Breaking News on Cal-Delta, The Smelt & Water heading So

[Cooch]

U.S. issues rules to protect Delta smelt

Peter Fimrite, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Scarce irrigation and drinking water in California could be reduced under a set of rules enacted Monday by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect a rare fish uniquely adapted to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

The new protections of the threatened delta smelt appear in a 400-page report, the culmination of long negotiations, lawsuits and hearings over three years involving environmentalists, fishing advocates, state and federal water brokers and their contractors.

The rules are among the most comprehensive ever put together under endangered species laws to protect a single species of fish, according to experts.

The crux of the issue is the contention by environmentalists that the huge Tracy-area pumps used by the State Water Project and federal Central Valley Project to bring delta water to 25 million Californians and irrigate 750,000 acres of cropland also suck up and kill smelt. Biologists believe the federal ruling will prevent the extinction of the species.

"We're very pleased," said Tina Swanson, a fish biologist and senior scientist at the Bay Institute, a nonprofit research organization dedicated to protecting San Francisco Bay and delta ecosystem health. "The biological opinion includes curtailments in water exports from the delta during times of the year when delta smelt are spawning and the young larvae and juveniles are present. The requirements are there to reduce the number of delta smelt sucked into the pumps and killed."

The health of the delta smelt, a 2- to 3-inch long silver-colored fish, is, according to biologists, a sign of the overall health of the ecosystem, including other fish species such as striped bass, longfin smelt, threadfin shad and Chinook salmon. At stake is not only a rare species of fish uniquely adapted to the delta's shifting currents and brackish water but also the drinking and irrigation water for millions of Californians from the Bay Area, throughout the San Joaquin Valley and in Southern California.

Vast amounts of water

The federal and state water distribution systems tap the vast network of channels, islands and marshes known as the California Delta. Vast quantities of water are pumped every year to farmers and communities using the pumping and piping systems of the two agencies.

In 2007, U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger ordered cuts in the amount of water pumped out of the delta in an effort to protect the fish. The ruling caused a 25 to 30 percent reduction in water exports by the State Water Project in 2008, or a loss of 730,000 acre feet of water. An acre foot is enough water to cover an acre in a foot of water.

Overall, the two agencies cut water production about 18 percent since Wanger's ruling.

The new rules will maintain that same average annual reduction, but Department of Water Resources officials said the lack of water will be more noticeable during dry years because of a mandate that more fresh water be sent downriver each autumn. Swanson and other experts on smelt have long pushed for provisions mandating increased freshwater flows down the river because, she said, studies have shown that delta smelt populations increase when there is more water.

Lester Snow, the water resources director, said state water exports could be reduced as much as 50 percent of pre-2007 levels during dry years under the new provisions. The combined total of federal and state water exports would decline about 33 percent during dry years, he said.

Water rationing

That would almost certainly mean mandatory water rationing and other measures to reduce water use in many areas throughout California, a scenario that is looking more likely every year drought conditions persist in California.

"Obviously a 50 percent impact is a significant impact," Snow said. "There are a lot of stressors (on the fish). Water exports are not the only stressor."

The water fight started in 2005 when environmentalists sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service after the agency issued a biological opinion saying that the federal and state water projects would not jeopardize the delta smelt.

Wanger's 2007 ruling was in reality an order for the government to establish new rules to protect the fish. The rules are known as a biological opinion, a bureaucratic way of describing the official conclusion about the impact of the jointly operated water projects on fish species. Such biological opinions are required under the Endangered Species Act.

The Association of California Water Agencies, a lobbying group that represents more than 400 agencies that deliver 90 percent of the state's water, has been warning that such restrictions would cause cropland to go fallow. Representatives say cities in the Tri-Valley, Santa Clara County, Los Angeles and elsewhere would have to start mandatory rationing programs in order to deal with the cuts in water.

Effect on Salmon

Snow suggested that the regulations might also reduce the amount of water available for salmon, a contention Swanson said was bogus. A separate biological opinion for salmon is scheduled to be released in March.

"It is not a choice between protecting delta smelt or salmon," Swanson said. "You need to protect both. It is the responsibility of the state and federal water projects to maintain adequate flows to protect all of these fish."

Swanson acknowledged, though, that the new guidelines will probably mean less water for people and crops.

"We have been saying for years that too much water has been exported and that has contributed to the decline of the fish," Swanson said. "As a consequence they are now listed as an endangered species. These biological opinions we hope will bring back balance. It's probably going to mean there is less water available for export."

The delta smelt are unique to the delta's vast network of channels, islands and marshes. The species adapted over the eons to the brackish water, varying currents from converging rivers and flooding that has historically inundated the valley. Smelt live for about a year, spawn and their larvae then drift down to Suisun Bay, where they grow and repeat the cycle.

Studies this decade have documented a precipitous drop in the number and range of the smelt, historically the most common fish in the delta. Many believe they are on the verge of extinction.

The decision on the smelt is the latest in a string of rulings ordering state and federal regulators to fix a water system. In July, Judge Wanger affirmed that water diversions in the Delta have jeopardized the existence of California's beleaguered salmon. That decision came amid a statewide fisheries crisis. The number of salmon in the ocean plummeted this past year, prompting a ban of fishing all along the California and Oregon coasts.

[JamesH]

Good for the fish, bad for the farmer. Water rationing should have been implemented long ago.........

James

[Dan McKenzie]

no way will this please everyone. my friend who owns an orange grove down in terra bella is uprooting 25000 orange trees after this years crop (if it doesnt freeze) he has been told he will get only 15% of his 1998 allocation in the coming years. if we save fish it will cost us in higher food prices and less tax revenues (more farms out of business), if we give the water up we will lose important fish species and ecosystems damage that may be unrepairable. pretty much a no win situation.

[Rod Martin]

sooner or later, it will come down to number of people , no matter how you slice that pie. Theres only so much to go around.

[barse41]

i think paying a little extra for food for a while is a small price to pay to ensure our kids get a chace to fish the delta.

the biggest desalination plant in the western hemisphere was aproved to be built off the coast of san diego. two more are awaiting aproval off the coast of n.cal

[Robert F]

i think paying a little extra for food for a while is a small price to pay to ensure our kids get a chace to fish the delta.

Kids? Better not have any of them as we have no place for them to live. Save the fish, get a tent, take it down during the Spring so you don't bother the bird's nesting season. Sound foolish? Just wait. Funny how a huge manmade water system all the sudden has more value to the wildlife than the people it was built to service.

[gabuelhaj]

Looks like the skids are being greased for the peripheral canal.

[fish_food]

Funny how a huge manmade water system all the sudden has more value to the wildlife than the people it was built to service.

But the area that the Delta's levees and islands were supposed to service was never intended to be 400+ miles away...

[supermat]

i think paying a little extra for food for a while is a small price to pay to ensure our kids get a chace to fish the delta.

Since when do we fish for 2 inch smelt? The next logical step from here (regarding smelt and the recent frog/trout issue) is catch and kill on largemouth. Its already done in Japan, these are the things that are coming. If you want your kids to fish the delta you'd better raise your voice while you have a chance, not quietly watch these things go by.

[Robert F]

Funny how a huge manmade water system all the sudden has more value to the wildlife than the people it was built to service.

But the area that the Delta's levees and islands were supposed to service was never intended to be 400+ miles away...

Ummmmm The Central valley project was built to control flooding in the Sacramento valley and to provide domestic water supplies to the south by the Federal government. FDR? 1940's?
If not for the project you would live a good distance from there. Divided by marshlands that used to be your backyards. The Delta is no pristine resource. Before the CVP it was strip-mined. Truth be known we all need to pray for rain.

[fish_food]

Funny how a huge manmade water system all the sudden has more value to the wildlife than the people it was built to service.

But the area that the Delta's levees and islands were supposed to service was never intended to be 400+ miles away...

Ummmmm The Central valley project was built to control flooding in the Sacramento valley and to provide domestic water supplies to the south by the Federal government. FDR? 1940's?
If not for the project you would live a good distance from there. Divided by marshlands that used to be your backyards. The Delta is no pristine resource. Before the CVP it was strip-mined. Truth be known we all need to pray for rain.

I thought you were referring to the original reclamation efforts of the 1860s thru 1930 that serviced the immediate area for ag purposes versus the much larger scale CVP/SWP projects that came later (and diverted greater volumes of water to users much, much farther away).

[RichThiel]

Robert,

By the way Cooch, thank you for posting this.

I for one, can careless about the smelt as well has the frog on Vasco rd that they had to build a $50,000 1ft high fence for. But I do want to protect the salmon, steelhead, Largemouth, smallmouth and the farmer's that have to pay outragous price's for water when there right here next to it because of MWD and other agencies in SoCal out biding them for it.

Another issue that hasn't been reason at all. Is the migration route for the waterfowl. They come right thru the delta and also breed during the spring on these flood islands and also normal islands with the help of the owners thru F&G.

The said Judge in the above post asked about a month ago MWD if they were contributing any monies in fixing or building the levee system. The answer was NO.

Read your history of the Delta Robert. Who built the Levee's here in Most of Northern or Central California?

The answer is the Chinese, reason> After they built the Continental Railroad connection, they didn't know what to do with 100,000 chinese. Thus, the levee system was built by them because a smart northern individual and the state designed what you see today. At that time, they in no way had any idea that the water would be going south. They built the levee's at that time for flood control and save land (Witch is very fertle) for agriculture purposes, being it was close to Major Cities and ports.

Robert, I'd pay more attention in whats being smuggled across the border to harm your kids, than water (Full Capacity) in your lakes.

In 1982 they voted down, and I would guess they would vote it down again. They only reason that it would pass is No mention of it to the general public and or on todays population in Northern California because of Silcon Valley and the Hi-tech industries here know in California. Most of the people are from out of state and don't know a dam thing about where they get there water from.

Ask the individual on the street if you don't believe me...Your'll get a Hmmmmm or I dont know, I've been only here for a short time.

Bring it on....Im old, but straight up and forward

Rich Thiel

[fish_food]

By the way, the Sacramento Bee started a series of articles focusing on the Delta last Sunday. One of the most comprehensive Delta series I've seen in the papers in a long while--lots of articles, interactive maps, photos, etc...

Main link: http://www.sacbee.com/delta/
Interactive map: http://www.sacbee.com/1232/rich_media/1444540.html

[StogieMan]

Whiskey is for drinkin but water is for fightin.
I know all about the former.

[MikeD]

Said in the past, will say it again - for the full scope of the costs involved in this peripheral canal SoCal could have a long term solution by building a series of desalination plants to pump ocean water into the existing SoCal water delivery system . Farmers get water, NoCal vs SoCal water wars go away, fish are protected, and we move on to the next social issue to argue over.

I also agree with whomever said that the resource problems we suffer from are based on a population problem

Rich - the other justification for building the delta levee system to transport water was also to control flooding in Sacramento due to silt from hydraulic mining in the gold country washing down into the delta. the silt would backup the system and the water would end up flooding Sacramento

some reading links:

http://www.safca.org/floodRisk/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_ ... al_effects

[BassManDan]

Reclaimed Wastewater is a BIG part of fixing our water issues!

I'd weigh in further, but I don't have 2 hours to type up what I wanna say!

[fish_food]

the silt would backup the system and the water would end up flooding Sacramento

Sidenote: Downtown Sacramento was elevated an entire street level to stay above flood waters. The lower, original street level still exists and can be accessed through basements of many downtown businesses. You can see old storefronts and other nifty remnants from that era down there--some areas are intact, some areas walled off to create storage rooms (or brothels, speakeasies and gamblind dens), etc. When a lot is excavated or buildings demolished to build new projects you can see the remnants of the the old tunnels and orginal street level.

[Robert F]

Reclaimed Wastewater is a BIG part of fixing our water issues!

Good points from all. Especially this one. Like I said Rich, tear down your house and put up a tent so the birds have a place to nest. As foolish as that sounds, talk to a DFG Bioligist for a short amount of time and you will see this is the only acceptable plan. Desalinization still seems too expensive and a power hungry option. Fact is we need to decide if the water is a commodity and up for bid or will be allocated with no right of sale. The farmers want their share but they will leave those fields dusty and unplanted in a second if the price is right to sell their allocation. Every part of the State is growing as we want our kids to have a home here as they grow. Maybe instead of coming back to the parents home to eat, they will be coming back to use the toilet.

[Dan McKenzie]

there are very specific laws which have been in place a very long time, they just need to be adhered to.


WATER CODE
SECTION 1215-1222


1216. A protected area shall not be deprived directly or indirectly
of the prior right to all the water reasonably required to
adequately supply the beneficial needs of the protected area, or any
of the inhabitants or property owners therein, by a water supplier
exporting or intending to export water for use outside a protected
area pursuant to applications to appropriate surface water filed, or
groundwater appropriations initiated, after January 1, 1985, that are not subject to Section 11460.

WATER CODE
SECTION 11460-11465





11460. In the construction and operation by the department of any
project under the provisions of this part a watershed or area wherein
water originates, or an area immediately adjacent thereto which can
conveniently be supplied with water therefrom, shall not be deprived
by the department directly or indirectly of the prior right to all of
the water reasonably required to adequately supply the beneficial
needs of the watershed, area, or any of the inhabitants or property
owners therein.



11461. In no other way than by purchase or otherwise as provided in
this part shall water rights of a watershed, area, or the
inhabitants be impaired or curtailed by the department, but the
provisions of this article shall be strictly limited to the acts and
proceedings of the department, as such, and shall not apply to any
persons or state agencies.



11462. The provisions of this article shall not be so construed as
to create any new property rights other than against the department
as provided in this part or to require the department to furnish to
any person without adequate compensation therefor any water made
available by the construction of any works by the department.




11463. In the construction and operation by the department of any
project under the provisions of this part, no exchange of the water
of any watershed or area for the water of any other watershed or area
may be made by the department unless the water requirements of the
watershed or area in which the exchange is made are first and at all
times met and satisfied to the extent that the requirements would
have been met were the exchange not made, and no right to the use of
water shall be gained or lost by reason of any such exchange.



11464. No water right, reservoir, conduit, or facility for the
generation, production, transmission, or distribution of electric
power, acquired by the department shall ever be sold, granted, or
conveyed by the department so that the department thereby is divested
of the title to and ownership of it.



11465. The department shall not make any change, alteration, or
revision of any rates, prices, or charges established by any contract
entered into pursuant to this part except as provided by the
contract.



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

[185vsfrog]

Bring it on....Im old, but straight up and forward

Rich Thiel

Rich you are funny!!!!!!! And that is a good quote to describe yourself Tell it as it is.