The Reader’s Digest version? While Winter storms promised much, a dry spring means the Sierra snowpack has fallen far short of early expectations.

Faster than you can say "rationing," every major paper in the state jumped on the story.

From the Contra Costa Times:

California’s snowpack is low for the second year in a row, leaving water managers across the state grappling with the triple threat of a dry year, depleted reservoirs and new environmental restrictions on pumping from the Delta.

The whole scenario would be amusing if so much wasn’t at stake; a water-hungry state has largely maxed out its supplies — doing an unbelievable amount of environmental damage in the process — and yet somehow, water managers wanted to believe one good year would solve the problem.

Here at the Underground, we’ve got a bridge we’d like to sell to those same managers.

See you at the tap, Tom Chandler.

ShareThis

Federal judge Oliver Wanger today tossed out a controversial water plan that would have allowed more pumping of water from the imperiled California Delta at the expense of five species of protected chinook salmon and steelhead trout.

Recreational fishing, commercial fishing and conservation groups and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe celebrated the ruling as a victory for the millions of Californians who depend on the delta for drinking water, fishing jobs and agriculture. The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is the largest and most significant estuary on the West Coast - and increased state and federal exports to subsidized agribusiness and southern California in recent years are a key factor in the collapse of Sacramento River salmon.

In his opinion Judge Oliver W. Wanger relied on the National Marine Fisheries Services’ (NMFS) own finding that diverting water from the bay-delta was killing huge numbers of salmon. He said, “This morbid projection is inconsistent, if not irreconcilable” with the agency’s opinion that the project operations did not jeopardize the survival of the fish. He also faulted the agency for failing to analyze the effects of global warming on the fish, calling that failure “arbitrary and capricious.”

"How extirpation of approaching one-third of the species affected by Project operations does not constitute jeopardy is not explained," said Wanger. "NMFS’s no jeopardy conclusion for the Project operations’ effects on the spring-run Chinook is expressly contradicted by underlying data and opinions of the BiOp."

More Bad News for Fishermen

The ocean fishing season for salmon has already been killed off by extremely low returns, and it looks like a zero-take policy will apply to river fisheries too:

The Commission will decide on whether or not to close salmon season on Central Valley rivers at its meeting in Monterey on May 9. However, it is extremely likely that the Commission will close salmon fishing on the Sacramento, American, Feather, San Joaquin and other rivers in conformance with the PFMC’s "zero take" allowance for the dwindling salmon population.

An Underground Rant

Here’s the scenario; salmon populations in the Sacramento River are collapsing (several species, including the stalwart Chinook run), steelhead are hurting, Delta Smelt and Longfin Smelt are on the brink of extinction, and they want to export more water from the Delta?

Here’s a thought: maybe it’s time California learned to live within its water budget.

ShareThis

This would be illegal if some have their way…

Even though it’s clear the supervisors can’t legally designate the local rivers as non-navigable — making wading illegal where private property adjoins the river — several of them are still trying.

It spells trouble for us if they succeed, and on a whole range of issues, including access, water quality, habitat protection and many others.

Sadly, the most recent tactic involves a thinly veiled threat; in an e-mail to an Underground reader, one supervisor suggests that if support isn’t forthcoming to have the Scott and Shasta Rivers designated as non-navigable, she’ll be forced to launch a full-on assault on the McCloud and Upper Sacramento.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t much care for threats.

It gets worse.

The supervisor who authored the document publicly stated that she will decide which public comments are accepted and which aren’t.

Transparency? An open process? Nah. Don’t need ‘em when you’re pursuing a reckless public policy course.

Bring It On

While this plan initially snuck in under the radar, it’s finally being scrutinized in the full light of day, and the vast majority of the feedback has been negative, if not downright hostile.

Given the significant pushback the supervisors have received from CalTrout, TU, local residents and fly fishers (especially our own Underground mob), it’s clear they’re feeling the pressure.

Still, the two ringleaders aren’t budging; Supervisor Armstrong is now replying to e-mails with complaints that “local fishing guides” are causing problems through the simple act of (legally) fishing the Scott and Shasta.

Hmmm.

The rest of her stance remains largely opaque to the facts: she feels the Shasta and Scott have long been recognized as non-navigable (wrong); that the Klamath is the only navigable river in the county “under current law” (wrong again - one of our own readers shot that down with a US Supreme Court cite); and that the county even has a voice in this issue (wrong yet again).

Based on a casual reading of many of her weekly newspaper columns, she also feels that rivers are made to be dewatered, that fullscale mining, timber and agriculture operations don’t harm fish populations, and that destructive land use policies are fine because we’ve always done things that way.

This is the same supervisor who’s attacking CalTrout for the mere act of studying water flows in the Shasta River, and if that attack isn’t recommendation enough to get you to join CalTrout, then I don’t know what is.

Next Round: November 6

First, let me say this in big, bold, capital letters:

YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN GREAT.

The research, the spot-on comments, and the small avalanche of e-mails have made a real difference. Our biggest ally on the BOS (LaVada Erickson) finally has a little political clout, and the proponents of this plan (including one who seems to changing direction) suddenly find themselves blinking into the glare of public scrutiny.

Take a minute to pat yourself on the back.

But know this: we’re not done yet.

I’m crafting a lengthy email for submission to all the supervisors using the information my readers unearthed, and I’m aiming letters to the editors of the local papers (the Mount Shasta Herald already published my first).

Naturally, I’ll share any responses, and at some point, I’ll ask the Underground Army to submit another flurry of e-mails (I’m looking into ways to automate the process).

Then the meeting itself looms; Tuesday morning, November 6.

No, I don’t really expect you be there, but hell — why not plan a long weekend trip? Hit the BWOs on the Upper Sac, the October Caddis on the McCloud, the steelies on the long-suffering Klamath — then show up Tuesday morning with a fistful of receipts for the money you’ve spent in the county.

Think a few of the supervisors might squirm a little when asked why they feel the need to criminalize the very activity that supports a big chunk of the local economy — a sustainable, non-extractive activity?

Think that supervisor Jim Cook — who supposedly represents the town of McCloud — wants to explain his tourist-economy-killing stance to his supposed constituents, who rely on fly fishermen to help keep that small town afloat?

I doubt it.

Much more to come. See you in the political trenches, Tom Chandler.

(Click to read the original post on this subject.)

Technorati Tags: fly fishing, upper sacramento river, mccloud river, shasta river, scott river, stream access rights, caltrout

ShareThis

I haven’t made a secret of my antipathy for the Westlands irrigation district . They’re pushing to have Shasta Dam raised — flooding miles of the Upper Sac, McCloud and Pit Rivers — and they’re also the beneficiaries of a huge, ongoing federal subsidy in the form of the Central Valley Water project.

In fact, to thank us taxpayers for our largesse, they sued the government when their irrigation practices left a whole segment of the valley poisoned by selenium, and the excellent Aquafornia blog labeled them “The badboys of federal irrigation projects .”

Now Westlands wants the government to simply hand them even more water rights, hoping that you and I won’t notice they want to be forgiven their $489 million dollar debt for infrastructure and to be given rights to 260 billion gallons of publicly owned water worth upwards of $40 billion.

Remember those numbers next time you’re working overtime to pay for new tires on the truck.

LLoyd G. Carter — a former reporter from Fresno who’s written about water issues for 30 years — encapsulates the Westlands water district’s history of water grabs, questionable practices, lying, ignoring laws, sidestepping environmental concerns… you get the picture. From his lengthy-but-information-packed entry on Carter’s blog:

Now they [westlands] are poised to pull off the biggest coup in their controversial history. If they get what they are asking for, 260 billion gallons of publicly-owned water a year for 60 years, they will capture water worth anywhere from $20 to $40 billion - that’s billion with a B - with which they are free to farm tainted soils with, OR resell to urban interests at fantastic profit margins. At the current retail market price of $500-600 an acre-foot in Southern California, the Westlands water, purchased at a fraction of its true valley could be worth $2,000 an acre-foot by 2050, when there could be 60 million Californians. The potential value of 15.6 trillion gallons of water in a drought-stricken climate staggers the imagination.

Diane Feinstein — a California senator who’s never shied away from damaging water “reclamation” projects — seems to be firmly behind the giveaway , suggesting that the sweetheart deal was encouraging, and that the “devil is in the details.”

I’d suggest the devil is negotiating for Westlands, who somehow promise to clean up the selenium and salt tainted region for less than $1 billion when the feds think it will cost $2.6 billion.

They plan to do so using unproven new technologies that the EPA doesn’t believe will work.

Color me skeptical; Westlands has a history of ignoring or circumventing “family farming” laws in the past, and so far, there’s no guarantee tying water deliveries to an actual cleanup, or even a mechanism for real public oversight of the cleanup.

PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility) have weighed in with :

“The Bureau of Reclamation seems to be peddling selenium snake oil,” stated California PEER Director Karen Schambach, noting that Reclamation historically backs irrigator preferences. “The Bureau selenium bio-treatment scenario is simply wishful thinking, unsupported by a shred of credible science.”

The San Joaquin River already suffers from severe selenium effects and is an impaired water body for a 130-mile stretch, reaching down to its delta, Suisun Bay and adjacent marshes. The impacts also extend to the salmon and steelhead of the Sacramento, American, Trinity and Klamath Rivers.

“Left to its own devices, the Bureau of Reclamation will embrace a hugely expensive boondoggle that may result in the mother of all Kestersons,” Schambach warned. “It would be far more effective and ten times less expensive to retire the land and shut off the irrigation pumps.”

If you’re into the details, the EPA memo condemming the plan — based on the utter lack of feasibility — can be found here .

The Bottom Line (for Westlands)

Instead of simply retiring the poisoned land (thereby not putting even more poison in our water supply), Westlands intends to make a huge profit re-selling water (far more than they make farming), and if their “word” means as much as it has in the past, you can largely forget about a real cleanup.

It’s time the people charged with protecting our water and the public interest turned off the money/power/water spigot to the politically connected Westlands machine. The poisoned lands should be retired, and Westlands shouldn’t be gifted billions of dollars of waters for doing so.

If you think so too, then pop over to Senator Diane Feinstein’s e-mail form and let her know that you think Westlands doesn’t deserve an unprecedented giveaway of public water. Further, the cleanup should be based on the best available science, not the hollow promises of big agriculture — and an organization that discredited itself long, long ago.

Only take a minute.

The Corporate Effect

Every time I post an anti-Westlands/PacifiCorp/Nestle article, I receive an e-mail or two suggesting I’m simply anti-business. That’s not true, but I am willing to be labeled “pro good business.”

If Nestle wants to cut a fair, environmentally sensitive deal with McCloud that doesn’t involve intimidating opponents and speaking with a forked tongue, I say go for it.

And I believe Westlands should simply help clean up the selenium/salt mess because they helped make it (and profited from it). Instead, they’re attempting to grab even more heavily subsidized water (which they can re-sell to urban areas at an obscene profit), which places them firmly in the “predatory company” category.

When PacifiCorp shows an interest in doing the right thing — instead of trying to “maximize shareholder value” at the expense of far more valuable salmon runs, salmon fishermen, and the local economy — then they’ll come off the Underground’s “Axis of Corporate Evil” list.

Believe me, I’d much rather post bikini fishing articles instead of getting worked up at predatory companies.

Until that happy day, see you at the keyboard, Tom Chandler.

Technorati Tags: environment, westlands, diane feinstein, kesterson, aquafornia,

ShareThis

California’s Water Plan, prepared by the state Department of Water Resources and currently being updated, always seems to imply that our supply of water to support development is endless. Clearly, all of our water problems are exacerbated by development. But the California Water Plan never addresses the crucial questions of what are the limits on our supply of water and what is the ultimate population that can be supported.

Current law says the state must prepare a Regional Housing Needs Assessment that requires local governments to provide their “fair share” of housing of various types to accommodate the state’s population projections. Unfortunately, our water purveyors always seem to step up blindly and say they can supply the necessary water. If this is true, then why is there a growing cry for conservation and current threats of water cutbacks?

If there is not an endless supply of water, at some point there will not be enough water to support additional development. For example, note the agriculture water cutback now projected for 2008. Inevitably, we really will run out of water, and the state’s policy on endless housing to support further population growth will have to be redefined. At some point, “the inn” will be full!

Of course, if we’re willing to lean on agriculture and sacrifice environmental quality, we can probably support the 30% population growth that’s forecast, but then we’d be largely living in hell.

And frankly, I’m not willing to sacrifice what’s left of our rivers so everyone in the state can exercise their god-given right to a swimming pool and bluegrass lawn — not to mention cheap, government subsidized vegetables.

So how about it, Undergrounders; how and when does California say “no mas” to more development? Or will it simply never happen?

Technorati Tags: california water wars, nor county times, water

ShareThis

Lots has been happening,

An endangered species “one-two” punch is causing ripples on the most-excellent Aquafornia blog; water’s pouring out of the Folsom Dam (in part to replace the water that isn’t being pumped out of the delta due to the Delta Smelt) and some folks are wondering out loud if we aren’t looking at a massive fall fish kill as a result.

If you lived through California’s last years-long drought, you probably remember the voluntary restrictions which became mandatory as water supplies dried up, and — not to put it too fine a point on it — water supplies are pretty tapped out in good years.

That’s why Southern California agencies are looking at desalinazation plants, and in fact, several agencies have signed on to buy the water. Desalinzation is expensive and doesn’t get a free ride on the environmental front (it’s energy intensive), but expect to read a lot more about the technology.

A lot has been happening on the water front while I’ve been on vacation (hell, I’m still trapped in Boston by plane delays), but I’ll try to stay on top of it — and feed the Undergrounders the relevant tidbits. See you on the water, Tom Chandler.

Technorati Tags: aquafornia, water, california, folsom dam, delta smelt, desalinzation

ShareThis

In fact, Aquafornia is a treasure trove of information about California’s water wars (recent posts cover the Peripheral canal, Owens Valley issues and desalinzation), and I added them to my RSS reader right away.

See you at the water spigot, Tom Chandler.

Technorati Tags: water, california water wars, water rights, lower owens river

ShareThis

In many cases, the pumps removed so much water that the flows would actually reverse, and you didn’t have to be a scientist to know that wasn’t a good thing.

Battle for the Delta Smelt

If you’ve never fished it, the Delta is a maze of channels and levees that drains most of the central valley watersheds into the Pacific Ocean.

It’s home to a dizzying array of fish — including the numerous anadramous species migrating through. It’s also home to the endangered Delta Smelt, and has become a battleground pitting a tiny, two-inch fish against some of the most powerful water pumps known to man: (more…)

ShareThis