spread over 30 years is approximately $530M per year in new state water fees, not counting the likely fee increases over time. For the same urban customers south of the Delta who are financing the new Delta conveyance, this fee would come to $11B more on their water bills." 

The agricultural water districts have repeatedly told the Legislature that they can pay neither the costs of the new Delta conveyance, nor any fee on water use. This would shift all the costs enumerated above onto urban water customers in California. As a result, urban water customers south of the Delta carrying the full cost of a new Delta conveyance, two- thirds of the cost of the Delta Plan, plus their share of surface storage and regional projects. In the absence of drastic cost-cutting, the debt service for these urban customers could come to more than $4B/year. 

"The money to pay the $52B to $78B price tag for these programs and projects will be demanded from the same Californians who are enduring the worst recession since the 1930s. The state share of any bond repayments will strain the state's already overburdened General Fund. This long-term over- commitment of taxpayer and ratepayer dollars must be rigorously scrutinized by the Legislature, and the costs scaled down to meet financial reality." 

For more information, go to http://www.restorethedelta.org 

Feds Seek Public Comment on Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan 
by Dan Bacher 

The federal government today published in the Federal Register a draft recovery plan designed to restore and stabilize Central Valley salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). NOAA's Fisheries Service is now seeking public comment on the plan, with workshops for public comment and information planned in Chico and Sacramento this month. 

The document addresses long-needed recovery efforts for endangered Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, threatened Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon and threatened Central Valley steelhead. The ESA requires the development of a recovery plan for the successful rebuilding of species identified as being "at risk of extinction." 

“This draft plan provides the framework necessary to recover salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act in the Central Valley,” said Maria Rea, Sacramento office supervisor for NOAA’s Fisheries Service. “With the public’s input, it will also provide significant improvement for other non-listed salmonid species like the commercially valuable fall run Chinook.” 

The document recommends changes in the operation of the state and federal pumping plants in the California Delta, as well as in upstream dam operations, incurring the wrath of corporate agribusiness interests that have exported record amounts of water from the estuary in recent years. The document pinpoints Delta water export operations as a key factor in the demise of the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook run and other Central Valley salmon populations. 

"The primary factors causing mortality of winter-run Chinook salmon in the Delta are considered to be the diversion of juveniles from the mainstem Sacramento River into the central and southern Delta where environmental conditions are poor and reverse flow conditions exist which may move them into the lower San Joaquin River and into the south Delta waterways (NMFS 1997)," the plan states. "Survival through central Delta migratory routes is substantially lower than through northern routes." 

The document was released as Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senator Dianne Feinstein and Central Valley Congressmen, under pressure from subsidized corporate agribusiness on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, have gone to war against the federal biological opinions protecting Delta smelt, Central Valley salmon, green sturgeon and southern resident killer whales. The recovery plan is the result of a court order that mandated the Bush administration to rewrite a badly flawed biological opinion that declared that the operation of the state and federal water projects would pose "no jeopardy" to endangered salmon and steelhead. 

The writing of the revised biological opinion was initiated under the Bush administration, so "Green Governor" Schwarzenegger, Feinstein and Valley Democrats including Representative Jim Costa (D-Fresno) and Dennis Cardoza (D-Merced) have taken environmental positions to the right of the Bush administration. They have repeatedly pressured Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to re-write the re-written biological opinion in order to keep robbing northern California and the Delta of water badly-needed to restore Central Valley salmon and Delta fish populations. 

Unfortunately, Salazar has apparently buckled under their pressure. Last week he said he would ask the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an independent review of the science underpinning federal water pumping limits mandated under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to protect Delta smelt and Central Valley