<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>Below is a letter to the editor by Byron
Leydecker in response to one by Sal Parra (also below) and Thomas Birmingham
(not included). If anybody has Mr. Birmingham's letter to the editor
electronically (text only), please post it to the list or send it to me and I'll
post it.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Tahoma></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Tahoma>TS</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Tahoma></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT
face=Tahoma>****************************************************************</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG></STRONG></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>TRINITY RIVER / CENTRAL VALLEY
PROJECT</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>Commentary: Who's the real obstructionist
here?</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>Eureka Times-Standard -
5/11/04</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>By Byron Leydecker</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<P>A letter to the editor from Mr. Thomas Birmingham, general manager of
Westlands Water District (April 24), and the op-ed piece a few days later by Mr.
Sal Parra, both published in the Times-Standard, raise interesting
questions.</P>
<P>On April 23, the day before Mr. Birmingham's letter was printed, the federal
9th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed a decision by the federal district judge in
Fresno that limited a return of water to the Trinity. Judge Wanger also required
a completely new environmental analysis for Trinity restoration. The new
analysis, released in draft form for public comment late last month, could
provide the basis for a new Record of Decision -- one that could diminish a
return of water to Trinity River. A final decision by the 9th Circuit Court on
the litigation involving the December 2000 Trinity Restoration Record of
Decision should be forthcoming in the next few months. </P>
<P>The facts are -- the truth is -- that before the Trinity Division was
created, Congress was told that no more than 56 percent of the river's water at
Lewiston would be diverted. As soon as the dams were completed, the Bureau of
Reclamation started diverting 90 percent of the river's water. That
representation to the Congress never has been changed.</P>
<P>Before Trinity Division legislation passed in 1955, Congressman Clair Engle
stated "not one bucketful of water needed in this (Trinity) Basin would be
diverted." A senior Bureau employee testified that "the fishery would be
improved (by construction of the dams)." By the late 1960s, the fishery had
declined to about 10 percent of pre-dam population levels. The 1955 legislation
providing for construction of Trinity Dam and related facilities authorized and
directed the Interior secretary "to protect and preserve fish and wildlife" in
the Trinity Basin. Every subsequent piece of Trinity legislation, except one,
has required fishery and wildlife restoration. One congressional act required
that fisheries be restored to pre-dam population levels. The Babbitt decision
would restore fisheries to just 60 percent of pre-dam population levels. </P>
<P>Meanwhile, Trinity's water is going principally to land that is so
waterlogged -- high groundwater poisoned with selenium, boron, molybdenum,
mercury and other salts -- that Westlands wants the federal government to buy
out one-third of its land (200,000 acres) at a cost to taxpayers of $800
million. Westlands also is floating a multimillion-dollar bond issue to buy out
and retire 100,000 acres of district land. Nevertheless, Westlands not only
wants to keep all of the Trinity's water flowing to it, but to increase water
flowing to it through illegal water "assignments" to it from other waterlogged
districts in the Western San Joaquin Valley. In other words, is the Trinity's
real gold from the 1800s to become Westlands' "water gold" of the 2000s? This is
advocated despite the fact that Westlands' single entitlement to water merely is
a contract with the bureau that expires in 2007. It has no water rights. </P>
<P>Land in Westlands that could be irrigated additionally contains higher levels
of selenium and other toxics than worthless land scheduled for retirement.
Poisoned irrigation runoff currently enters an aquifer under Westlands' land and
ultimately winds up poisoning the San Joaquin River and San Francisco Bay --
drinking water supply for about two-thirds of the state's population.</P>
<P>These writers say the tribes should "negotiate" and agree to a "fair"
settlement of litigation initiated by Westlands and its allies. What they
propose, along with assistant secretary of the interior for water and science,
Bennett Raley, is to trade 20 years of science-based water flow and restoration
planning in Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt's December 2000 Record of Decision
for three pages of "science" tossed together in a matter of days. The Babbitt
decision already provides for adaptive management as these gentlemen advocate.
</P>
<P>The Hoopa Valley Tribe was accused of promoting a "myth" and of "harmful
distortions" by failing to negotiate a litigation settlement. Any settlement
less than the existing Record of Decision would mean simply that these opposing
interests continue to obtain more financial benefits -- water subsidies,
electricity subsidies, crop subsidies and project capital cost subsidies. In
fact, the Hoopa Valley Tribe has pursued no "myth" and no "distortions." It has
worked valiantly for decades to see that all Trinity River law, as well as its
legally reserved fishing rights, are enforced. Attempting to enforce the law is
being "obstructionist?"</P>
<P>The Babbitt decision continues to allow the diversion of 53 percent of the
river's water at Lewiston to these irrigators and NCPA power users. However,
loss of power from implementation of the existing Record of Decision amounts to
less than one-tenth of 1 percent of California's total power consumption. The
California Energy Commission has characterized the power loss as
"insignificant." The Sacramento Municipal Utility District and several members
of the NCPA -- city councils, the Port of Oakland -- already have withdrawn from
the litigation after being informed of the facts. </P>
<P>The tribe is pursuing a "myth?" It is being "obstructionist?" You decide.
Friends of Trinity River and California Trout Inc., along with every fishing
organization and every environmental organization in California working to
protect San Francisco Bay, support completely the tribe's efforts to enforce the
law.</P>
<P><EM><STRONG>Byron Leydecker is chairman of Friends of Trinity River and a
consultant for California Trout Inc. He lives in Mill
Valley.#</STRONG></EM></P><EM><STRONG></STRONG></EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG><EM>TRINITY RIVER</EM></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG><EM>Commentary: Flexibility required for
meaningful Trinity River restoration </EM></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG><EM>Eureka Times-Standard -
4/27/04</EM></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=Tahoma>By Sal Parra</FONT> </EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><STRONG><EM>For many years, my family, friends and fellow San Joaquin Valley
farmers have been characterized as the bad guys in the debate over the Trinity
River and efforts to restore its fishery. The only problem with this
characterization is that it is based on inaccurate information and a flawed
analysis of what is required to restore the Trinity River fishery.The Native
American tribes whose lands border the Trinity are not the only stakeholders
that would be affected by a restoration effort, but they are the only ones
standing in the way of an effective restoration plan.</EM></STRONG></P>
<P><STRONG><EM>Recently, leaders of the Hoopa Valley and Yurok tribes have
staged rallies and issued press releases designed to intimidate water users into
dropping their opposition to an ill-advised and illegal plan to restore the
Trinity. These efforts are part of the tribes' public relations campaign of
fanciful distortions and misstatements designed to pressure other water users to
accept their increasingly isolated and unrealistic view of the Trinity
River.</EM></STRONG></P>
<P><STRONG><EM>They claim the river's flows have been reduced to a mere trickle.
They claim the fishery is dying. Yet the Sacramento Bee reported last year the
Trinity is one of California's finest steelhead rivers. And they claim the
unfortunate death of salmon in the Klamath River in 2002 was related to the
Trinity's flows. The National Research Council, however, could not establish any
linkage between the Trinity's flows and that event. Further, in that same year,
more chinook salmon returned to spawn than in the preceding four
years.</EM></STRONG></P>
<P><STRONG><EM>More than 40 years ago, at a time when our nation placed great
value in harnessing nature's resources, the United States began diverting a
portion of the Trinity's headwaters into the Sacramento River. The waters from
the Trinity mingled with those of the Sacramento, becoming part of the Central
Valley Project. These waters produce clean, inexpensive electrical power,
provide irrigation for food-producing farms in the Central Valley and drinking
water for growing cities in the Silicon Valley. </EM></STRONG></P>
<P><STRONG><EM>Today, however, things are viewed differently. Virtually everyone
agrees that more water must be left in the Trinity River for its salmon and
steelhead. The only remaining issue is how best to accomplish this restoration.
</EM></STRONG></P>
<P><STRONG><EM>In 2000, former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt issued a
restoration plan that would have established fixed inflexible flows on the
Trinity. Westlands and others objected, and a U.S. district judge ruled against
the plan because it failed to consider the harm it would cause endangered fish
in the Sacramento River ecosystem.</EM></STRONG></P>
<P><STRONG><EM>Incredibly, this is the restoration plan -- the only restoration
plan -- the two tribes will consider. </EM></STRONG></P>
<P><STRONG><EM>The Department of Interior recently proposed a new plan that
could provide even more water for the Trinity's salmon and steelhead than
Secretary Babbitt's plan. It would place decision making in the hands of
independent, credible scientists and rely upon the kind of flexible adaptive
management most biologists recognize is essential for meaningful fishery
restoration. The tribes refuse to discuss it. </EM></STRONG></P>
<P><STRONG><EM>San Joaquin Valley farmers believe Interior's plan is a good
starting point, despite the fact it could affect our water supplies. But the
tribes won't discuss it. Sadly, their refusal to work constructively on a fair
and effective restoration plan will lead only to more lawsuits, rancor and
delays. In my view, their refusal to participate in the Trinity's restoration is
the greatest tragedy of all.</EM></STRONG></P>
<P><STRONG><EM>Sal Parra grows tomatoes, onions, garlic and cotton. He has 400
acres in the Westlands Water District near the San Joaquin Valley community of
Five Points. This commentary originally ran in the Sacramento Bee, and is
published here at the author's request.#</EM></STRONG></P>
<P></P>
<P> </P></DIV>
<P><BR></P></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>