[env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first

Fri Aug 16 11:16:55 PDT 2013

The suggestion that the fishery should suffer if nit pickers can find fault
in BOR's management begs the question. Let's assume that BOR has
mismanaged, and let's assume that we don't even look at the
management/mismanagement issue amongst the ag and power interests.  The
precariousness of the fishery is the same, and the likely irreparable harm
to the fishery is the same.

Indian Creek Lodge
(530) 623-6294

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Moira Burke <moira at onramp113.com> wrote:

> No matter how you couch it with "other legal uses", if we don't take care
> of the entire watershed as
> first priority, the whole water discussion eventually becomes moot.
>
> It's an ecosystem, and it doesn't start in Sacramento.
>
> Moira
>
> On Aug 16, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Ara Azhderian wrote:
>
> Thanks Tom,****
> ** **
> Here’s another perspective to consider from the Chico Enterprise-Record
> editorial comments section:****
> ** **
> The judge's decision has nothing to do with north state or south state
> water "desires." There are quantities set aside for both under federal law.
> What is in question is whether or not the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation can
> take more water than the law provides. Reclamation had more than 400,000
> acre-feet of water, enough to farm about 160,000 acres or to meet the daily
> needs of 800,000 Californians, to use for fishery protection this year.
> Rather than properly plan to legally provide supplemental flows to minimize
> the effect of diseases that exist on the Klamath River on an expected near
> historic number of salmon returning to spawn, they choose instead to try
> and take this water from other legal uses including protection of
> endangered species, management of waterfowl, clean power generation,
> recreation, industry, daily human needs, and, yes, farming. Regarding the
> question of what the judge's ruling means for the future, northern
> California residents should take comfort from a decision to not allow an
> illegal infringement upon water rights to occur.
>
> Mike Wade
> California Farm Water Coalition****
> ** **
> *From:*
> env-trinity-bounces+ara.azhderian=sldmwa.org at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
> [mailto:env-trinity-bounces+ara.azhderian=
> sldmwa.org at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] *On Behalf Of *Tom Stokely
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 15, 2013 2:55 PM
> *To:* env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
> *Subject:* [env-trinity] Chico ER: Put water to local use first****
> ** **
> Editorial: Put water to local use first****
>
> http://www.chicoer.com/editorials/ci_23866945/editorial-put-water-local-use-first
> ****
>  ****
> Chico Enterprise-Record****
> Posted:   08/15/2013 12:41:01 AM PDT****
>
> Our view: A judge shouldn't allow this year's salmon to be sacrificed for
> next year's crops in the distant San Joaquin Valley.****
>
> In a shocking decision that should make all Northern Californians wary of
> those in the south state who covet our water, north state water needs are
> taking a backseat to south state desires.****
>
> Let's hope this is just temporary insanity. The federal court, even though
> it's based in the San Joaquin Valley, should be able to figure out that
> this year's salmon, not next year's crops, are a more pressing concern.***
> *
>
> For now, San Joaquin Valley farming interests have won out. The massive
> Westlands Water District and a couple of others filed a lawsuit challenging
> the federal government's release of water from Trinity Lake to help salmon
> downstream of where the Trinity River runs into the Klamath River.****
>
> A decade ago, tens of thousands of salmon died in the lower Klamath during
> a drought. Low flows and warm water contributed to the killing. The federal
> government hoped that releases of cold water from Trinity Lake would help
> matters this year.****
>
> But the San Joaquin Valley water district thinks the water many hundreds
> of miles away belongs to its farmers, not to the North Coast residents and
> their salmon. Much Trinity Lake water — too much in our opinion — is
> already piped down to the San Joaquin by our state's convoluted plumbing
> system. It's sent through a mountain into Whiskeytown Lake, into Clear
> Creek, then the Sacramento River, which allows Westlands to suck more water
> out of the delta.****
>
> That whole Rube Goldberg contraption works just fine until there's a dry
> year, then everybody starts fighting and the Westlands farmers forget the
> water really isn't theirs to begin with.****
>
> They sued to stop the releases, which were supposed to begin Tuesday. A
> U.S. District Court judge from Fresno agreed to halt them, at least until
> Friday. Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill said holding off for a few days would
> allow the court to "consider a reply and perform a more measured analysis
> of the issues."****
>
> Maybe three days without colder water won't kill any adult salmon. We'll
> see. But we're surprised the judge would take that risk.****
>
> Let's hope the "measured analysis" includes the fact that the salmon runs
> were in poor shape just a few years ago, and anglers were restricted from
> fishing until the salmon stocks recovered. We see no reason San Joaquin
> Valley growers shouldn't have to make similar sacrifices during a drought.
> There's never been a guaranteed water supply to them, nor should there be.
> They decided to plant in an arid area augmented by imported water.****
>
> The farmers aren't worried about water in the next couple of months, like
> the salmon are. Harvest is upon us. They don't need more now. Rather,
> they're concerned that lowering the lake this summer could make it harder
> to fill this coming winter. But this year's salmon should take precedence
> over next year's cotton and grapes, because it might indeed be a wet
> winter. Don't sacrifice the salmon on account of unpredictable Mother
> Nature.****
>
> Beyond that, though, it makes us wonder what would happen if Gov. Jerry
> Brown built the twin tunnels he is advocating. In a dry year, would
> everybody south of the delta believe they owned the water that comes from
> the north? Would they tell us we need to sacrifice a few fish in our rivers
> so they could have more water? Or that we should fallow our crops so they
> can grow theirs? Yeah, probably — and that's why we don't like the idea.
> ****
>
> # # #****
>  ****
>  ****
> ** **
> _______________________________________________
> env-trinity mailing list
> env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> env-trinity mailing list
> env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20130816/d6556bbd/attachment.html>