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

[Water_news] 3. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS: WATERSHEDS - 10/11/07

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment

 

October 11, 2007

 

3. Watersheds

 

State sued over handling of fish; Conservation groups decry water diversions - Stockton Record

 

LAKE BERRYESSA:

Napa supervisor recalls Monticello before the dam; Rancher's land would be worth $3m, he says - Woodland Daily Democrat

 

WATERSHED FUNDS:

North Coast keeps strong ties to gun for water bucks - Eureka Times Standard

 

 

State sued over handling of fish; Conservation groups decry water diversions

Stockton Record – 10/10/07

By Alex Breitler, staff writer

 

California's rivers and streams are diverted to cities and farms with almost no knowledge of how this affects fish, conservation groups said in a lawsuit filed Tuesday.

 

While hundreds of requests for water rights pile up in Sacramento, the state Department of Fish and Game has failed to study how much water can safely be taken from most streams, says the California Coastkeeper Alliance, a group that includes San Francisco-based Baykeeper, a Delta watchdog.

 

Fish and Game's "decades of hiding from the problem has not made it go away," said Linda Sheehan, executive director of the alliance, which includes groups from San Diego to the Oregon border.

 

The lawsuit, filed in Sacramento County Superior Court, was being reviewed Tuesday by Fish and Game, an agency spokesman said.

 

When an agency or individual wants to divert water from a stream, an application must be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board. Applications for San Joaquin County waterways, including the Mokelumne River, are among the hundreds that are pending.

 

Fish and Game is supposed to determine minimum flows for certain streams. Few of these studies have taken place, the conservationists say. They allege that the program that carried out the studies was diminished in 2003 and disbanded in 2005.

 

However, the program still receives funds, the lawsuit says. When agencies or people apply for water rights, they pay an $850 fee to defray the costs of the Fish and Game studies. The department has continued to receive anywhere from $11,900 to $53,550 per year from 2002 to 2006, the conservationists say.

 

Of the state's 116 native fish, eight have gone extinct and 15 are threatened or endangered. "California's freshwater aquatic resources have been declining for decades," says a complaint filed in court. #

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071010/A_NEWS/710100331/-1/A_NEWS

 

 

LAKE BERRYESSA:

Napa supervisor recalls Monticello before the dam; Rancher's land would be worth $3m, he says

Woodland Daily Democrat – 10/11/07

By Danny Berardini, MediaNews Group

 

While traveling to his 600-acre ranch in Berryessa Valley in the late 1940's, Harold Moskowite often had to lay planks across Putah Creek in order to cross it. And during heavy rainfall he was forced to use a boat to navigate the waters.

 

"I've seen trees six feet across floating down that creek," Moskowite said. "That creek got unbelievably high. That was a rugged creek."

 

The 81-year-old, who is now chairman of the Napa County Board of Supervisors, was one of many who were forced to sell their land in the valley to make way for what would become Lake Berryessa.

 

Moskowite lived in the nearby Wooden Valley, but ranched his land in Berryessa.

 

The flooding of the valley that followed construction of the Monticello Dam brought with it the disappearance of thousands of fertile acres of farmland and the small town of Monticello.

 

Although the dam eventually would transform Solano County's water supply, Moskowite said it was hard to give up his cattle land.

 

"It was a beautiful valley, very fertile. There's a lot of history in there," he said from his Napa home. "I didn't know what to think. You couldn't imagine what they were going to do."

 

Dave Balmer, who was Solano County Administrator at the time, said it was a difficult decision to flood the valley, but it was a necessary evil.

 

"That's a pretty tough thing to do," Balmer said. "They were probably opposed to the project. They're all difficult situations."

Moskowite said his father had been talking about the government damming the valley since he returned from the first World War.

 

"Talk is cheap," he said. "You can believe it or not, but it happened."

 

What happened was land was appraised and money was offered to each landowner. Moskowite said they didn't have much of a choice.

 

"We didn't want the dam. It was some of the most fertile land around," he said. "You can take the money or go to court. How do you fight Uncle Sam with just a little bit of money?"

 

He likened the value and agriculture production to that of the Sacramento Valley and said his land would easily be worth $2 or $3 million today. Moskowite received about $40,000 in the '50s.

 

Remembering the town of Monticello, Moskowite described it as a "wide spot in the road" with a hotel, beer bar and a general store.

 

The owner of that store, Buzz McKenzie, would send a bus or "coach," as they called it, to Sacramento every day to pick up supplies. That same coach would take high school students to and from school in Winters.

 

"If you needed something and he didn't have it, it would be there by 5 o'clock," he said.

 

The structures in Monticello soon would be destroyed. In fact, everything in the valley had to be cut to a height of six inches or lower. What they couldn't burn to that height, Moskowite said, the government buried.

 

The dam eventually was completed in November 1957 and Moskowite still remembers driving his cattle into the hills in February of that year. It would be the last time he was on the ground in that valley.

 

He later returned, this time in a boat, floating over what used to be his ranch.

 

"I was above it. I knew where it was."  #

http://www.dailydemocrat.com/news/ci_7148092

 

 

WATERSHED FUNDS:

North Coast keeps strong ties to gun for water bucks

Eureka Times Standard – 10/11/07

By John Driscoll, staff writer

 

Fresh from a victory in securing $25 million through state water bonds, a collaborative group of city, county and tribal officials, restoration proponents and nonprofits came together in Fortuna Wednesday to hatch a strategy to secure millions more.

 

The North Coast Integrated Water Management Plan created the top proposal in the state, and received the $25 million through the State Water Resources Control Board in January. Water supply, water quality, fisheries projects and watershed planning were part of the collective submittal.

 

”We're a region that has a lot of different lifestyles and a lot of different outlooks in this large area,” said Karen Gaffney of the planning group at the River Lodge.

 

No one government or entity in the region has the financial or political clout that many areas in the rest of the state have, she said. But the North Coast has strong fish populations, relatively healthy watersheds, and a small -- but growing -- population, she said.

 

Together, the governing bodies and groups in the area can gain power, Gaffney said, as was seen by the January award.

 

Now there is another $37 million available, money that will be administered by the Department of Water Resources from Proposition 84. Wednesday's conference was meant to begin synchronizing the needs and efforts of the North Coast, and begin planning to use the money most efficiently. It's goal, Gaffney said, is “no county left behind.”

 

With the Department of Water Resources taking the administrative reins, stakeholders need to know how to design their plan to meet the agency's standards, said Humboldt County Supervisor Jimmy Smith outside the meeting.

 

”We're going to learn what the criteria is today and it will give us direction,” Smith said.

 

Not everything went swimmingly during the first round. When a state water board representative came to Humboldt County to hear concerns from supervisors regarding local entities maintaining liability for the projects, he refused to budge, a tact that angered Smith.

 

Smith planned to go to lunch with state water board member Gary Wolff to talk about the staff's approach.

 

”We're going to talk about ethics and professional treatment,” Smith said.

 

The conference continues today and Friday. #

http://www.times-standard.com//ci_7146672?IADID=Search-www.times-standard.com-www.times-standard.com

####

No comments:

Blog Archive