Doug Obegi's Blog: Saving Wildlife and Wild Places

Happy Earth Day (and Thank You) to the Scientists Working for the Federal Government

2010-04-22T22:04:12Z

I recently returned from two weeks of trial in the federal district court in Fresno, on the validity of Endangered Species Act protections for salmon, steelhead, delta smelt, and other fish in California’s Bay-Delta estuary. The plaintiffs (Westlands Water District and other water users) had sought an emergency injunction to prevent implementation of the protections for endangered salmon and steelhead, but the Court denied their motion, concluding that the Plaintiffs had not demonstrated that they were likely to be able to prove that the biological opinion failed to use the best available science, and further concluding that the harm suffered by the commercial fishermen and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe who are defending the biological opinion, was “no less” than that suffered by agricultural communities in the Central Valley. The plaintiffs’ motions to prevent implementation of other protections for endangered species later this spring are still pending before the Court, with a ruling expected in the next several weeks.

What most impressed me at the hearing was the testimony of the government scientists (from NMFS, USFWS, and USBR) who had worked nights and weekends, toiling in near anonymity, to develop these plans to protect and sustain salmon and other endangered fish in the Delta, while attempting to minimize impacts on water supply. They went above and beyond legal requirements by subjecting their work to numerous independent peer reviews. The most recent of these peer reviews – now totaling at least five reviews by outside scientists, which have generally confirmed the analysis and conclusions of these biologists – was conducted by the prestigious National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, which concluded that the protections in the biological opinions generally were “scientifically justified.” They made personal sacrifices in order to be in court for a week or more, so that they could testify in Court about the need for these protections in the imperiled Bay-Delta estuary. They were cross examined for hours by many of the 25 or so lawyers for the water users who attended the trial – most of whom make ten times or more money than they do – and answered questions honestly and with humility. They squared off against experts who were paid up to $350 per hour for their testimony, one of whom will receive as much as $300,000 of ratepayer money for his testimony and work in these cases, far more than any of these government biologists. Despite these seemingly uneven odds, the Court at one point described hearing the testimony of the competing experts as a “prize fight. Because it was blow for blow.”

All too often we think of the federal government as a giant behemoth, populated by nameless, faceless bureaucrats. But this trial reminded me that government is made up of individuals, most of whom are working hard in service of the public – that would be you and me – and with very limited resources. They don’t make the big bucks. They don’t get their names in lights. But these agency biologists and scientists truly try to follow the law and do the right thing for the environment. And without their hard work – issuing permits to reduce air and water pollution, to protect endangered species and wildlife, to sustainably manage our fisheries and wild lands – America would be a heck of a lot worse off.

And that’s why I was so disappointed when lawyers for the plaintiffs accused these government scientists of acting in “bad faith,” of intentionally suppressing science in order to intentionally cause harm to the Plaintiffs, and of acting in concert with the “agency and academic research complex.” “Bad faith” occurs when political appointees personally profit from decisions that are supposed to be made in the public’s interest. “Bad faith” is when science and scientists are suppressed to achieve a more politically expedient result. Cases of bad faith and political interference in scientific decisions do occur, but these biological opinions are not such a case. Quite the opposite: these biological opinions have been reviewed by numerous scientific peer reviews, which have generally validated these endangered species protections. And there has been no evidence whatsoever presented in this case of political interference, of any data or studies that were ignored or suppressed. Such baseless allegations give the legal profession a bad name, and deservedly so in this case.

As an environmental advocate, I disagree frequently with positions taken by the government. Government employees hear my and others’ complaints constantly, and that won’t change. I will continue to advocate for changes to better protect the fish and wildlife in California's Bay-Delta, and to better manage and efficiently use our finite water resources. But I also deeply respect the integrity, hard work, and commitment of the men and women who serve as ecologists, biologists, and scientists for the federal government – for our government. And we simply don’t thank them enough for all of their hard work.

So to all of you, Happy Earth Day, and thank you for helping to protect our Nation's fisheries, public lands, and waters.

National Academy of Sciences Confirms that Protections for Endangered Salmon and Other Species are “Scientifically Justified”

2010-03-20T00:19:36Z

Today, the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council (NRC) publicly released its interim report on the science used in the biological opinions protecting salmon, delta smelt, and other endangered fish in California’s Bay-Delta estuary. The NRC’s report confirms that the agencies used the best available science in developing these biological opinions, finding that these protections are “scientifically justified” and have a “sound conceptual basis,” as Mike Doyle reported yesterday and the Los Angeles Times reported this morning.

The NRC’s conclusion is consistent with the findings of the numerous internal and external peer reviews of the two BO’s and their methodologies, which were conducted both before and after the two opinions were released. These BO’s, together, have 78 separate requirements. Given the complexity of those requirements, the relatively few recommendations for improvements are striking.

It is important to read the NRC review in the context of the scientific and agency reviews of the previous biological opinions. By contrast, those previous BO’s were found to have violated agency procedures and were found not to have incorporated the best available science. Those reviews led a federal court to reject them – leading to these new, and clearly improved, BO’s.

Beyond the specifics of the BO requirements, the NRC also confirmed the impacts that water projects have had on the fisheries in the Bay-Delta, finding that “there is much general evidence that the profound reduction and altered timing of the delta water supply has been part of the reason for the degradation of these species’ habitats”.

Of course, peer reviews are supposed to be critical, and the Bay-Delta is a very complex ecosystem; therefore, the NRC panel did make several recommendations regarding implementation, particularly focused on ensuring that monitoring and adaptive management provisions in the BO’s are implemented. Fortunately, the current implementation of the BO’s requirements is already being driven by careful monitoring, scientific input and adaptive management.

Some water users have argued that these BO’s have failed because delta smelt and salmon haven’t yet recovered after a year or two of implementation. The NRC rejected that notion, concluding that, “[r]eversing or even slowing the declines of the listed species cannot be accomplished immediately.” Indeed, given the three year life cycle of salmon, the salmon that returned in the past few years all migrated to sea before any pumping restrictions were imposed, and have never benefited from these protections.

In developing these biological opinions, the fisheries agencies carefully analyzed the impacts to water supply, and narrowly tailored the pumping and other restrictions to minimize impacts to water supply while still preventing the extinction of the species. There is no question that under the biological opinions, less water can be exported from the Delta estuary than as compared to the record high levels of water exports that occurred under the prior, unlawful biological opinions. But the NRC found that none of the other alternative measures that were presented to the panel would provide equal or greater protection to the species while allowing more water exports.

The NRC’s work is far from complete. In its second report, due in 2011, the NRC is directed to develop recommendations for how best to adaptively manage the Bay-Delta ecosystem, including addressing so-called “other stressors,” and to identify sustainable levels of water exports from the Delta and advise how to best restore and sustain the Delta, which will help inform the Delta Stewardship Council’s Delta Plan and the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. The NRC’s involvement in the Delta should help ensure that sound science is used in these processes to best restore and protect the Delta environment.

Ultimately, California must reduce its dependence on water exports from the Delta. Last November, the California legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger made this a formal State policy, and the NRC’s second report should help the Delta Plan and BDCP to achieve this policy. The best tools to help us get there are investments in the Virtual River of efficiency, water recycling, stormwater capture, and other alternative supplies These water sources are environmentally sustainable, cost-effective and relatively resistant to impacts from climate change. By investing in these tools, we can restore the Delta and its magnificent wildlife, and still meet our water supply needs, so that future generations of Californians will be able to enjoy grilled California salmon, asparagus, and tomatoes, rather than having to choose between them.

The NRC’s interim report lays a foundation for larger efforts to restore the health of the Delta and improve water supplies. The NRC’s report next year should provide even more guidance on how best to adaptively manage the Delta and meet California’s water supply needs for the future.

A bit of good news for California's salmon fishermen

2010-02-11T02:00:38Z

Today, the federal court in Fresno denied a motion to relax pumping restrictions in the Bay-Delta estuary, finding that the restrictions were necessary to protect endangered fish species, and would also benefit salmon and the salmon fishery. The Court also acknowledged that salmon fishermen have faced economic ruin the past two years, as a result of the salmon fishery being shut down.

Delta pumping will continue, but the pumps will be turned down a bit to protect migrating salmon, smelt and other species. Even with salmon pumping restrictions in place last week (before the temporary restraining order), the CVP and SWP were pumping about 14,000 acre feet of water each day – enough to cover about 14,000 football fields with water one foot deep. While pumping levels are likely to be reduced somewhat from those levels, there will still be a lot of water moving through the pump; though as I wrote earlier this week, perhaps not as much as if Westlands had never asked the Court to stop all pumping restrictions for endangered salmon and other species.

Today’s ruling is a bit of good news for salmon, salmon fishermen, and the health of the Bay-Delta estuary. After having sacrificed the past two years, they deserve some good news. Ultimately, as fishermen know (and as Mike Hudson, a commercial salmon fisherman, blogs about here) Endangered Species Act protections in the Delta protect fishing jobs and communities as well as the environment.

The Future of California’s Salmon Fishery in Doubt?

2010-01-05T00:07:36Z

In today’s Sacramento Bee, reporter Matt Weiser writes about the future of California’s fall run Chinook salmon, which forms the backbone of the salmon fishery in California and Oregon.

Unfortunately, the news doesn’t look very good.

2008 set the record for the fewest number of returning fall run Chinook salmon in California’s history. Although experts thought the salmon population would start to rebound in 2009, it’s looking like 2009 could be as bad, or worse, than 2008. And there’s a possibility that salmon fishing could be prohibited in 2010, although it’s still too early to know for sure (we’ll all find out this Spring).

For the past two years, recreational and commercial fishermen have been unable to fish for salmon, as the fishery was closed to allow the population to rebound from these historically low levels. Salmon populations collapsed in 2007, as a result of unsustainable water management in the Central Valley (including record levels of water exported from the Delta and dams blocking salmon spawning habitat) and poor ocean conditions. Fishing businesses across the State, particularly along the Central and Northern California coasts, have been hammered by the closure, from mom and pop bait and tackle shops to recreational fishing guides, from commercial salmon fishermen to the hotels and restaurants that depend on recreational salmon fishermen for their livelihoods.

The State estimated that the salmon fishery closure cost nearly 2,700 people their jobs, and cost than $279M in 2009, with similar impacts in 2008. The fishing industry pegs the numbers much higher. But either way, the numbers don’t tell the story of how the closure affected individual lives and fishing communities. (The LA Times did a nice piece in December about the impacts on Ft. Bragg, a small coastal fishing town a couple hours North of San Francisco, but there hasn’t been much coverage on TV news). All of these folks have sacrificed the past two years to allow these magnificent fish to rebound, so they – and everyone else in California – could go fishing for salmon with their kids, or for their livelihoods, in the future.

In 2008, NRDC warned that unsustainable water management in the Bay-Delta threatened the future of California’s salmon fishery. But as we noted in our report, it doesn’t need to be this way: we can restore the salmon fishery and still meet California’s water needs, by investing in smart, 21st century water solutions like water efficiency, groundwater cleanup, water recycling, and urban stormwater management. That's still true today.

But things have gotten so bad for salmon that the Sac Bee story actually discusses listing the fall run Chinook salmon under the Endangered Species Act. That could be devastating for the State's salmon fishery, not to mention everyone who likes to eat local, wild salmon.

In the early 1990s California’s salmon populations tanked, although not as badly as they have now, and winter and spring run salmon were listed under the Endangered Species Act. But with passage of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (which dedicated more water to remain in-river to protect migrating salmon, improved spawning habitats, and made other operational changes) and the end of the last drought, salmon populations rebounded. Unfortunately, in more recent years, as water exports from the Delta reached record high levels, salmon populations began to shrink, finally collapsing in the past few years.

Let’s hope that the recent changes to state and federal policies in the Delta are enough to bring salmon (and the salmon fishery) back, and to ensure that the fishermen’s sacrifice of the past two years was an investment in our future, not a sacrifice in vain.

2009: California Water In Review (and Hopes for 2010)

2009-12-30T22:10:25Z

New Year’s provides a good opportunity to look back on the past year, and to look forward to the next. Here’s my list of 2009’s Good, Bad and Ugly in terms of California water politics, and what I’m wishing for in 2010.

The Good:

A lot was accomplished in 2009:

New state water policy reform legislation that prioritizes water use efficiency and the Virtual River of modern water supply tools, that reduces reliance on water exports from the Delta, and which includes new protections for the Bay-Delta estuary and its struggling salmon and other native fish populations;
New federal protections for endangered salmon and steelhead in the Bay-Delta, which will also benefit salmon fishermen in California and Oregon in the coming years; and
The release of water down the San Joaquin River for the first time in more than 50 years, as part of the effort to restore the river and its historic salmon fishery.

The Bad:

Despite the good news above, 2009 was a pretty painful year. For salmon fishermen, it was another year when boats were tied up on the docks, people lost their jobs and fishing related industries went out of business. For farmers, it was the third consecutive year of drought, resulting in some farmers, particularly those dependent on federal water supplies in the San Joaquin Valley with junior water rights (like Westlands Water District), having to fallow fields and lay off farm workers. For cities and urban customers, it was a year of tightening belts and learning to live with less water. And for environmentally-conscious food consumers, it was another year without local, wild California salmon on our dinner plates.

The Ugly:

The “fish versus people” myth somehow gained some traction, in spite of the facts showing it isn’t true: despite the fact that drought, not endangered species, caused the vast majority of water supply impacts; despite the fact that California saw record or near-record production of tomatoes and rice in 2009, even with the drought and environmental protections, and good years for many other crops; despite the fact that fishing communities, Delta farmers, and others depend on these environmental laws in the Bay-Delta estuary to sustain their livelihoods.

New Year’s Wishes for 2010

While I’ll keep my resolutions private, I do have three wishes for 2010. I won’t know if Santa has delivered on these wishes until later in the year, although the initial outlook isn’t all that good.

First, I hope that we’ll actually get normal (or above normal) snowpack, rainfall, and runoff in 2010, so there’s more water for fishermen, farmers, cities and the environment. We’re already pretty far behind average for this time of year, suggesting we may have a fourth year of drought next year. That’ll make things tough for everyone. So let’s all hope for rain, snow, sleet, and hail (sorry U.S. Postal Service workers!). Today’s snow survey results aren’t all that promising…

Second, I hope enough salmon return so that we get a salmon fishing season this year. After suffering through two consecutive years of the fishery being closed because of record low numbers of returning salmon, fishing businesses and fishermen are going out of business, parents haven’t been able to take their kids out fishing for salmon, and consumers haven’t been able to enjoy local, wild California salmon. Unfortunately, thus far the numbers of returning salmon hasn’t looked too promising, with some hatcheries reporting even fewer fish than last year’s record low levels. Let’s hope we get enough fish coming back to re-open the fishery, and sustain California’s magnificent salmon runs for future generations to enjoy.

Third, I hope that Californians, Congress, and the media will reject (or continue to reject) the "fish versus farmers" myth, and focus on real solutions to California's water issues that benefit all Californians, like the water supply tools in the Virtual River, instead of trying to take away environmental protections that fishermen, Delta farmers, and others depend on for their livelihood.

Best wishes for the Holiday Season, and Happy New Year to all.

Red Herrings and Delta Smelt

2009-09-03T00:39:12Z

Today's editorial in the Wall Street Journal tries to blame all of the Central Valley's woes on the tiny delta smelt, and on a lawsuit by NRDC, in order to perpetuate myths about the impacts of protecting endangered species in the Bay Delta.

As with all good myths, it starts with a grain of truth - and the truth is, there are real problems in the Central Valley. Some of these problems have been ignored for years: farm workers and disadvantaged communities that lack access to safe drinking water and safe working conditions, and unemployment levels in many Central Valley communities that are far worse than the rest of the State - even in rare wet years when farmers get 100% of their allocations. Those problems have been exacerbated by more recent events - the collapse in dairy prices, the foreclosure crisis and job losses in the construction industry, the global recession, and the past three years of drought.

But rather than addressing the many aspects of these all too real problems, the Journal wants to blame everything on a tiny fish in order to fan the flames of the right wing fantasy of overturning the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Yet the Journal's argument just doesn't hold water.

First, Endangered Species Act protections for delta smelt aren't just about a tiny fish. Nor are those protections only about protecting the Bay Delta estuary, the largest estuary on the west coast of the Americas, home to migratory birds on the Pacific Flyway, to magnificent salmon that migrate past the Golden Gate Bridge through the Delta, and to numerous native fish and wildlife.

No, it's not just about fish - it's about people, too. It's about commercial fishermen like Mike Hudson who depend on the ESA protections the WSJ wants to eliminate (don't take my word for it - read what he says here). Mike and other commercial fishermen in California have been unable to earn their living fishing for salmon for the past two years because our Central Valley salmon populations collapsed, resulting in the closure of the salmon fishery for the first time in the State's history. Delta farmers, commercial fishermen, recreational fishermen, boat salesmen, tackle manufacturers, charter fishing boat operators, fishing guides, hotels and restaurants, and many other hard working, decent people and communities depend on these Endangered Species Act protections in the Delta for their livelihoods. And we can't forget, when tallying the costs of our water woes, that the closure of the salmon fishery resulted in several thousand lost jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in lost income in 2009, and similar numbers in 2008.

Although the WSJ singles out NRDC, we sued the Bush Administration as part of a coalition of sport and commercial fishermen, Tribal members, and conservation groups to stop radical increases in water pumping from the Delta not just to save the tiny delta smelt, but to save the salmon fishery, to save the Delta estuary, and ultimately, to save California's heritage.

Second, eliminating the Endangered Species Act wouldn't eliminate the drought or fallowed fields across the state. As this chart from the State shows (available online here), nearly three quarters of the reduction in water supplies this year is due to drought, not the ESA.

Despite both, many farmers and water districts in the San Joaquin Valley are getting 100% of their water supplies, while those water districts with more junior rights face significant cutbacks and have to purchase more expensive water on the market or pump lesser quality groundwater.

Three years of drought, not the ESA, is driving low water allocations across the State, not just for contractors of the State and federal water projects. It's also why farmers north of the Delta who get water from the federal Central Valley Project, and who are upstream of any pumping restrictions to protect delta smelt, are only getting 40% of their contractual allocations. In addition, some farmers are fallowing their fields because they are selling their water rights for tens of millions of dollars. And although the WSJ and others want to blame all of the unemployment on the ESA, drought, foreclosures, recession, and many other factors are driving unemployment in the Valley.

Ultimately, the recent protections for salmon and delta smelt are necessary to protect the Bay Delta estuary and its endangered fish and wildlife, and the State's multimillion dollar salmon fishery that depends on it. These protections underwent numerous scientific peer reviews and are based on the best available science. "Revisiting" these biological opinions, as the WSJ encourages, is something out of the playbook of the Bush Administration and its war on science - a chance to let the politicians overrule the biologists, so the water projects don't have to play by the rules. Our fish populations, salmon fishermen, and communities across the State are already suffering from the last attempt to "fix" the rules and allow greater pumping from the Delta.

Delta smelt make a convenient scapegoat, but driving smelt and salmon to extinction by eliminating the ESA won't solve the Valley's problems. What's needed is a far more comprehensive program of investing in alternative water supplies like groundwater banks and water recycling, continuing to improve agricultural water use efficiency and practices, developing "solar farms" and new green jobs, and helping people get through these tough, dry years.

California’s salmon (and salmon fishermen) catch a break today

2009-06-18T21:16:29Z

Over the past 8 years of the Bush Administration, politics trumped science to enable water exports to reach unprecedented levels in California, reaping a host of consequences. One of the consequences was that the state's native fish, particularly salmon, were left in bad shape, and as a result, California's salmon fishery has been closed for the past two years, costing hundreds of millions of dollars in economic impacts and thousands of lost jobs. In 2009 alone, the closure has cost the state nearly $270 million and more than 2,600 jobs.

But today, salmon fishermen and lovers caught a break when the House rejected an amendment to a spending bill that would have prohibited protections for California's threatened and endangered salmon populations. This is good news for salmon fishermen, fishing jobs, Tribes, and local economies that have been badly hurt by the fishery closure, as well as everyone who loves wild salmon, whether in our rivers or on our dinner plates. For years, fishermen, conservation groups, Tribes, and businesses have worked together to protect and restore endangered fish like salmon, recognizing that protecting salmon protects healthy rivers, sustainable jobs, and healthy communities.

Today's action in Washington is a reminder of the failures and costs of our current water practices in California, and the need for real solutions, particularly as our third year of drought continues to cause water reductions across the state, which have particularly hurt farmers in the Central Valley. As drought continues to cause low water supplies across the state, this highlights just how important it is to develop long term water solutions that benefit all Californians. Scientifically sound decisions like the salmon biological opinion that this amendment targeted must be part of the foundation for that solution. And while California has made some significant investments in alternative water supplies and win-win solutions, including federal investments from the stimulus bill, it's time for a new, better, smart-water solutions for the 21st century that will help all Californians get the water they need for drinking, fishing and growing our food supply into the future. For instance, a new report from NRDC showed businesses across the state that are already saving money with water efficiency measures.

By making big investments in alternative water supplies like groundwater banking, water recycling and water efficiency, California can sustain its farming, fishing, drinking water supply and economy.

Hopefully, Thursday Will Bring Good News for California's Fishermen, Tribes, Environmentalists, and Everyone who Loves to Eat Fresh, Wild Salmon

2009-06-03T20:31:07Z

On Thursday, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is expected to release its biological opinion (BO) on the effects of the state and federal water projects on threatened and endangered runs of salmon, steelhead, green sturgeon, and killer whales. The biological opinion does not directly assess the impacts of the water projects on fall run Chinook salmon, which is the backbone of the State's salmon fishery (and which are also caught in the fisheries offshore of Oregon, Washington, and even British Columbia). However, the protections for the listed salmon runs (spring run and winter run Chinook) should also help protect the fall run. Because the number of returning fall run salmon collapsed in recent years, the State's salmon fishery has been closed the past two years, costing the State hundreds of millions of dollars and resulting in thousands of lost jobs. Fishermen, environmentalists, and Tribal members are all cautiously optimistic that this BO will help to protect and restore these listed salmon runs and the State's salmon fishery, as well as the human communities that depend on them.

Below I explain what we expect from the new Biological Opinion, as well as how we got here.

What to expect from the new biological opinion:

There's little question that NMFS' BO will be a "jeopardy" opinion, requiring changes to current water project operations to better protect these salmon runs and other listed species. NMFS has already released a draft transmittal letter saying it will be a jeopardy opinion, and in 2007, the federal district court ruled that that continued operations of the state and federal water projects were jeopardizing the species and that greater protections were necessary, but the Court did not order interim relief while this new biological opinion was being prepared.

One of the most important things we expect from this biological opinion is that it will use the best available science and will not be politically manipulated, given this Administration's commitment to sound science. This biological opinion has undergone peer review to help ensure it uses the best available science, and I hope and expect the BO will live up to the President's promise. As discussed in the background section below, that unfortunately was not the case with the earlier 2004 biological opinion that the federal court invalidated.

From the public documents we've seen, and from what NRDC has advocated for in court and in public, we expect that the new biological opinion will require operational changes that better protect salmon and provide them with cold, clean water when they need it. Many of these measures will likely overlap with protections for delta smelt and other species, and some of them will have little or no impacts on water supplies. Some of the key elements we expect include:

Stronger requirements for "carryover storage" in upstream reservoirs, which provide the cold water salmon need to spawn, particularly winter run salmon on the Sacramento River, since these fish can no longer reach their historic spawning habitat above Shasta dam. Yet far from causing draconian water supply costs, these protections can actually help people, since they ensure that we have enough water for people and fish at the end of the year, as a type of drought insurance, and much of this water can subsequently be exported out of the system.
Stronger pumping restrictions in the winter and spring months when salmon are migrating through the Delta, in order to reduce the numbers of fish that are sucked into the pumps and killed, as well as reducing the indirect effects that the massive pumps have on the Delta's hydrology and the ability of salmon to successfully migrate. Many of these restrictions will likely overlap with protections for delta smelt under the existing Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion, since these fish are in the Delta during much of the same time of year, resulting in less additional water supply impacts.
Opening the gates at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam on the Sacramento River year round, once a new pumping plant is constructed in the next few years, so that salmon and green sturgeon can migrate safely past the dam year round. The Administration's stimulus funding for the pumping plant project is a win-win solution that would result in little or no water supply impacts from this measure, and it demonstrates what is possible when fishermen, environmentalists, and farmers work together on solutions.
Requiring more water flowing down the San Joaquin River and its tributaries at certain times of year, in order to enable steelhead to successfully migrate and spawn in these rivers. Not only will this measure help protect and restore existing steelhead (and fall run salmon), but it also should help ensure the success of the San Joaquin River Restoration Program, which will begin restoring spring run salmon to the river in 2012.
Additional closures of the Delta Cross Channel gates when salmon are migrating, as recent studies have shown that salmon survival increases by approximately 50% when gates are closed.

There's no question that these measures will have some water supply impacts, particularly as compared to the unprecedented levels of exports permitted under Water Rights Decision 1641 in the early part of this decade (before the drought dramatically reduced water exports). But we must also remember that, as the Delta Vision Strategic Plan recognized, "The flow and water quality standards of the Water Board's Decision 1641 (D-1641) are increasingly recognized as inadequate," resulting in Delta Vision's recommendation that California provide more water for salmon and other fish at certain times of the year. In addition, the water supply impacts may be mitigated in part by technological fixes like the Red Bluff pumping plant, and there won't be additional impacts for the measures that overlap with protections for delta smelt.

Ultimately, California can restore and protect salmon, the salmon fishery, and the communities that depend on healthy salmon runs, while also meeting the water needs for agricultural and urban communities. A key part of that solution is by investing in the Virtual River of alternative water supplies like conservation, water recycling, and improved groundwater banking, which was also a key recommendation of the Delta Vision Strategic Plan.

Background: How did we get here?

In 2004, NRDC and a coalition of sport and commercial fishermen, environmental groups, and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe sued to invalidate the NMFS' prior biological opinion on salmon. That plan concluded that weaker protections for salmon and increased water exports above the historically high levels of recent years would not jeopardize salmon. We were also greatly concerned that the science in that 2004 BO was politically manipulated, resulting in a no-jeopardy opinion in 2004. Nineteen members of Congress demanded an investigation, and in 2005, the Inspector General reported that NMFS had violated its own procedures is preparing the biological opinion and "undermin[ed] the integrity of the process."

In 2007, the federal district court agreed with NRDC and our co-plaintiffs, and ruled that the biological opinion violated the Endangered Species Act because it failed to consider the impacts of climate change, lacked adequate protection for the species, and failed to use the best available science. As a result, the Court ordered that NMFS prepare a new biological opinion. That is the biological opinion that is due out on Thursday.

In the early part of this decade, water exports from the Delta reached unprecedented levels. Starting around the same time, however, the numbers of returning salmon began declining rapidly, and over the past two years California's salmon fishery has been completely shut down, for the first time in the State's history. This year's closure is estimated to cost the State $279M and 2,690 jobs. NMFS has previously found that the fishery closure is a result of poor ocean conditions in conjunction with poor conditions in our rivers and the Delta, and found that the best way to protect the fishery in the long run is to restore the spring and winter runs back to health, so that poor ocean conditions won't shut down the fishery (those other runs were less affected, and this diversity of life histories is what has sustained salmon for millenia).

NMFS has called this "death by a thousand cuts," and as I blogged previously, while ocean conditions may have provided the knockout punch for salmon, it was the ten rounds of body blows from poor conditions in our rivers that made the knockout blow possible. And as I also noted in that post, recent studies are finding that far fewer salmon survive the migration down the Sacramento River than survive the migration past all the dams on the Columbia River, suggesting that the health of our rivers and the Delta is a critical cause of the salmon declines.

Because protecting and restoring our rivers and the Delta is critical to restoring the State's salmon fishery, and the human communities that depend on healthy, abundant salmon populations, fishermen, tribal members, and conservationists are all anxiously awaiting tomorrow's announcement.

California determines delta smelt is endangered - and then seeks to reduce its protections?

2009-05-08T23:29:32Z

The tiny endangered delta smelt has become a popular target for anger over low water allocations this year. It's not a charismatic species - not many people love a three inch long fish that smells like cucumber and lives only in the Bay-Delta estuary. But there are farmers and fishermen who support protecting the delta smelt, because they realize that protecting the smelt protects their economic interests. NRDC has sought to protect delta smelt in order to protect the estuary and its salmon, migratory birds, and wonderful wildlife, as well as to sustain farmers, fishermen, and all of us who depend on healthy, clean drinking water.

Delta smelt are a native fish that were historically one of the most abundant fish in the Bay-Delta estuary, but the 2008 survey results declined to the lowest levels ever recorded. Earlier this year, the California Fish and Game Commission voted to list delta smelt as endangered, having found that "the delta smelt population in California has declined significantly since its listing as threatened and the species' abundance is now extremely low." Populations of longfin smelt, striped bass, steelhead, salmon, and many other species that live in, or migrate through, the Delta have also declined precipitously in recent years.

Although many people blame the delta smelt for low water supplies this year, the Department of Water Resources has acknowledged that it is drought, not the Endangered Species Act, that are causing the low water allocations, and without these protections allocations might increase by 5%. Since I last blogged about agricultural water supplies in the Central Valley, the Bureau of Reclamation has increased water allocations, resulting in nearly 4 million acre feet of water estimated to be delivered to farmers in the Sacramento and Central Valleys this year. There's no question that this is still going to be a tough year for many growers, and that all of us have to conserve water even more than usual this year, but the delta smelt are a symptom, not the cause, of California's water woes.

In 2007, after exhaustive court hearings on delta smelt and the water projects, the federal district court judge concluded that the best available science demonstrated that "current operations of the CVP and SWP could result 'in irreparable harm' by imminently threatening the continued existence of the Delta smelt and adversely modifying its designated critical habitat," and that operations are "increasing risk to the survival and recovery of the Delta smelt and adversely modifying its critical habitat." Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Court ordered interim protections for delta smelt while a new BO was prepared.

The new delta smelt BO came out in December 2008, and it largely continues the delta smelt protections in the Court's 2007 order, while also adding two new measures: restoring wetland habitat, and restoring flows for fish in the fall months of wet years. The BO underwent 3 separate peer reviews to ensure it was based on the best available science. The fall flows in particular are based on peer reviewed science, and they implement recommendation 3.4.4 of the Delta Vision Strategic Plan. Because 2009 is a dry year, the fall flows won't be implemented this year, and probably won't be implemented next year.

Yet today the Department of Water Resources asked the federal government to reduce protections for delta smelt. What gives?

It seems as though DWR forgot that the court proceedings in 2007 ever happened, as the State seems to argue that it is the other stressors in the Bay Delta estuary - water pollution, habitat reduction, invasive species, and climate change - that are the cause of the delta smelt decline.

No one disputes that in order to recover the species, we are going to have to address these other stressors. But the peer reviewed science in the 2008 delta smelt biological opinion - consistent with the Court's findings in 2007 - demonstrates that the operations of the state and federal water projects cause some of the biggest impacts on delta smelt. The huge pumps that export water from the delta are so powerful that they effectively make water in the Delta run upstream towards the pumps, sucking the tiny delta smelt (and salmon, striped bass, and other species) into the giant export pumps. In addition to these more obvious direct effects, some of the most important impacts may be indirect, as the water exports cause dramatic changes in the hydrodynamics and water quality in the estuary, dramatically reducing the amount of available habitat for delta smelt.

NRDC and The Bay Institute today sent this letter to the Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Reclamation, urging them to continue implementing the existing BO, instead of starting to create a new BO less than 6 months after this one was done.

It's very disappointing to see the State asking the federal government to reduce protections for delta smelt, and undermining the recommendations of the Governor's Delta Vision Strategic Plan. We're very concerned that the State seems to be cherry-picking recommendations from the Strategic Plan. It is just these kinds of decisions that suggest a need to reform governance of the water projects, so that they are managed for the interests of all Californians, not just the project contractors.

Today's action by the State certainly won't help the smelt, and probably won't help water supplies this year, either. But it will exacerbate conflict and takes a step away from building a comprehensive solution, based on the Delta Vision Strategic Plan, that we can all support.

Protecting delta smelt - Will Water Still Come Out of the Tap?

2008-12-16T00:15:59Z

Today, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued its long-awaited biological opinion on delta smelt. The opinion concludes that we must restrict water exports from the Delta to prevent the extinction of the delta smelt. While this tiny fish is perhaps not the most charismatic of species, it is a bellweather of the health of the estuary. The smelt's dramatic decline, from one of the most abundant fish species in the Delta to the lowest levels on record in recent years, is driven in part by the water projects, particularly the record levels of water exported from the Delta over the past decade (five of the six highest levels of export in the history of the water projects occurred in the past decade). And the decline of the delta smelt echoes the decline of numerous other species that live and migrate through the Delta, including longfin smelt, steelhead, chinook salmon, and sturgeon.

Restricting water exports from the Delta is a critical component of a sustainable solution to the Delta, and the protections in the biological opinion echo the recommendations of Governor Schwarzenegger's Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force, which found that existing water standards in the Delta "are increasingly recognized as inadequate" (p. 83) and that greater freshwater flows, particularly in the Spring and Fall months, are necessary to restore the health of the estuary and achieve the co-equal goals of water supply reliability and ecosystem health (pp. 83-88). The Governor's Task Force called specifically for flow protections in the fall months that are very similar to those in the biological opinion. And the biological opinion actually increased the amount of water that could be pumped in some months as compared with the existing court rules.

We agree with Delta Vision that a comprehensive solution is needed, one which restricts water project operations to a sustainable level, while investing in alternative water supply sources, restoring water quality and habitat, and reforming the agencies that govern the delta and the state and federal water projects. But restricting water exports to a sustainable level is a critical component of a comprehensive solution; such a solution, regardless of whether it includes a peripheral canal, is not a silver bullet that will somehow allow exports to continue unabated. It is time to have a realistic conversation about a peripheral canal, recognizing that in order to operate such a facility in a sustainable manner, it is unlikely that it would yield substantially greater exports. The days of ever-increasing amounts of water exported from the Delta appear to be over.

Fishermen, farmers, and communities are all suffering from the failure to sustainably manage the Delta, particularly water exports from the Delta. There is no question that there will be some hardships as a result, although its not clear how much. DWR's own data released today suggests that complying with the protections in the Biological Opinion will have similar impacts to the existing court rules in the most likely scenario. In addition, the graphic below shows that California can meet its water supply needs while also protecting the environment by investing in alternative water supply sources like conservation, wastewater recycling, and low impact design that captures stormwater.

As California transitions from its 20th century water policy to a 21st Century water policy that invests in these alternative sources of supply, it is critical that the State and federal governments help those who are most affected, whether they be fishermen who lost their entire salmon fishing season, or farmworkers who can't find work.

Ultimately, as this op-ed argues, protecting the delta smelt protects farmers and fishermen, too. California can meet the challenge of protecting the environment and water supply. We hope that tomorrow's Delta Vision Committee meeting will be another step towards a visionary, bold, 21st century water plan that solves the challenge in the Delta. It couldn't come a moment too soon.