Help Stop the Assault on Salmon!

F

Flutterby

Active member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
RO Number
14378
Messages
9,320
By CSPA's Conservation Director John Beuttler

"The Southern Central Valley Ag Lobby has unleashed an unprecedented assault on Central Valley salmon barely clinging to existence that are to be protected under the Endangered Species Act. They are applying intense political pressure on multiple governmental targets to compel the National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS) to change their Biological Opinion on Sacramento River winter-run salmon so they can obtain increased water diversions from the Delta.

NOAA and NMFS find themselves under siege from California's corporate agriculture sector. Their first overt effort came from Valley democratic Congressman Devin Nunes who made a number of unsubstantiated claims on the floor of the House of Representatives in a nearly successful bid to remove funding from NMFS budget that would have prevented them from implementing this biological opinion.

Reliable information from Washington, DC has advised that renewed attacks aimed at Congress and key federal agencies are underway to compel amending the opinion so more water can be exported out of the Delta to these corporate growers.

CSPA has done its part. We have written letters of support to the entire California Congressional Delegation and to the various heads of the Department of the Interior, NOAA and NMFS. We're asking our friends in other fisheries advocacy groups to do the same.

Now it is your turn to help put an end to this attack on our public owned fishery resources. Make your voice heard loud and clear! We need hundreds of letters of private citizens just like you to our congressional representatives telling them that this biological opinion is essential if we are to restore salmon in the Central Valley. It's easy and three of the five letters can be sent electronically.

For more information on Big Ag's attempt to influence Congress and the federal agencies, see CSPA's Hot Button Issue: Salazar's visit and Nunes' rhetoric"
 
While there is a need to protect the existing population as well as inhance salmon numbers, water is a fundimental need of not only "Big Ag," but all farmers and ranchers. Agriculture like most all industry is driven by the consumer. In the case of California this local industry has the largest most efficient output in the world. Leading all other regions in quality, tonnage and veriety output. Tens of thousands of jobs throughout the state and country are directly supported by the foundation of agricultures production. As I said in my opening sentence, we must do all we can to turn around the declining salmon population, but to do so we need the resources that are tied to agriculture. Catch 22? Perhaps. But try solving the problem on an empty stomack. I suggest that this evening before dinner, you print and sign the petition, place it on a platter and serve it to your family for dinner. Bon Apetite!

LDK
Sailor,
Veteran,
Mobster,
 
Thanks for sharing your point of view. We are not anti farmer on this forum. And we do NOT have to choose one or the other. If more water is diverted from the Delta, Delta farming will be negatively impacted as well as the salmon. The only catch 22 is that all of the political power is had my the southern portion of this state, not just Agribusiness. They don't care about anything but their own selfish interests and want to rape northern California of all of its water without impunity. We cannot allow this happen!
 
As perhaps the most junior member of this forum I am pleased to here that "We are not anti farmer on this forum." I hope that includes farm's from across this fine state and nation. With that said, I feel I must remind you that the water in the Delta is no more the property of the Delta, its farmers, its residents, or special interests, no more than those who live in the Sierra/Shasta/Lassen mountian ranges from which most if not all of the Delta water originates. The water is a natural resource who's benifits are managed by the State and Federal governments. If political power rests in one portion of the state or another so be it, the water belongs to Sothern Cal as much as it belongs to the Delta, the Mountians, Valleys and Deserts. If the south has "their own selfish interests" perhaps they "want to rape northern California" because some here are unwilling to share. Selfish, from whos point of view?

Bon Apetite
 
Show be one drop of mountain water, which naturally goes through the Delta, going naturally to southern California. The water diversion is theft, blame and simple theft. And to add insult to injury, we NorCal taxpayers subsidize the costs of diverting our water to SoCal. They should be paying us a premium for any water instead of being subsidized by us. Then other options such as desalinization would become a better alternative----better for everyone!

Leave NorCal water in NorCal and let it flow through the Delta as Mother Nature intended. SoCal was created as a desert and should not have green lawns, millions of acres in golf courses and water running down the street gutters.
 
My reference to where the delta water originates ie."Sierras/Lassen/Shasta mountians" was obviously an ill fated attempt to demonstrate to you that the water passes though many areas and no single area can clam ownership. You bring up nature and what happens "naturally," to that point I will pose to you the fact that the Delta is no more natural today than Cherrios in a box are natural oats. Nor is our hiway system, our electric grid, the houses we live in or the Delta levey system or the pumps that pump water to and from the man made islands in the Delta. I could go further in this direction but won't. Quite simply the "natural" card does not play. Nor does the "SoCal was created as a desert." Facts show that just a few thousand years ago (that would be after creation and before present) that area was teaming with veg life, enough to support giant criters of every discription. All that has ended with climatic change. Some it has been said believe it was brought on by SoCals lax industrial regulations and overwatering policies, we may never know for certian. The exact cause is still in debate. OK, lets not overlook the "NorCal taxpayers" who by the way were happy to use SoCal tax dollars "to subsidize" the original construction and recent upgrade of the Delta levey system. Last time I looked, SoCal and Norcal are still connected, all be it by MidCal. To the "millions of acres in golf courses" I can only say, they are wonderful in the winter time.

Bon Aptite
 
I'm going to stay on the sidelines of this "discussion" but I think that many of us Deltaphiles feel that traditionally, say the last hundred years or so, water has flowed from the mountains and thru the Delta which has allowed California to be host to one of the greatest producing salmon runs on the West Coast, provided recreational opportunities for many and has provided water for farmers.

Over the past 5 or 6 years, water exports, flowing south, from the Delta have increased from 4 billion to 6.5 billion. At the same time, our once great salmon runs have dwindled, salinity levels have increased in the Delta and new obstacles to recreation boating (The projected Two Gates project is one) have been created. I suspect that new technologies have been developed that would allow increased farm production with less or the same quantity of water. Perhaps changes in the type of crops grown could also be introduced.

It seems as if current policies allow some farmers or farm districts to purchase water at a reduced rate and then resell it at higher rates. I don't think that's fair, nor do I think that farmers should be squeezed out of business, but just as truckers have had to add catalytic converters to their power plants, consumers have been forced to cut back on usage, I think the farmers should also step up to the plate and embrace some new technology. I also believe that new residential developments should be reviewed to determine where they will get their water from. We cannot all continue to drink from the same well without wholesale changes to our wildlife and landscape.

I believe it was you LDK that invited Bill wells down to observe your farming practices and to learn your side of the story. I am envious of him and hope that he does just that and writes an informative article about it. In the meantime, I'm going to have to side with letting the water flow through the Delta rather than diverting ever increasing flow to the south and Agribusiness.
 
Bill,

First let me say that I am not the person you are referring to, I do not know Bill Wells. The California delegation of our family is nolonger in or directly connected to agriculture other than the fact we still enjoy to eat.

You say that "It seems as if current policies allow some farmers or farm districts to purchase water at a reduced rate and then resell it at higher rates." I beleive a more correct statement would be: Current policies allow for Water Districts to buy water and resell it at a higher rate. When discussing water it is important to realize that much of the state is divided up into Water Districts. Farming areas do indeed have names, and sometimes the Water Districts mirror the same names and visa versa and that may cause some confusion. The fact is, Water Districts do buy and sell water to farmers, but also to all types of industry in addition to communities as well. These districts must operate under State and Federal regulations and it is these regs in part that set price. It is in nearly all cases the responsibility of the Districts thru some Federal and State funding to build and maintian the systems necessary to deliver the product. In some cases districts operate hydro electric facilities and sell electricity in additon to water. It should not suprise anyone that water and electricity are sold for a profit as it is that profit that helps fund the operation.

As for the review of new development: It should be known that State law requires that during the planning stages of any development, commercial, industrial or residential a process be imployed to determine and mitigate the enviromental impact the applicants project will pose. As to not confuse anyone, it is called an "Enviromental Impact Report," conducted by a third neutral party or parties and paid for by the developer. To what degree of success these processess achieve, I suppose one must look at them case by case. But the process does exist and has for many years.

As for "technology" agriculture has long been at the fore front and will continue to grow new and different products thru ever changing means.

You are correct when you say "We cannot all continue to drink from the same well without wholesale changes to our wildlife and landscape." Absolutly, we must all make change.

In closing let me say that I bought my first boat at age 13 and have had one or more boats at any given time since. Presently we keep a sail boat in Benica. So I am familiar with recreational boating and have been for the past 47. I have enjoyed all it's pleasures and endured its heartaches as well. I also know that in order for man and society to prosper we must work before play and without food we can enjoy neither.

Bon Apetite
 
I am glad to see that people are worried about the farmers of subsidized crops and ranchers, maybe they would like to also worry for the "farmers" who harvest from the ocean, the whole North Coast, from Bodega to Crescent City have been devastated by the Salmon crash, not many people seem to worry much about that.

Windvane
 
quote:
Originally posted by LDK

You are correct when you say "We cannot all continue to drink from the same well without wholesale changes to our wildlife and landscape." Absolutly, we must all make change.

I also know that in order for man and society to prosper we must work before play and without food we can enjoy neither.

Bon Apetite

Click to expand...


LDK,

Sorry for the confusion, you write very similarly to someone that wrote a letter to Bill Wells in the Delta Yachtsman last month.

I am of course familiar with Environmental Impact Reports. I do not think enough credence is given to the value of the Delta and I'm sorry, but I too think that Southern California should find their own source of water before continuing to rape the Delta. Desalination is very possible and would allow them to continue their lifestyle without decimating the ecosystems of Northern California. I also think that we must examine the crops that are being grown. The Klamath Valley is a perfect example of poor choice ... we are growing potatoes in what is essentially a high desert that has been made arable by damning the Klamath River and decimating their salmon runs.

We all must eat, and that includes salmon fishermen and those that make their living from the sea. I prefer to preserve that natural flow of nature such as our ecosystems and natural fish runs instead of farming in arid areas at the expense of everything else.
 
Bill,

Based on your this last comment you have moved away from your earlier statement: "We cannot all continue to drink from the same well without wholesale changes to our wildlife and landscape."

In addition I don't understand the reference to "natural flow of nature." Where does this "natural flow of nature" begin? At what point in history would you placed a mark on the calendar and declared the "natural flow of nature" to exist. I can't imagine that mark in time could be struck today. Was it just before we began to dam the streams and rivers in an effort to control and conserve spring run off and save it for the summer months when it could be utilized for irrigation, koolaid for children and adults, and the flushing of the delta? Or did the "natural flow of nature" begin when deep water channel was constructed? Perhaps it was when your local marina was built. The fact is there is nothing is natural about the Delta, not the waterways nor the topography. A hundred years or so years ago, downtown Sacramento was known to flood as well as the entire delta region during high spring run offs. Today some talk about salt intursion, years ago before dams allowed us to hold back water and provide flow into the Delta during the summer months the river had little water to fight back the salty intrusion on a flood tide and a salty flood tide ran far into the Delta. Wait, I've got it, it was just before we began raising and planting salmon in the rivers. Am I right?
 
quote:
Originally posted by LDK

Bill,

Based on your this last comment you have moved away from your earlier statement: "We cannot all continue to drink from the same well without wholesale changes to our wildlife and landscape."

In addition I don't understand the reference to "natural flow of nature." Where does this "natural flow of nature" begin? At what point in history would you placed a mark on the calendar and declared the "natural flow of nature" to exist. Wait, I've got it, it was just before we began raising and planting salmon in the rivers. Am I right?

Click to expand...


LDK,

I haven't changed my position at all. We cannot continue to expand the number of drinkers from the same well without wholesale change. I am not willing to embrace that change when other, better alternatives exist.

I am well aware of the the progression of Delta construction and it would be difficult to draw an exact mark on the calendar. Rather than splitting hairs, I think I would use a more practical measure of time. There was a time when there was excess water flowing through the Delta that could be siphoned off without greatly affecting the ecosystem.

Salmon have existed in the Sacramento River system far longer than man and our development. Hatcheries and fish planting began because our construction started to affect the natural fish runs as we created barriers to the fish returning and they worked moderately well when there was fresh, cool water flowing through the Delta to the ocean. Now, due to various reasons, they are cutting back the hatchery programs in addition to exporting far more water from the Delta.

I think the mark should be drawn when we had sustainable fish runs, when the Delta smelt existed in sufficient numbers to support a healthy ecosystem and our wildlife was flourishing.

We have exceeded the amount of water that can be safely exported and it is time to draw the line, back up and draw the line again to where our vital salmon runs survive. Vegetable production, country clubs and further expansion of the housing market do not justify the ruination of our vast and wonderful Delta waterways.

Blue Skies,
Dave
 
DAVE,

I apologise for the name (Bill) error.

Happy boating, keep one eye on the depth finder and enjoy.

Bon Apetite
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top