The Council’s charge is to address the full range of challenges facing the Delta. The BDCP’s charge, on the other hand, is far narrower – focusing solely on water supply reliability and ecosystem health. Specifically, the BDCP is writing a Habitat Conservation Plan and a Natural Communities Conservation Plan to comply with the state and federal Endangered Species Acts and seek permits for a new conveyance facility in the Delta, proposed operations of that facility, a large habitat restoration program, governance and other related activities. Flood management and other issues included in the Council’s charge thus far appear to be beyond the scope of the BDCP. Recently, the state and the Department of the Interior jointly announced that they plan to release a draft BDCP plan this November.
The legislature recognized the need to integrate the BDCP and Council processes. This issue was addressed carefully in SB 7x 1. That bill, which also created the Council, established new, stronger protections for the Delta ecosystem. Many of these requirements are directly related to the BDCP and its potential inclusion in the Delta Plan. For example, the legislation requires:
The legislature also created, in SB 7x 1, a state policy of reducing reliance on Delta diversions by increasing investments in alternative supplies that increase regional self-reliance. It also created a Watermaster at the State Board to ensure compliance with Delta environmental protection requirements. These provisions, of course, have important implications for BDCP as well.
Finally, the legislature gave the Council specific responsibilities regarding the BDCP. It required the BDCP to consult with the Council’s Independent Science Board. It established the Council as a responsible agency in the preparation of the BDCP’s environmental compliance documents. The Council’s oversight authority also provides it with direction to integrate BDCP and Delta flood management efforts. (I’ve written earlier this week about this issue.) And finally, the legislature gave the Council authority to hear appeals of whether BDCP meets the requirements of SB 7x 1. Thus, the Council must provide guidance to the BDCP process, and must be prepared to evaluate it in the future. Suffice it to say that the success or failure of the BDCP has significant implications for the Council’s Delta Plan.
Recently, the legislature held a joint oversight hearing on implementation of the water policy reform package. Much of the discussion focused on BDCP and clearly revealed that that this process has not yet fully incorporated all of the legislature’s requirements - a point that NRDC and other groups also made here. Given the importance of the BDCP and the short timeline for developing a draft plan, we’re pleased to see that the Council appears to be paying particular attention early in its tenure to the BDCP process (see page 82-83 of the attached materials from the April 22-23 Delta Stewardship Council meeting).
]]>Let me give a couple of examples.
The Delta Vision Strategic Plan calls for large scale Delta habitat restoration “on the order of 100,000 acres.” Designing and implementing a restoration program on this scale will be a long-term effort. Given the complexity of the Delta ecosystem, detecting long-term, system-wide improvements in ecosystem health as a result of this restoration will also be a long-term endeavor. The scientific community agrees that habitat restoration is one essential component of an effort to restore the Delta ecosystem. But it won’t happen overnight.
The BDCP process is evaluating options for a Peripheral Canal, tunnel, or pipeline through, around or under the Delta. Most experienced observers anticipate that it will take 20-25 years to design, permit and construct such a facility – under the best of circumstances. So for the next quarter century, we may be managing the plumbing system we have today, with modest changes.
A Delta-wide flood management effort will not be less time-consuming.
And finally, there’s climate change. This is where you can really see the importance of a realistic planning horizon. Professor Jeffrey Mount of U.C. Davis famously concluded that there is a 2/3 likelihood of large scale failure in the Delta by 2050, as a result of sea level rise driven by climate change and other factors. The Public Policy Institute of California proposed a controversial “do not resuscitate” policy for some Delta islands. After the PPIC report came out, I sat down with a good map, a piece of paper and a Sharpie. When I was done, the paper was nearly blank. I learned that there are few islands we can walk away from today, even if we want to . Most Delta islands have highways, rail lines, towns (or cities), gas storage facilities, aqueducts and other important infrastructure.
There’s a paradox here. It’s hard to see how we can save all Delta islands if sea level reaches three feet or more. But we can’t just walk away from the Delta. The solution here is realistic phasing. Let’s face it. Even if we wanted to, we can’t just abandon Sherman Island. It’s perhaps the most vulnerable Delta island, but it is also bisected by an important highway and is a key to preventing the loss of other islands to the East. For the next several decades, we have little choice but to try to protect Sherman Island. That’s why one of NRDC’s early recommendations for the Council is to work on a management plan for Sherman Island.
After the first 25 years of the implementation of the Delta Plan -- call it Phase 1 - we’ll know more about sea level rise and climate change. We’ll see the effectiveness of our management decisions during Phase 1. As we look forward, Phase 2 may look quite different. And Phase 3 is still looking through a glass darkly. But let’s not kid ourselves – we’re looking at long phases here.
As a people, Americans don’t naturally think in quarter-century increments. We’re not always very good at maintaining focus and patience when realistic solutions require a decade -- or decades. There are important exceptions to this generalization, of course. Think about the decades-long efforts involved in the interstate highway system, the federal reclamation program, cleaning up traditional municipal sewage, or the work of the Corps of Engineers.
In California water, however, patience has not been our strong suit. The Delta Stewardship Council should see this as a growth opportunity.
]]>During the past 15 years, as a result of major investments in science, we’ve made great strides in our understanding of this complex ecosystem. Scientific investigations have increased our understanding of the flood risks from sea level rise and earthquakes. They’ve helped us understand the causes of the decline of Delta fisheries. An enormous amount of scientific work went into drafting the new Delta biological opinions and into the recent NRC review. Improved scientific understanding and monitoring are allowing better real-time water management decisions. Continuing these investments is essential to the Council’s efforts to plan the future of the estuary.
Anyone who wonders how fundamental science has become to the management of the estuary should plan to attend the Bay-Delta Science Conference in September. This is no sleepy academic event. At a conference a couple of years ago, I attended an interesting presentation about the decline of Bay-Delta fish species. It was held in a room with a capacity of several hundred people. By the time I arrived, 10 minutes before it began, the room was already packed. I couldn’t even get inside. That attendance reflected a consensus in the water world that science is the key to improving our management of the estuary.
The Council should strive to maintain a world class science program that is respected by agencies and stakeholders alike. Such a program doesn’t change the existing authority of other agencies. Instead, it creates a resource and a common knowledge base that is useful to all. CALFED was building such a science program. The Council should continue this effort.
A solid, well-respected science program is essential to answering challenging questions like:
This last question is particularly important. Many of us water wonks tend to talk about adaptive management in the short term -- focusing on questions like “Is it safe to increase diversions this week, or are listed fish too close to the pumps?” But adaptive management will also be critical for challenging long-term decisions about strategic changes in direction. As the ecosystem continues to change and as we learn more about the effectiveness of major management decisions, we will need to decide how to adapt management efforts to incorporate this new information. For example, the Council’s adaptive management program should be designed to address such long-term questions as these:
There are similar strategic adaptive management questions for every component of a Delta Plan.
It would be difficult to find an ecosystem that will be more challenging to manage over the coming half-century. Science is key to drafting an effective Delta Plan and adapting that plan over time.
]]>You can read the reactions of the fishing community here. This community deserves a great deal of credit. As this Los Angeles Times story reports, testimony from the fishing community was split between support for a limited season and those who advocated extending the closure to a third consecutive year. This is a remarkably sober and responsible discussion among fishermen. The current projections of 245,000 adult Sacramento River fish in the ocean suggest that a limited fishery could be appropriate. But last year, population projections overestimated by a factor of three the final returning population of 39,000 fish. The salmon fishing community has shown that they support strong, science-based limits on their fishery, even when they are not responsible for current disastrously low population levels. These folks are independent fishermen and women, debating whether to severely limit their businesses this year, or shut them down all together. It’s not an easy conversation.
In my 26 years of work on Bay-Delta issues, I can’t recall a similar public debate among water users, in which some users argued publicly that the science suggests they should take less water in the current year, to ensure a healthy environment for the future. In fact, when the National Research Council concluded that the existing Biological Opinions protecting Delta fish, including salmon, are based on sound science, many water users simply ignored the results and continued their legal attacks.
In this debate, it’s pretty clear who has the high ground.
In a noteworthy irony, news of this limited season came on the same day that the Bureau of Reclamation announced that recent rainfall has allowed them to increase projected water deliveries. Note that M&I contractors north of the Delta, agricultural water service contractors north of the Delta, Friant class 1 contractors, Eastside division contractors, Sacramento Valley water rights holders and San Joaquin Valley exchange contractors all anticipate receiving 100% deliveries this year. The junior water contractors South of the Delta are projected to receive 30% of their unrealistic contract totals.
]]>The sport fishing community was well represented, led by Jacky Douglas – the skipper of the charter boat Wacky Jacky out of San Francisco. Jacky has been fishing for 55 years. She told how the salmon that she loves helped her raise four girls – and literally put food on her table. She pled with her fellow fishermen to join her in fighting to ensure that salmon have enough water in their spawning rivers to survive – and sustain future generations of fishermen and Californians.
Commercial fishermen like Aaron Newman from Eureka testified about the hardships that fishing families are feeling from a complete two-year shut down. But the impacts of the closure go far beyond those who catch the fish.
Peter Grinell, the General Manager of the San Mateo Country Harbor District, told about the economic losses to fishing communities. Just one marina, in Bodega Bay, saw the number of visiting boats drop from 869 during the July before the closure took effect, to just 54 boats during July after the closure. The revenue lost in just that month represented more than a quarter of a million dollars. Multiply that loss by the entire salmon season. Then calculate the impact on the 74 harbors in California that serve the salmon industry. Then add in Oregon. You can start to see the scope of the economic impact on fishing communities strung along the Pacific Coast.
Paul Johnson, owner of Monterey Fish Market in Berkeley, told about the public demand for salmon. Before the closure, he testified, 35 percent of his annual revenue came from selling local salmon. Today, that revenue is gone and his customers deeply miss this local, healthy, sustainable food.
This was a community event, with food grilled by volunteers from the Coastside Fishing Club, and provided by local restaurateurs eager to put California salmon back on their menus – including Fish Restaurant, Scoma’s, Hayes Street Grill, Foreign Cinema and Monterey Fish Market. (No, there was no salmon on the menu. Next time….)
All of these people know that their future will be determined to a great degree by decisions made about water management. Salmon need adequate water to survive, so it was appropriate that this summit was held in sight of the Golden Gate Bridge – the most important salmon migration corridor south of the Columbia River.
Fortunately, these voices were heard by elected officials who care deeply about the future of salmon fishing. Congressman Miller issued this statement following the event. Congressman Thompson represents many of the hardest hit communities. And Assemblyman Huffman has introduced legislation to make the Chinook salmon the state anadromous fish and call for the restoration of the fishery.
The fight for the future of California’s salmon is not a theoretical discussion. Not only have fishermen lost the last two seasons, but last year’s returns were the lowest on record. Just yesterday, a Federal court in Fresno left in place federal protections for salmon in the Delta for which NRDC has fought for years. Last week, the State Water Resources Control Board heard testimony about the flows required to restore a healthy Bay-Delta estuary. And today, the new Delta Stewardship Council held its first meeting – to start writing a new state plan to protect and restore the Delta.
The future of California salmon and the folks who depend on them will be determined in these and other windowless rooms in Sacramento, Fresno and Washington DC. Today, the California and Oregon fishing communities united, to ensure that their voices are heard in this debate.
One final note - the last major event in which the commercial and recreational fishing communities joined together to fight for sound water policy was in 1992, during the campaign to pass the landmark Central Valley Project Improvement Act. Only time will tell if this summit will serve as a similar turning point in the debate about how to manage California’s water in the 21st Century. I hope so. My wife and I miss being able to grill local salmon on a summer evening. Across California, countless others feel the same way.
]]>Despite the fact that the state legislature, Congress and the State Water Board have all established a requirement to double salmon populations in California's Central Valley, populations have plummeted to record lows in recent years. All too often, water projects strive only to meet minimum water flow requirements to avoid causing extinction. The legal requirement to protect California's fishing industry is too often ignored. Perhaps, with the salmon summit tomorrow, that will start to change.
]]>The column points out that unemployment in the Central Valley is a long-term problem, exacerbated mostly by water rights and drought -- not fisheries protections. But perhaps the most important point is the often overlooked linkage between the mismanagement of water projects and the collapse of California’s salmon runs – leading to a two-year closure of the salmon fishery, along with the loss of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars to commercial and recreational fishing communities.
The salmon fishing community has noticed that they have been frequently ignored in the debate about water policy – and they’re speaking up. Here’s a post by Zeke Grader, on behalf of commercial salmon fishermen. Dick Pool writes here from the perspective of the recreational fishing community and the many jobs it represents. And just yesterday, Paul Johnson, the well known owner of Monterey Fish Market, cookbook author and sustainable fishing advocate, posted this piece on Grist and Ethicurian.
The Hiltzik column points out a clear pattern -- deceptive claims about the cause of water shortages, exaggeration of economic impacts, and failure to mention impacts to salmon and fishermen who depend on a healthy Delta ecosystem. Put this pattern together and one is left with a suggestion that we face a simple choice of “fish or people.” The reality, however, doesn’t correspond with this myth. People actually do value and depend on a healthy environment. They like to be able to serve their families local, sustainable seafood. There actually are limits to how much water we can squeeze out of any river system. And we have plenty of other options to meet our urban and agricultural water needs.
Facing the reality of California’s complex water supply picture may not be as simple as focusing on the myths – but it’s the path to finding workable solutions.
]]>DOI’s announcement today confirms what all water users know, that water allocations are driven primarily by weather. Interior announced that, coming out of three dry years, if the rainfall this year remains on the current track, we will end up in a below normal year, with the most junior water users in the CVP system receiving 30 percent of their maximum allocation. Most other CVP farmers in the San Joaquin Valley will receive 100 percent of their total allocations. On balance, the Bureau projected that “should precipitation continue so that a median forecast is realized, Reclamation expects to deliver 5.7 million acre-feet, representing 96 percent of deliveries over the past 5 years.” That five year period extends back before the current dry period and before the issuance of the new Biological Opinions issued pursuant to the ESA.
The announcements today also show an encouraging broadening of horizons within the water community. The CVP and SWP are enormous water projects, but together, they still provide a minority of California’s water supply. Water users have many tools in their toolbox to meet their needs. Last year, the Westlands Water District used those tools to reach a supply equal to 80% of their maximum allocation of CVP water. This year, thanks to discussions over the past few weeks, they will have more tools at their disposal.
Ultimately, crops will grow when they get water – and it doesn’t matter whether that water is from the CVP or from another source. The bottom line is that the junior water users in an overallocated system will always need to work to secure supplemental supplies. Senator Feinstein, the Department of Interior, water users and a great many others (including NRDC) have been working hard to identify those potential supplies – supplies that can be obtained without harming other water users or the environment.
Here’s NRDC’s list of candidate options. Most of these options have been developed by other water users. It’s particularly interesting that the restoration of the San Joaquin River creates opportunities to operate the CVP systems on the East and West sides of the Valley together in a way that can benefit junior water users without interfering with the restoration of the river. The newly restored flows in that river provide the aquatic artery that has reconnected these two systems.
The tools in the Westlands toolbox fall into five categories:
We’re confident that, working together, Senator Feinstein, the Department of Interior and various other interests can get the most from those tools – largely by persuading neighbors in the Valley to help junior water users.
Today has been an eventful day in the water world. But the bottom line is simple. Salmon and other fish don’t have a choice. They swim in the water we leave in the Bay-Delta ecosystem. If we don’t leave enough, they won’t survive. Water users, however, have lots of choices. We just need to use all of the tools in the box.
]]>Over the past several months, I’ve written many times about the provisions of the policy reform package that the state legislature passed last November. However, beyond the details of the many bills in that package, that legislation started to rebuild trust among some of the warring parties in the Delta. That trust is fragile, and it’s not universal, but it’s an important ingredient for progress.
For example, NRDC has been a long-time opponent of a peripheral canal in the Delta. However, as a result of increasing awareness of sea level rise, subsidence and earthquake risks in the Delta, we’ve moved from that simple position to a more open and nuanced one. In short, our position on Delta infrastructure will be determined by its design, proposed operations and assurances that it will be operated responsibly. That last point is where trust comes in.
You see, the problem is that new infrastructure in the Delta could be managed to improve ecosystem health – or to further damage Delta resources. It could be used to restore fisheries, or could serve as the final nail in their coffin.
The request from some South of Delta water users for the last few years has been simple: “Let us build a very large peripheral canal. Trust us. It will be operated responsibly pursuant to a scientifically-developed plan.” The Bay-Delta Conservation Plan process is struggling to design a facility (be it a canal, tunnel or pipeline), determine how it might be operated, and design governance “assurances” to ensure those operations.
It’s pretty obvious where this is going. If Congress were to waive ESA protections for the Delta that were designed after extensive scientific review, at a time when several species are on the brink of extinction, when the salmon fishery is in danger of a permanent closure, and when water supply reductions have been caused largely by drought (rather than environmental protections), it’s difficult to imagine that any trust would survive in the Delta debate. Instead, environmentalists, fishermen, Delta interests and others in Northern California would see any Delta facility as a grab for more water. If Congress were to block ESA protections, the only responsible assumption regarding any future Delta facility would be that, when the chips are down, good science and legal protections will be trumped by political pressure.
In short, such legislation would cause the Delta debate to revert back to an old-fashioned North/South water war. We’ve seen that kind of gridlock before. The Los Angeles Times makes this point in an editorial this morning about an ESA rider.
The problems in the Delta are real. And many water interests have been cautiously looking for new solutions. Trust is one of the missing ingredients that can help us find them. That’s one reason why so many understand that a bill blocking ESA protections in the Delta could cause long-lasting damage. Today more than ever, it’s critical that we look for opportunities to rebuild trust, rather than to destroy it.
]]>It’s not a surprise that environmentalists and fishermen oppose a rollback of one of the nation’s bedrock environmental laws as it applies to one of the nation’s most important aquatic ecosystems. (You can read more about the environmental and fishing community response here and here.) But some may be surprised by the breadth of opposition to this idea and the many reasons why such legislation would be unwise. During the coming week, my colleagues, Kate Poole and Doug Obegi, and I will be writing a series of posts surveying the opponents to this idea and the far reaching potential implications.
California has a great deal at stake here. The Bay-Delta is the largest estuary on the West Coast, and is the lifeblood of the commercial and recreational salmon fishery south of the Columbia River. Farmers and communities in the Delta are deeply concerned about the future of their region. And all water users know that water is a key to California’s economic health. Success in California’s famously contentious water policy debate lies in developing workable solutions that do not sacrifice any of these critical interests. At NRDC, we believe that working together we can find those solutions.
Legislation blocking ESA protections would lead to some simple and obvious impacts, such as potential extinctions and permanent damage to the salmon fishery, and some complicated and less obvious impacts, such as conflicts with state law and implications for other water users. Given the severity and number of those impacts, my colleagues and I will take some time to explain them individually.
It’s a cliché that it’s easier to destroy something than to build something. Well we’ve built some fragile progress on water issues in the past year. It would be a tragedy to see that progress lost, perhaps costing us another decade. (It took almost 10 years to get from the ill-fated CALFED Plan to the state legislative package last November.) Given what’s at stake, we don’t have the luxury of wasting a decade.
]]>DWR received a temporary reprieve today, when Judge Wanger refused to block protections under the Fish and Wildlife Service delta smelt biological opinion. As a result of this ruling, pumping limitations will remain in place under both the ESA and CESA.
Over the last weekend, however, the SWP was clearly in violation of CESA limits, which reflect those in the federal BO. The CESA requirements, which were not blocked by the federal court ruling last Friday, allow no more than -5,000 cfs flows in Old and Middle River. For the layperson, that means that the average flows in these two Delta channels may not exceed 5,000 cubic-feet-per-second flowing in the wrong direction – carrying fish upstream toward the state and federal pumps. As you can see here, the 14 day average reverse flows on February 7 and 8 exceeded this legal limit, as the CVP increased pumping in response to Judge Wanger’s ruling enjoining salmon protections.
As Kate Poole points out here, this reckless approach to Delta protections is penny wise and pound foolish.
]]>The first conflict is with SB 7x1 -- the Delta governance bill passed in November. That bill requires the state’s Bay-Delta Conservation Plan to meet the requirements of the Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act – the state’s highest standard for ecosystem restoration and species recovery -- which requires the development of a science based program to protect and restore listed species.
The problem is that the best available science on Delta fish has already been used to develop the biological opinions to protect listed Delta species. The Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service took great care to ensure that these BOs were grounded in solid science – through at least five separate scientific peer reviews. So although the state is required to use the best available science to develop a BDCP, DWR is currently challenging the federal BO’s based on that same science.
The second conflict is with the state’s salmon doubling requirement, which was established twenty years ago in Section 6902 of the Fish and Game Code and subsequently incorporated into the State Water Resources Control Board’s Water Right Decision D 1641. Since the passage of this requirement, rather than doubling salmon populations, state agencies have watched populations plummet to record lows. In fact, the State Water Project has played a significant role in this decline in the Central Valley.
The protections that DWR has asked the court to block are designed to protect listed salmon, such as winter-run and spring-run Chinook. But these protections also benefit the fall-run – the backbone of California’s and Oregon’s salmon fishery. So, in addition to seeking to relax protections for listed species, the state is seeking to weaken protections for the salmon upon which the salmon fishing community depends. Rather than seeking to restore salmon populations, as required by law, DWR is seeking permission to facilitate its further collapse.
The recreational and commercial salmon fishing community is well aware of the implications of the state’s legal strategy. Here’s a press release from the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Communities discussing the implications of the court hearing.
The potential implications of the state’s legal strategy don’t stop here. My colleague Kate Poole writes here about potentially serious implications for water users.
]]>The Central Valley fall-run is the backbone of the commercial and recreational salmon fishery in California and southern Oregon. The protections in place under the current federal biological opinion for listed salmon species also protect the young fall run currently migrating through the Delta and out the Golden Gate, to rear in the ocean. These protections are helping to give this fish – and the fishery – a fighting chance.
The California salmon fishery has been closed for two years now, because of the collapse of the Central Valley fall-run, and initial spawning counts suggest that the fishery may be closed for a third year. Here’s a story on the subject just posted on NRDC’s OnEarth magazine web site.
But salmon are protected by more than just the ESA. State and federal laws require agencies to double salmon runs from their populations two decades ago. But instead of doubling salmon, the combined pumping of the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project increased to record levels five years ago, helping to drive the fall-run population to record lows today. The water projects appear to have forgotten their legal mandate to double salmon – and the fishing community is now paying the price.
These massive water projects aren’t the only thing affecting California’s salmon. However, in the near-term, improved protections for salmon are the best hope for the survival of the species, and for the thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of economic activity that the fishery should support each year.
]]>