<!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>Below is the website where you can obtain Judge
Lawrence Karlton's decision on the Friant Division and the San Joaquin River
flows. I have also included numerous articles on the issue. Since
most CVP long-term contract renewals are on the fast track and they include use
of Trinity River water, there is probably some relevance to the Trinity
River in this case, but I have not yet read it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Also, a bit of late breaking news- the plaintiffs
in the Trinity Case- Westlands and NCPA (and probably the San Luis-Delta Mendota
Water Authority), have apparently filed motions for reconsideration at the 9th
Circuit Court of appeals. They still have another 45 days from August 27
to file appeals at the Supreme Court.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Tom Stokely</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>530-628-5949</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><A
href="http://207.41.18.73/caed/DOCUMENTS/Opinions/Karlton/Naturalvspatterson.pdf">http://207.41.18.73/caed/DOCUMENTS/Opinions/Karlton/Naturalvspatterson.pdf</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>Judge rules on 16-year Friant Dam
dispute</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>Associated Press - 8/28/04</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>By Terence Chea, staff
writer</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<P>SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge ruled Friday that the U.S. government
violated California law when it built the Friant Dam near Fresno six decades
ago, a decision that could settle a 16-year-old water dispute and restore water
flows to the state's second longest river.</P>
<P>The U.S. District Court judge in Sacramento decided in favor of
environmentalists who sued the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Friant Water
Users Authority in 1988 over the Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River. In the
lawsuit, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups
charged that the defendants violated state law by failing to release enough
water to sustain the surrounding environment and wildlife.</P>
<P>Agreeing with the environmentalists Friday, Judge Lawrence K. Karlton wrote,
"There can be no genuine dispute that many miles of the San Joaquin River are
now entirely dry, except during extremely wet periods, and that the historic
fish populations have been destroyed."</P>
<P>The San Joaquin River supported thousands of spawning Chinook salmon and
other fish before the Bureau of Reclamation built the Friant Dam, about 20 miles
northeast of Fresno, in the 1940s. The water now collects in Millerton Lake and
provides irrigation to about 15,000 farmers and one million acres of farmland
east of the river. But the dam diverts so much water that long stretches of the
river run completely dry most of the year.</P>
<P>Environmentalists argued that the river could be restored without hurting the
region's farm economy, while opponents claimed restoring the river for salmon
would take water away from farmers and residents.</P>
<P>In 1999, the water authority and environmental groups agreed to negotiate a
plan to restore 267 miles of the San Joaquin River, but talks broke down last
year, sending the dispute back to court.</P>
<P>NRDC officials said they were thrilled with Karlton's decision, which could
send water through the Friant Dam for the first time in more than 50 years.
Restoring the river will provide cleaner drinking water, more reliable
irrigation water and salmon habitat, they said.</P>
<P>"The federal court has finally acknowledged that this dam is subject to the
same rules as all the other dams," said Barry Nelson, a NRDC senior policy
analyst. "We can look forward to bringing a dead river back to life. An enormous
number of people will benefit from a healthy river."</P>
<P>The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which owns and operates the dam, wouldn't
comment until its attorneys had a chance to review the judge's decision, said
spokesman Jeff McCracken.</P>
<P>The Friant Water Users Authority, which provides Friant Dam water to Fresno,
Kern, Madera, Merced and Tulare counties, was "very disappointed" in the ruling,
said general manager Ron Jacobsma, adding that its attorneys were considering
various legal options. He warned that water releases could hurt San Joaquin
Valley farmers.</P>
<P>"Any loss of water to our service area would have a devastating effect,"
Jacobsma said. "This could have significant impact on the agricultural economy
in the region and have economic consequences in the state."</P>
<P>But California fishermen were excited about the prospect of restoring the San
Joaquin River's salmon fisheries.</P>
<P>"This has been a long time coming, but after 60 years, Judge Karlton has
righted this wrong," said Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen's Associations. "We have now started down the road to
restore one of the West Coast's premier salmon runs, and along with it, fishing
jobs in California's coastal communities."#</P>
<P></P>
<P> </P>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>U.S. Illegally Dried River, Judge
Rules</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>For more than 50 years, jurist finds, federal
agency violated laws protecting fisheries by diverting most of the San Joaquin
waterway's flow to farming.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>Los Angeles Times - 8/28/04</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>By Mark Arax, staff writer</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<P>FRESNO <FONT face=Tahoma size=4>—</FONT><FONT size=4> In a major decision
that could affect farming and development in the state's vast middle, a federal
judge ruled Friday that the U.S. government has illegally dried up California's
second-biggest river, the San Joaquin, by diverting most of its flow to
agriculture.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Siding with environmentalists in a 16-year-old lawsuit, U.S.
District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that for more than 50 years the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation has violated state and federal laws protecting fisheries
by operating the river as an irrigation canal for farming. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>The violations occurred after the bureau dammed the San Joaquin
River in the 1940s and shunted the flow to area farms, effectively destroying a
historic salmon run and despoiling 80 miles of river from Friant Dam above
Fresno to San Francisco Bay.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>"This means we can look forward to bringing a dead river back to
life," said Michael Wall, a senior attorney with the National Resources Defense
Council, which brought the lawsuit in 1988. "It's a tremendous victory for all
Californians who deserve a healthy, living river." </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>In a state that has long been a battleground for water wars, the
dispute pitting farmers against Bay Area environmentalists ranks among the
longest and nastiest.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Kole Upton, a Chowchilla cotton and nut farmer who heads the
Friant Water Users Authority, called the judge's decision a "big blow to the San
Joaquin Valley."</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>"This is going to drive farmland out of production," he said.
"This valley is going to look like it did in the 1920s and '30s." </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>He said the river irrigates more than a million acres of
farmland between Merced and Kern counties, a swath of state where the desert has
been made to bloom into the world's most productive farming region. Because
farmers along the river are also seeking to convert their water for use by
suburbs, Upton said, the decision could affect the pace of development in the
state's Central Valley.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>"It's been 60 years since there was a Chinook salmon run on the
San Joaquin River. The river is no longer in shape to sustain that old run,"
Upton said. "They're trying to turn back the clock. It's not unlike saying we
need to go back to the way the Indians ran things." </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>In his 41-page decision, Karlton wrote that before Friant Dam's
construction, the salmon migrating up river made so much noise that they kept
residents awake at night. He found that the Bureau of Reclamation's operation of
the dam, which diverts more than 95% of the river's flow to farming, violated
state fish and game laws.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>One statue, he said, provides that "the owner of a dam shall
allow sufficient water at all times to pass through a fishway … to keep in good
condition any fish that may be planted or exist below the dam." </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>The San Joaquin River, in contrast, has two long stretches that
are bone dry for much of the year.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Karlton left open the question on a remedy. He could make a
subsequent ruling or hand off to state officials or a state judge the question
concerning how much water agriculture needs to give up to restore a healthy
flow.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>"How to make the dry parts of the river flow again has yet to be
determined," said Barry Nelson, a senior policy analyst for the National
Resources Defense Council. "But this is a real solid ruling, and we're confident
that it will stand and the river will come back." #</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4></FONT> </P>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma size=4><STRONG>Diversions ruined river,<SPAN
class=365373815-30082004> </SPAN>judge rules</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma size=4><STRONG>Sacramento Bee -
8/28/04</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma size=4><STRONG>By Denny Walsh, staff
writer</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<P><FONT size=4>The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation violated state and federal law by
diverting most of the water from the San Joaquin River to agriculture for more
than 50 years, a federal judge in Sacramento ruled Friday. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton found, in effect, the
bureau reduced the river to a pathetic remnant of its glorious past. A fisherman
recalled in court papers, "One almost could have walked across the river on the
backs of the salmon when they were running." </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>The judge wrote in a 41-page order, "There can be no genuine
dispute that many miles of the San Joaquin River are now entirely dry, except
during extremely wet periods, and that the historic fish populations have been
destroyed." </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>The specific question before Karlton was whether the agency is
legally liable for the decimation of Chinook salmon and other types of fish that
were native to the upper reaches of the river before construction of Friant Dam
in the early 1940s. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Karlton's answer is a resounding yes. "The bureau, by its own
admission, releases no water" for preservation of native fish, the judge wrote.
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>"Failure to release water from Friant Dam has rendered many
miles of fish habitat unusable, especially in the stretch between the dam and
the river's confluence with the Merced (River), and has also adversely affected
water quality along the whole course of the river." </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>In addition, lack of releases "has increased the temperature of
the water, reduced the ability of the river to assimilate agricultural runoff
and other pollutants, and substantially degraded riparian vegetation," he wrote.
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Bureau spokesman Jeff McCracken said the agency will have no
comment until its review of the decision is completed. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>"We're very disappointed," said Ron Jacobsma, manager of the
Friant Water Users Authority, which represents 22 of the 28 bureau contractors
along the Friant-Kern Canal that serves thousands of farmers in Fresno, Tulare,
Kern and Madera counties. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>"Any more downstream releases will really tighten the screws on
farmers already scrambling to cope with an ever-decreasing supply of water."
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>The authority delivered 1 million acre-feet of water this year,
down from 1.4 million last year. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Jacobsma contends a lot of things are needed to improve the
river's condition, not just more water. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>"We don't want to dump a bunch of water down the river, not see
any benefits for the fish, and have a devastating impact on our economy."
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>In January, the judge will hear arguments on other issues raised
in the 16-year-old lawsuit. He will later tackle the question of whether to take
water away from agriculture. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>He noted in Friday's order that any remedy will have to be
compatible with the bureau's mandate under the law governing the Central Valley
Project. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>"Farmers throughout the valley have dedicated their lives and
fortunes to making the desert bloom," Karlton wrote. "They did so in reliance on
the availability of CVP water. That reality most likely should be taken into
account when the court comes to address a remedy." </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Philip Atkins-Pattenson, a San Francisco attorney who represents
the 14 conservation and fishing groups challenging the bureau's policies, said
Friday the ruling "means that we can look forward to bringing a dead river back
to life. It's a tremendous victory for millions of Californians who deserve a
living river." </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Hal Candee, an attorney with the suit's lead plaintiff - the
Natural Resources Defense Council - predicts the ruling will lead to "one of the
most important restoration projects in state history." </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>"It will benefit downstream farmers, who will get cleaner, more
reliable water supplies," he declared. "It will benefit 20 million people in the
Bay Area and Southern California, who rely on the Delta for their drinking
water. And restoring the river's once thriving salmon fishery will bring back
more jobs to our state." </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Jennifer T. Buckman, one of Friant Water Users Authority's
attorneys, said it appears to her Karlton "misconstrued" an 11-week-old U.S.
Supreme Court decision. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>The judge, however, found the factual scenario of his case is
dissimilar to the one in the high court's new opinion. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Buckman also said it appears that Karlton "misread" the
California Fish and Game Code. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Coupled with the federal Reclamation Act of 1902, that state
statute requires the bureau "to release sufficient water to re-establish and
maintain the historic fisheries," according to Karlton. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Buckman also complained that the judge "seems to have ignored
all the evidence we presented showing fish below the dam have maintained in good
condition." </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>The San Joaquin is the main artery of California's
second-largest river system. It originates high in the Sierra, on snowy peaks
southeast of Yosemite, and tumbles west into the Valley. The San Joaquin finally
merges with the Sacramento River to form the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary.
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>The bureau built Friant Dam across the upper San Joaquin
northwest of Fresno as part of the Central Valley Project. The river's flow is
stored behind the dam in Millerton Lake. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>The river's fall-run Chinook salmon were reported extinct in
1949. Spring-run Chinook disappeared after unsuccessful rescue attempts in 1949
and 1950.#</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4></FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4></FONT> </P>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma size=4><STRONG>Ruling wins one for environment
</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma size=4><STRONG>Modesto Bee -
8/28/04</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma size=4><STRONG>By Mark Grossi, staff writer, Fresno
Bee</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<P><FONT size=4>In a historic ruling, a Sacramento U.S. District Court judge
Friday decided the federal government violated the law more than half a century
ago when it built Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River and destroyed two salmon
runs. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>The decision in the 16-year-old lawsuit sets the stage for the
state's second-longest river to be reconnected from just west of Fresno to the
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, 230 miles away. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Environmentalists say the ruling reverses a decades-old
government philosophy of sacrificing the downstream habitat and wildlife to save
a dying east San Joaquin Valley farm belt. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Though nobody is opening the flood gates at Friant anytime soon,
the ruling is a heavy blow to 15,000 farmers who irrigate 1 million east Valley
acres with the river's water. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>"We're not surprised, but we are very disappointed," said Ron
Jacobsma, general manager of Friant Water Users Authority, representing the
farmers. "We are considering all our options, including appeal." </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>The Natural Resources Defense Council, representing 13
conservation and fishing groups, applauded the decision by U.S. District Judge
Lawrence K. Karlton, who has been hearing the case since the 1980s. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>"The judge's decision brings a dead river back to life," said
Hal Candee, senior attorney with NRDC. "Millions of people in this state deserve
a healthy, living river." </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>The next phase of the case will focus on how to fix the problem,
Friant officials said. No one knows if Karlton will decide to rule on how to
restore the river or turn the issue over to state officials. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>There is no date scheduled yet for that issue. With appeals and
studies on the water requirements, it may be many years before a solution is
found and the river is restored. Environmentalists believe it can be done
without harming the farm economy. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>But since the beginning of the lawsuit, Friant officials have
worried that a court might take a large portion of the irrigation water stored
in Millerton Lake, northeast of Fresno, for restoration. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>The water supports a multi-billion-dollar farm economy from
Chowchilla to southern Kern County. Many small cities, such as Lindsay and
Strathmore in Tulare County, depend on the farm economy. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>"If we get a negative remedy, it's not just the farmers who will
suffer," said Kole Upton, farmer and president of the Friant Water Users
Authority. "We'll be obligated to tell city councils and boards of supervisors
that they will have to talk about downsizing their areas, not growing."
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Officials for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which built and
operates Friant Dam as part of the federal Central Valley Project, have not yet
seen the decision and declined comment. The bureau is the main defendant in the
case. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>In most summers since the bureau built Friant, the San Joaquin
goes dry in two places -- Gravelly Ford east of Fresno and again on the Valley's
west side beyond Sack Dam. The San Joaquin's channel refills at the confluence
of the Merced River for its final 118-mile run to the delta. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>The environmental case for the river is more than a choice
between fish and farms, said NRDC's Candee. The 350-mile river affects a huge
slice of Central California and has an impact on water quality in the delta,
which provides water for 20 million people in the state. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Dante Nomellini of the Central Delta Water Agency, near
Stockton, said: "Our people in the delta have been dramatically impacted by the
Bureau of Reclamation's disgraceful management of the river. The plight of the
San Joaquin needs to be remedied and this is a good first step." </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Candee added: "Restoring the river will be one of the most
important restoration projects in state history."#</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4></FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4></FONT> </P>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma size=4><STRONG>Fear, hope flow from water ruling
</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma size=4><STRONG>Restoration of San Joaquin River promises
to be complicated process. </STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma size=4><STRONG>Fresno Bee - 8/29/04</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma size=4><STRONG>By Mark Grossi, staff
writer</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<P><FONT size=4>Even before a 16-year-old lawsuit to restore the San Joaquin
River took a major turn on Friday, state and federal officials had waited long
enough to see more science on reviving the river. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Officials last month took control of a publicly funded draft
study to restore salmon runs on the 350-mile San Joaquin because feuding
environmentalists and farmers kept it private for 17 months. The study was at a
standstill.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>"A lot of people are interested up and down this river --
cities, farms, businesses," said state Department of Water Resources Director
Lester Snow. "We want to move this into a classic public process." </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Snow's comments Wednesday on the $3.7 million study seemed
prophetic by Friday when a federal court in Sacramento moved the restoration one
step closer on the legal front.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4></FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton in a 41-page decision
wrote that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which built Friant Dam on the river,
violated a state fishery protection law by not allowing a flow of water to keep
the salmon alive. Farmers whose irrigation water comes from Millerton Lake at
Friant are considering an appeal, saying the state decided in the 1950s that the
fishery law did not apply to Friant. They fear the loss of irrigation supplies
if water is released for salmon.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>"The evidence submitted by the defendants was largely ignored,"
said General Manager Ron Jacobsma of the Friant Water Users Authority,
representing 15,000 east San Joaquin Valley farmers.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>But the environmental community, which filed the lawsuit in
1988, cheered.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>"This ruling will help restore one of the two great rivers that
sustain the health of San Francisco Bay," said Grant Davis, executive director
of The Bay Institute. "It is now time to begin restoring this vital resource for
future generations."</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Karlton left open the question of how much water would be
needed, but he gave farmers some hope:</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>"Farmers throughout the valley have dedicated their lives and
fortunes to making the desert bloom. They did so in reliance on the availability
of [federal] water. That reality most likely should be taken into account when
the court comes to address a remedy."</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>The science currently snagged in the draft study may influence
details of any remedy. Since 1999, scientists working with both the farmers and
the environmentalists have been studying and performing tests on the
river.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>The basic restoration strategy would involve releasing water
from Friant Dam. But the river has run dry most years in two places since the
dam was built in the 1940s, causing dramatic changes in vegetation and the
channel. Restoring the flow will be complicated.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>State and federal officials believe they can review and release
the restoration draft study by the end of the year.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>So what has been the holdup? It's a basic difference of
viewpoints between farmers and environmentalists.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>In general, Friant farmers worry that the restoration would take
too much of their river irrigation supplies, close down farms and undermine the
economy of the farm belt from Chowchilla to Bakersfield.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Friant officials believe the numbers in the unreleased draft
study support those fears. But they also believe the study strategies do not go
far enough in explaining what needs to be done.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Environmentalists, represented by the Natural Resources Defense
Council, say the alternatives in the draft study overstate the amount of water
needed for restoration. They need peer review, NRDC says.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>State and federal officials put up public money and allowed NRDC
and Friant take the lead in the study a few years ago as the two foes cooperated
on a possible settlement to the 16-year-old lawsuit in federal court.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>But the cooperation dissolved last year, and the two went back
to Karlton's court. Neither would release the contents of the draft because both
would have to sign off on it.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>State and federal officials said the cooperation resulted in a
lot of progress and further information about the river. But even after the
study is reviewed and released, it would not determine a preferred restoration
approach.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>"Our interests are broader," said Kirk Rodgers, regional
director for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, owner of Friant Dam. "We're not
here to resolve the points of difference. We want to know what constitutes
restoration and what it will cost. We want to move on to the next phase of
study."#</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4></FONT> </P>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma size=4><STRONG>Judge: Friant Dam broke
law</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma size=4><STRONG>Ruling in long legal fight could lead to
restoration of San Joaquin River </STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma size=4><STRONG>San Joaquin Record -
8/28/04</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma size=4><STRONG>By Audrey Cooper, staff
writer</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<P><FONT size=4>The federal government destroyed thriving salmon runs and
created severe water-</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>pollution problems in the Delta and San Joaquin County because
of the illegal way it dried up portions of the San Joaquin River, according to a
federal court decision released Friday. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton clears
the way for the restoration of the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, a
319-foot monolith that water officials and environmentalists say is at least
partially to blame for nearly every water-supply and water-pollution problem in
San Joaquin County. The dam and accompanying canals divert more than 90 percent
of the river's natural snowmelt to farms and towns located as far south as the
Tehachapi Mountains. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Under the decision, more water will almost certainly have to be
released from Friant, although how much water will be released is still
undetermined, attorneys said. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Local environmentalists and water officials cheered the
decision, which comes after 16 years of legal fights over the river. Farmers who
rely on the water held at Friant Dam said they are studying their legal options,
adding that the ruling could severely damage the southern San Joaquin Valley
economy. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>There are plenty of reasons for local residents to care about
what happens to the San Joaquin River: More water in the river could dilute
pollution in San Joaquin County waterways. Higher flows could cut the algae that
turn local waterways an unusual shade of bright green. East-county farms could
get more water. More salmon might spawn in the river, and more water could put
an end to the frequent fish kills in the Stockton Deep Water Channel.
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Also, Delta farmers could get irrigation water that is cleaner
and less damaging to crops. And more water in the river could improve the taste
of Stockton's drinking water because the city's fresh Sierra supplies are often
shunted down the Stanislaus River and instead used to dilute the San Joaquin's
meager flow. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>"This is fantastic news. The way the river has been managed up
until this has been disgraceful and those of us downstream and in San Joaquin
County have paid for it," said Dante Nomellini, manager for the Central Delta
Water Agency. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>In the 41-page decision, Karlton ruled the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation was liable for destroying a thriving salmon fishery when the agency
built Friant Dam in the 1940s. Friant Dam holds back so much water that in
places the river dries up completely. The riverbed is wetted upstream by
inflowing tributary rivers like the Merced and Stanislaus. ::: Advertisement :::
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4></FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Officials with the Bureau of Reclamation declined to comment on
the decision. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Residents who lived along the upper stretches of the San Joaquin
River before Friant was built reported they would lie awake on some nights,
unable to sleep amid the crashing, waterfall-like sounds of Chinook salmon
fighting to find the best spawning sites. Today, those salmon runs are extinct.
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>That violates state law, which says dams must release enough
water to protect fish populations, Karlton ruled. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Attorneys for the Friant Water Users Authority had argued that
state and federal governments made a deal when they built the dam. That deal
reserved the bulk of the river for agriculture, they argued. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Karlton ruled those farmers' needs should be taken into
consideration. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>But that didn't reassure Kole Upton, a farmer and chairman of
the Friant Water Users Authority. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>"If they release more water, we're going to have big problems.
We'll have to tell cities to cut back, and we will lose some farms. This will be
drastic. We just won't be able to continue life like we have in the past because
we simply won't have any water," he said. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>The lawsuit to get more water out of Friant Dam was led by the
Natural Resources Defense Council and 13 other groups. Senior NRDC attorney Hal
Candee said he was confident the river could be restored without harming Valley
farms. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>Ronald Jacobsma, the consulting general manager of Friant Water
Users Authority, said he felt Karlton ignored his agency's arguments.
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>To John Banks, a self-described river rat who learned to fish on
the river about 60 years ago with his grandfather, the court ruling was a
victory. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=4>"We really had lost our river until this. There used to be
salmon everywhere. Not anymore. If it ends up that more water is released from
Friant, it will be a great day for all Californians," said Banks, a Stockton
resident. #</FONT></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>