This is a site mirroring the emails of California Water News emailed by the California Department of Water Resources

[Water_news] 5. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS: AGENCIES, PROGRAMS, PEOPLE - 3/29/07

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment

 

March 29, 2007

 

5. Agencies, Programs, People -

 

 

Pollard column: Fish threatening Kern or vice versa? -

Bakersfield Californian

 

Salton Sea: A sea of futility? -

Imperial Valley Press

________________________________________________

 

Pollard column: Fish threatening Kern or vice versa?

Bakersfield Californian – 3/29/07

BY VIC POLLARD, Californian columnist

 

SACRAMENTO

It's hard to overstate how stunned water officials were when a Bay Area judge said last week he is prepared to shut down the State Water Project in 60 days because it doesn't have a permit to kill endangered fish species in its giant pumps.

They didn't see that coming.

 

Jim Beck, general manager of the Kern County Water Agency, called it "a disaster for Kern County." He said agency officials believe the local impact of a shutdown would "be in the millions of dollars and cost a considerable amount of jobs in Kern County."

 

That was the typical reaction from managers of the water project and local agencies up and down the state that depend on the project for irrigation and drinking water.

 

A bit of perspective: The State Water Project brings water from Northern California through the meandering channels of the delta to pumps as big as school buses at the Harvey O. Banks Pumping Plant near Tracy. The pumps suck it from the delta and pour it into the California Aqueduct, which brings it south to Kern County and Los Angeles.

 

Those pumps suck not only water, but thousands of tiny fish, many of them delta smelt and baby salmon that are listed as endangered under species protection laws. The nonendangered striped bass that you can sometimes catch in the aqueduct as it comes through Kern County survived the turbines.

 

But most of the fish are killed by the pumps.

 

That infuriates environmentalists who say the pumping is a major reason that some of the species appear to be on the verge of extinction. That in turn infuriates water users in Kern County and elsewhere who say there's no proof that the pumping deserves that much blame for habitat problems in an extremely complex ecosystem.

 

Normally, any activity that results in the death, or "taking" of endangered species requires a permit. The conditions of the take permits often limit the amount of the fatal activities or require some kind of mitigation, such as providing new habitat somewhere else.

 

Department of Water Resources Chief Lester Snow and other officials have said repeatedly that they believed they had the "equivalent" of a permit with a "patchwork" of regulations and procedures they use to minimize fish deaths.

And besides, they are working on a massive Habitat Conservation Plan for the entire delta that will spell out detailed species protection strategies when it is completed in a couple of years.

 

Those are among the arguments the state and local agencies will make when they appeal the Superior Court decision, crossing their fingers in hopes they can get a stay of the 60-day deadline.

 

But as usual in complicated water issues, everything is not as simple as it appears.

 

Environmentalists say the back story in the water agencies' reluctance to seek a take permit for the pumps is the fear that it will require a firm reduction in the amount of water pumped out of the delta. And it comes at a time when the water users -- led by Kern County -- are trying to get authority to increase the amount of pumping by nearly 25 percent.

The water users say the environmentalists are less interested in the fate of a few fish species than in forcing a cutback in water supplies to curb big agriculture and control urban development and population growth.

 

Nevertheless, the court case will be fought out on the issue of whether a permit is needed and Kern County's course is clear, Beck said.

 

"We believe the Department of Water Resources," he said, "has done all the necessary action required by Fish and Game and other regulatory agencies to bring them into compliance with the California Endangered Species Act."#

http://www.bakersfield.com/619/story/107977.html

 

Salton Sea: A sea of futility?

Imperial Valley Press – 3/28/07

 

SALTON SEA — Riverside County will get the beaches and Imperial County will get the expensive bird baths.

That may sum up a proposed controversial $6 billion draft plan to revitalize the decaying Salton Sea, 70 percent of which is within Imperial County’s boundaries and the rest is within Riverside County.

By accepting the draft plan at a meeting in Sacramento on Tuesday, California at long last is turning the proverbial corner when it comes to revitalizing the sea.

But the provisions of that plan are heavily skewed to economically benefit Riverside County at the expense of Imperial County, some say.

In short, that could mean this county won’t reap the projected billions of dollars that will be generated over the next 75 years by economic development around the Salton Sea.

 

The draft restoration plan is the brainchild of a 35-member committee of state, local and federal officials. It is the culmination of three years of debates, discussions and scientific inquiry into what can be done to reverse environmental decay that began 40 some years ago.

It also illustrates that once again, Imperial County gets the short end of the political stick.

Area stakeholders on Wednesday vowed to apply political pressure to get California Resources Agency Secretary Mike Chrisman to amend the plan to favor Imperial County’s interests.

“The draft plan benefits the wildlife, but it doesn’t do much for you folks in Imperial County,” said Bill Gaines, president of the California Outdoor Alliance.

Imperial County Board of Supervisors Chairman Larry Grogan said the draft plan is “unacceptable” and will not get the support of the county as it stands.

The plan calls for a 34,000-acre marine sea along the north shore in Riverside County, which could arguably be more beneficial to residential and commercial development there.

The portion of the draft plan that applies to Imperial County, on the other hand, would benefit wildlife but do nothing to foster and revitalize tourism and outdoor recreation, Grogan said — critical elements for economic development around the southern part of the sea and for the county.

Imperial County, under the draft plan, would get a 62,000-acre saline habitat, two saltwater pumping stations, several saltwater canals, a portion of a 109,000-acre exposed playa and a portion of a proposed 29,000-acre brine sink.

“I can’t approve this thing. … All we get is some wading pools for birds,” Grogan said.

The county Board of Supervisors early next week will vote on sending a four-point letter to Chrisman insisting that changes be made to benefit Imperial County.

Salton Sea Authority officials have said they will push to have a southern lake included in the final plan.

Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia, R-Cathedral City, on Wednesday said she will “absolutely” vote against any restoration plan that does not include the changes Imperial County stakeholders are demanding.

State Sen. Denise Moreno Ducheny, D-Chula Vista, has said she believes stakeholders are coming close to reaching a consensus on a fix. Ducheny could not be reached on Wednesday for comment.

Sandy Cooney, spokesman for the state Resources Agency, said the draft plan is a work in progress. Cooney said the door is open for changes to be made in the plan between now and when Chrisman is slated to make a recommendation to state lawmakers.

“It took us three years to get here. What it really is, is the beginning of a longer process,” Cooney said.

The restoration plan is expected to take 75 years to fully implement.

Chrisman is slated to deliver a final plan to state lawmakers in late April.#

http://www.ivpressonline.com/articles/2007/03/29/news/news01.txt

 

DWR's California Water News is distributed to California Department of Water Resources management and staff, for information purposes, by the DWR Public Affairs Office. For reader's services, including new subscriptions, temporary cancellations and address changes, please use the online page: http://listhost2.water.ca.gov/mailman/listinfo/water_news. DWR operates and maintains the State Water Project, provides dam safety and flood control and inspection services, assists local water districts in water management and water conservation planning, and plans for future statewide water needs. Inclusion of materials is not to be construed as an endorsement of any programs, projects, or viewpoints by the Department or the State of California.

 

No comments:

Blog Archive