7-5-09

 
7-5-09
Modesto Bee
Hagerty: 600 miles of blight from Lassen to the Bay...Dick Hagerty
http://www.modbee.com/opinion/community/v-print/story/770498.html
How do you spell "blight?"
Out here in Oakdale we spell it TANC.
Much has been written recently about the planned invasion of Northern California by the juggernaut known as the Transmission Agency of Northern California.
A partnership of five of the 15 utility districts and cities within the agency proposes to install 600 miles of menacing power lines across our landscape.
Now, you may think that my reaction is a typical NIMBY -- that is, "not in my back yard."
Well, you are close. Actually it is NIMFY, because these infernal lines are proposed to run right across my front yard.
My home sits on a hill, looking east to the distant mountains of Yosemite. When we have visitors I point to the horizon and say, "Look just to the right of the big oak tree and you will see Yosemite." Now it will be more like "Look just through the third tower, under the lines, and hopefully you can make out the mountains."
We live next to Highway 108/120, which proudly has signs identifying this route as the "North Yosemite Highway." It meanders through some very interesting country, including Lover's Leap, oak groves, some incredible geological strata, and lots of 160-year-old stone fences erected by Chinese workers after the Gold Rush.
Yep, TANC proposes marching right down 20 miles of this scenic route to the Sierra. Perhaps we can change the signs to read "Welcome to the Pole Line Pike."
The proposed lines will cross through Del Rio Country Club homes, down the Stanislaus River, even over the home of one Stanislaus County supervisor.
Who was responsible for this ill-conceived plan? My 5-year-old grandson could have drawn a better map with his Crayolas.
Incredibly, there was no public notice of this plan until the absolute last days of the public input period. A concerted howl from folks all across Northern California caused the input period to be extended, but the plan is still on the drawing board. There is belated talk of adjusting lines and routes. We wonder why they waited for the complaints before making some reasonable adjustments.
In fact, the better question: Why do we need 600 miles of "ugly" along any routes in Northern California?
In my 30-year career as a real estate developer, never once was I allowed to place a utility line above ground. The absolute, inviolable rule: "Bury the lines, or forget your project."
Yet, these folks have decided that is too expensive and difficult to go underground, so 600 miles of blight is on their agenda. (This from the same public utility mentality that brought you a dam and an artificial lake in a national park near you.)
There is now a glimmer of hope on the horizon, however. After recent public hearings, news articles and editorials, and perhaps some serious soul searching, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District has decided to withdraw from the project. SMUD represents 35 percent of the entire project investment, and this will be a major blow to those remaining.
We can only hope that the things that SMUD has seen to enlighten them will soon become apparent to the other players, including our own Modesto Irrigation District.
Fresno Bee
Fresno ranked greenest in Valley...Mark Grossi
http://www.fresnobee.com/local/v-print/story/1515043.html
Out of 100 Central Valley cities, Fresno has the greenest ideas for growth over the next three decades, says a groundbreaking study by the University of California at Davis.
But Fresno still may not be able to protect land, water and air from explosive growth, says lead author Mark Lubell. He doubts other cities will have much luck either. Green policies still could be pushed aside for pollution-causing sprawl that earns more money for city treasuries.
"The status quo is very difficult to derail," said Lubell, an associate professor of environmental science and policy at UC Davis. "Cities need money. A sprawl-oriented growth pattern raises income from sales tax and development fees."
His suggestion: Consider revising Proposition 13, the property tax limit passed more than 30 years ago. He said one way cities compensated for the loss of income was by allowing more development at the edge of town, where businesses found cheap property and a growing base of customers.
The longer commutes created by sprawl generated more air pollution and greenhouse gases in one of the nation's dirtiest air basins.
These issues soon will become more important, Lubell said. The Central Valley -- which includes the San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys -- is forecast to expand from 7 million to 12 million residents by 2040, making it one of the fastest-growing places in America. For the last 18 months, Lubell and a team of researchers looked at Central Valley cities to see whether they are preparing for sustainable growth. In the study, sustainable growth refers to such factors as air quality, ground-water recharge, high-density residential land use and renewable energy sources, such as solar.
The UC Davis study, published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Planning Association, is considered by planners and researchers to be the first serious attempt to rank these growth policies among the region's 100 incorporated cities.
Fresno seems best prepared, the study showed. The city has the state's top waste-recycling program, an emphasis on clean-fuel vehicles and an idea for a vast environmentally friendly development on the southeast flank.
Lubell said a revamped Prop. 13 might bring in enough income to soften the debate over the need for more money. Fresno and other cities could fill in downtown gaps, provide better transit to get people out of their cars and promote communities where people walk to stores.
Even if Prop. 13 remains untouched, Central Valley cities still should adopt green-growth policies, Lubell said. Look to Fresno, Sacramento and other top-ranked cities in the study for ideas, he said.
Why are these cities so progressive? These bigger cities are trying to fix decades of planning mistakes, he said. By using more progressive planning policies, smaller, lower-ranked cities could skip those mistakes, Lubell said.
To determine the rankings, researchers assigned numeric values to green growth policies relating to land use, zoning, transportation, pollution prevention, energy conservation and economic development. Cities were given points for their policies and commitments to green growth.
Fresno ranked highest, primarily on the strength of two initiatives -- Fresno Green, which links the economic goals to cleaning the environment, and the Southeast Growth Area, which is targeted to absorb at least 20% of city growth in the next two decades.
Fresno also gets credit for a solar energy farm at Fresno Yosemite International Airport and the successful recycling to divert wastes from landfills.
Keith Berthold, Fresno's interim planning director, said the Southeast Growth Area is envisioned with a massive network of trails, open space, compact growth and viable transit options. The area could surpass the 2020 state goals of greenhouse gas reduction and become a leader in California. "We think we can reduce ozone and particulate matter by one half in this area," he said. "These will be walkable, livable neighborhoods."
Council Member Henry T. Perea said the UC study is vindication of hard work officials have done to clean up Fresno, which has had a reputation for bad air and a failing downtown.
Visalia was fourth in the rankings, behind Sacramento and Davis. Visalia is known for a robust and walkable downtown, which has live entertainment, restaurants and businesses.
Fred Brusuelas, city planner and assistant community development director, said the city's plan for the southeast quadrant will include six small communities with central business areas where people can walk to coffee shops or businesses.
He said the city wants to harvest stormwater in the area by keeping it in a small creek and directing it to grassy, open areas where it can seep into the ground.
"We don't want to put it in a storm drainage line and move it to another part of the city," he said. "We want it to percolate into the ground and increase the underground water table in that area."
Researcher Lubell said cities must put such environmental approaches on an equal footing with economic and social values, even through tough economic times.
"With this research, we're hoping to spark a commitment to sustainable planning," he said. "So often when there are budget problems, green policies are viewed as boutique polices. So they are the first things that go away."
Fresno air base goes solar
Guard energy project is first of its kind in the U.S....Bethany Clough 
http://www.fresnobee.com/business/v-print/story/1515011.html
The new solar panels on rooftops at the California Air National Guard base in Fresno are a first for any air guard base nationwide, but they won't be the last.
Military and solar company representatives expect to see more solar projects on air guard bases -- and all types of military bases -- across the country.
A solar company recently finished installing 3,819 solar panels at the Fresno air guard base, home to the 144th Fighter Wing. The 660-kilowatt system was built on three newly constructed carports and a rooftop at the McKinley Avenue base.
The system provides about one-third of the base's power, saving about $100,000 a year, officials said.
For several years, the Air National Guard has focused on renewable energy and other energy-saving techniques, said Lisa A. Cutts, a base civil engineer.
When the guard's parent organization in Washington, D.C., offered up funding for such a project, Cutts jumped at the chance, saying Fresno's sunny sky would be the perfect place for the air guard to debut the panels.
"We're kind of the guinea pig for the guard," she said.
The project was installed by San Francisco-based Akeena Solar, which has an office in Clovis. It was completed in phases, starting in 2006 and finished this year.
It cost about $6 million and covers almost 40,000 square feet.
The installation is eligible to receive an estimated $1.1 million rebate from the California Solar Initiative.
Unlike some other projects in which the solar company owns the panels and leases them to the location, the air guard owns the panels, said base vice commander Col. Ryan Orian.
Some of the panels were installed on the avionics building, and three carports were built to hold the other panels.
"It's a great deal for the base members," Orian said. "They've got a place to park in the shade."
About 380 people work at the base on weekdays, with about 1,000 participating in drills on the weekends. The carports also can be used for shade during events like picnics with families.
Dust must occasionally be washed off the panels, a chore that can be turned into a training exercise for the on-base fire station, Cutts said.
Akeena CEO Barry Cinnamon said his company has done several projects at military bases, although this is the first air guard project, according to the guard. He expects to do more.
The military helped speed the development of solar technology along with the space industry, he said, noting that satellites are powered by solar panels. Using it on rooftops is a natural next step for the military, he said.
"Because the military has so many buildings and facilities, and obviously there's a lot of incentive with the federal government to put renewable technologies to work, it's turning out to be a pretty good size market," he said.
Using solar power goes hand in hand with national security, said Lt. Col. John Cotter.
"It will reduce our dependence on foreign energy," he said.
An air guard base in Toledo, Ohio, became the second air guard base to do a solar project, that one slightly larger than Fresno's. And Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada has a massive 70,000-solar-panel producing 14 megawatts a year.
The Fresno 660-kilowatt air guard project is not as big as many local projects.
Fresno Yosemite International Airport has a solar project producing 4.2 megawatts a year. California State University, Fresno, has a 1.2-megawatt solar power system that is among the largest at any U.S. university. And P-R Farms, Del Monte Foods and Paramount Farms all have solar arrays producing more than 1 megawatt a year.
Fresno meeting to discuss medical school for Valley...Barbara Anderson
http://www.fresnobee.com/local/v-print/story/1515020.html
Fresno County residents will have a chance to offer ideas and suggestions about plans for a medical school in Merced at a meeting Tuesday evening.
The meeting at Fresno State's Satellite Student Union is the first of nine organized by the Valley Coalition for UC Merced Medical Center to share information about the medical school plans.
"Our intent is to do a listening tour and get feedback from residents of the Valley on this medical school," said Lynn Forhan, a Fresno businesswoman and community leader who is co-chair of the coalition.
The drive for the medical school at the University of California at Merced needs continued support from Valley residents, Forhan said.
Money for the school is an issue, she said. The coalition recognized the state's financial difficulties when it supported a phased approach to the medical school earlier this year, Forhan said.
The coalition supports recommendations for creating a pre-baccalaureate bio-medical track that would begin in 2010, she said. It also endorses the creation of a branch campus of the UC Davis medical school to be established as part of the UC Merced medical school.
It supports working in tandem with the UCSF-Fresno Medical Education Program, Forhan said.
But the coalition deviates on the timeline for a full medical school from that recommended by the Washington Advisory Group, which was hired by the university to help with planning. The group proposed a completed medical school by 2020. The Valley coalition is pushing for an independent, fully accredited medical school in Merced by 2015, Forhan said.
"We have a crisis," she said. "We have a very serious physician shortage."
The Valley Coalition formed in February 2008 at the urging of Reps. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, and Dennis Cardoza, D-Merced. More than 200 elected officials, health-care providers, community leaders and citizens joined to rally support for the medical school.
In February, the coalition received a $147,000 grant from The California Endowment for outreach, Forhan said.
The coalition hopes to broaden its support base through the nine community meetings, she said. It plans to present a report detailing the Valley support for the school to the state Legislature, the UC Regents and the UC Office of the President.
"The Valley is so wanting this medical school," Forhan said.
Canal plan upsets delta farmers...Mike Taugher, Contra Costa Times
http://www.fresnobee.com/1072/v-print/story/1515010.html
CLARKSBURG -- Chuck Baker grows pears on land his family has worked since 1851 and has a farmer's sensitivity to the plagues of modern agriculture -- pesticide regulations, the intrusive hand of federal regulators, the threat to private property posed by wetlands restoration -- and, most of all, the need for water.
So, he sympathizes with San Joaquin Valley farmers who are short of water this year, but he also has little patience for the argument being trumpeted by Valley politicians: that the problems confronted by Valley farmers can be reduced to the simple equation of "fish versus farmers."
"I don't think we'd be in this situation if they paid any attention to their own rules," Baker said. "They're the ones that ruined the fish. Not me, not me who's been irrigating the same piece of land for 150 years."
The "they" Baker was referring to was not so much his kindred farmers, but the state and federal agencies that ship them Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta water. Those agencies, he said, created the ecological crisis by taking more water out of the delta than they should have.
As delta pumping increased in recent years, fish populations collapsed and triggered new rules to prevent fish from going extinct.
Those rules will affect water deliveries for years, but so far have had a minor impact because shortages this year are mostly due to dry conditions and drawn-down reservoirs.
Now, the solution proposed to keep delta water flowing south -- a peripheral canal -- poses a threat to water rights his family has held since statehood, Baker said. It is not something north delta farmers like Baker should have to worry about. They have the law, contracts and water-quality standards on their side.
But given a long record of broken promises and aborted plans, Baker and others say there is no reason to trust the government will protect their rights from the thirst of others, especially the farmers in the San Joaquin Valley.
"They're going to build this canal whether we want it or not," he said. "The best we can do is fight them until we run out of money."
Baker's son, Brett, a 25-year-old UC Davis graduate who represents the sixth generation of his family to live on the same 30-acre orchard, put it this way: "This is being framed as a fish-versus-people issue, when in actuality it's a people-versus-people issue."
California water plan aims to save Puget Sound orcas...LES BLUMENTHAL,McClatchy Newspapers
http://www.fresnobee.com/641/v-print/story/1515162.html
WASHINGTON - A plan to restore salmon runs on California's Sacramento River also could help revive killer whale populations 700 miles to the north in Puget Sound, as federal scientists struggle to protect endangered species in a complex ecosystem that stretches along the Pacific coast from California to Alaska.
Without wild salmon from the Sacramento and American rivers as part of their diet, the killer whales might face extinction, scientists concluded in a biological opinion that could result in even more severe water restrictions for farmers in the drought-stricken, 400-mile-long Central Valley of California. The valley is the nation's most productive farm region.
The plan has faced heated criticism from agricultural interests and politicians in California, but environmentalists said it represented a welcome departure by the Obama administration from its predecessor in dealing with Endangered Species Act issues.
The Sacramento plan, they add, is in sharp contrast to the plan for restoring wild salmon populations on the Columbia and Snake rivers in Washington state and Idaho. That plan, written by the Bush administration, essentially concluded the long-term decline in those federally protected runs didn't jeopardize the killer whales' existence because hatchery fish could make up the difference.
The 85 orcas of the southern resident killer whale population travel in three separate pods, spending much of their time roaming the inland waters of Washington state from the San Juan Islands to south Puget Sound. During the winter they have been found offshore, ranging as far south as Monterey Bay in California and as far north as British Columbia's Queen Charlotte Islands. Each orca has distinctive markings, which allows them to be tracked.
In the mid-1990s, there were nearly 100 orcas in the three southern resident pods. The population fell to fewer than 80 in 2001. In 2005, they were granted federal protection as an endangered species. They have been studied closely for only 30 years or so, but historically there may have been up to 200 southern resident orcas.
Researches think the decline has resulted from pollution - which could cause immune- or reproductive-system dysfunction - and from oil spills, noise and other vessel disturbances, along with a reduced quantity and quality of prey.
With the largest 27 feet long and weighing 10,000 pounds, orcas are constantly on the prowl for food. They have been known to hunt in packs. Their meal of choice: salmon, particularly chinook salmon.
By some estimates, the orcas eat about 500,000 salmon a year.
"We are trying to figure out how killer whales fit in," said Bradley Hanson, a wildlife biologist with the National Marine Fisheries Services in Seattle who studies orcas. "We don't have a lot of information on the movement of southern resident whales down the coast. We don't have a lot of information on adult salmon movements off the coast."
Before 2000, Hanson said, no one was quite sure where the killer whales went when they went to sea. It was a surprise when they showed up near Monterey Bay, he said.
The Sacramento and American river systems combined were once among the top salmon-spawning rivers on the West Coast, trailing only the Columbia and Snake rivers.
Prompted by lawsuits, the National Marine Fisheries Service last month published its latest plan for the Sacramento and American rivers' winter and fall chinook salmon runs. Without further curtailments of water for the federal Central Valley Project - a several-hundred-mile network of dams, canals and pumping plants - and the California State Water Project - the nation's largest state-built water and power development and conveyance system, which supplies water for 23 million Californians - the two runs are in jeopardy of extinction, the plan said.
Without changes, the southern resident killer whales, a run of steelhead and a population of North American green sturgeon almost certainly would disappear, according to the plan.
The killer whale population is extremely fragile, and scientists said the loss or serious injury to just one could appreciably reduce the odds the southern resident pods would recover or survive.
The scientists who wrote the Sacramento plan also said hatchery-raised salmon couldn't be counted on to sustain the killer whales' survival.
"Healthy wild salmon populations are important to the long-term maintenance of prey populations available to southern residents, because it is uncertain whether a hatchery-only stock could be sustained indefinitely," the scientists said.
Not only are there concerns about long-term funding for the hatcheries, but scientists also have questions about whether hatchery fish are as genetically strong and healthy as wild ones. Though changes to the hatcheries could improve the fish they produce, there's no agreement on what needs to be done and no guarantees the changes would work.
The latest plan for the Columbia-Snake wild salmon runs concluded continued operation of the federal hydroelectric dams on the two rivers was "not likely to adversely affect" the killer whales. Earlier, federal scientists found that "perhaps the single greatest change in food availability for resident killer whales since the late 1800s has been the decline of salmon from the Columbia River basin."
Despite the decline in wild runs, the scientists who worked on the Columbia plan concluded hatchery fish would be able to make up any deficit in the orcas' diet.
Though the Columbia-Snake salmon plan acknowledges the potential problems with hatchery fish, it dismisses, at least for now, their impact on killer whale food supplies.
Lynne Barre, a National Marine Fisheries Service scientist in Seattle who helped write both plans, downplays any differences.
"I think we say the same thing in both opinions," Barre said, adding both plans recognize hatchery fish could be a short-term substitute for wild fish, but there were concerns about whether hatchery fish could be a long-term food source for orcas. "The general principles are similar."
Environmentalists, however, say the differences couldn't be more obvious.
"The contrasts are striking," said Todd True, a lawyer for the Seattle office of Earthjustice, which has challenged the Columbia-Snake plan in a lawsuit in federal court in Portland, Ore.
True said the Sacramento salmon plan was a "candid piece of work that had a strong independent review and the absence of political interference." As for the Columbia-Snake plan, True said that it "pretends there isn't a problem."
The judge in the Portland case has given the Obama administration until Aug. 15 to indicate whether it will stick with the Columbia-Snake salmon plan written during the Bush administration or offer a new one. True said he'd raise the orca issue again.
Other environmentalists said Jane Lubchenco, who heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which includes the fisheries service, must be aware of the differences in how the two salmon plans addressed killer whales. Lubchenco is a marine biologist who taught at Oregon State University.
"They need to decide which of the contradictory statements are correct," said Pat Ford of Save Our Wild Salmon.
Sacramento Bee
Wind power has its own environmental problems...NORIYUKI YOSHIDA AND KOICHI YASUDA, The Yomiuri Shimbun
http://www.sacbee.com/702/v-print/story/2001303.html
SHIZUOKA, Japan -- Wind power generation is expected to be a clean and environmentally friendly natural energy source, but a new kind of environmental problem has surfaced as infrasonic waves caused by windmills are suspected of causing health problems for some people.
Shinjuro Kondo, 76, who moved into his Japanese neighborhood 17 years ago, said, "Stiff shoulders, headaches, insomnia, hand tremors...Since February last year, soon after the test operation of windmills started, I developed various kinds of symptoms."
Kondo's neighborhood is about 350 meters away from a group of windmills.
More than 20 percent of about 100 neighbors also complain of similar physical disorders. They said their symptoms become less severe when the windmills stop due to mechanical troubles and other reasons.
Currently, the relationship between such physical disorders and the windmills is not clear. But infrasonic waves generated by the windmills' rotors is suspected to be the cause.
The sound waves oscillate once to 20 times a second, a frequency too low to be heard by human ears.
Similar complaints also have been reported in other parts of Japan, but it is not known whether these are connected to naturally occurring noise.
Operators of such windmills are very concerned about what measures should be taken. One of them said, "Even if we measure sounds from the windmills, no numerical differences are found from those in the natural environment."
Extrapolating the causal relationship is difficult for a number of reasons:
- Sensitivity to infrasonic noise differs among individuals.
- Effects are changed by psychological factors. For example, unpleasant sounds make people more uncomfortable than pleasant sounds, even at the same volume.
- The causal relationship between the physical disorders and the sounds has not been clarified.
In 2004, Japan's Environment Ministry set guidelines for local governments on dealing with problems caused by infrasonic noise.
The guidelines were issued mainly because of reports of damage at factories and construction sites caused by infrasonic noise at the frequency of 20 hertz to 200 hertz.
The infrasonic noise from windmills is not covered by the guideline as the frequency is lower.
Windmills are not covered by the country's Noise Regulation Law, which regulates noise levels at factories and construction sites, or by the Law for Assessment of Environmental Impacts, which stipulates that effects to surrounding areas should be assessed prior to the start of a large development project.
There have been no research papers published, either at home or abroad, which analyzed the relationship between infrasonic noise and human health.
Fumitaka Shiomi, 85, a doctor in Wakayama, Japan, who has studied infrasonic noise problems for 30 years, said, "There is health damage caused by infrasonic noise. Unless measures are taken immediately, a serious problem will occur."
But Tomohiro Shishime, chief of the Environment Ministry's Air Environment Division, said, "First, we'll examine the real situation." The ministry is at the stage of asking local governments to collect complaints.
Izumi Ushiyama, dean of Ashikaga Institute of Technology, which is promoting the use of windmills, said, "While listening to opinions of both business operators and residents, we'll search for a solution."
Wind power generation also poses a danger to birds, which are often struck and killed by the spinning vanes of the windmills. The Japanese Environment Ministry confirmed 13 such bird strikes in which white-tailed eagles, a rare species, were killed since fiscal 2003.
More white-tailed eagles have been killed in bird strikes by windmills than by running trains. A golden eagle was found dead near wind power facility in Iwate Prefecture last year - the first death of a rare species confirmed near the facility.
Yukihiro Kominami, deputy chief of the nature conservation office at the Wild Bird Society of Japan, said those cases are just the tip of the iceberg. "We have to find out the problem of the locations as soon as possible, or we will see the damage to the bird population continuing," he said.
Some people argue a windmill twirling around on a column dozens of meters high spoils the scenery in the area.
Residents in Nagano, Japan, organized to oppose the building of wind farm there. The prefectural government then made a map showing the effects on nature and scenery of the proposed windmills. An official in charge said "We want the businesses to assess environmental issues and to explain them well to local residents, using this map."
There is a growing consensus among experts that wind-power generation projects should be subject to the environment impact assessment law. The ministry plans to consider the idea, including the possibility of amending the law, at the Central Environmental Council.
"Wind-power generation has been a business success, costing less than solar power generation," said Tetsuya Iida, head of Japan's Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies, a nonprofit environmental organization. "There must be a path for residents and nature to coexist. The central government must consider establishing a framework to support finding that way."
San Francisco Chronicle
Bay-Delta litigation, by species...Sunday Insight
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/05/INUL18HQCJ.DTL&type=printable
The war is over water, but California's native fish are deployed on the front lines:
Delta smelt
(Federal court)
-- Natural Resources Defense Council vs. Kempthorne - filed 2005. On May 25 and Dec. 14, 2007, Judge Oliver Wanger issues order invalidating the delta smelt biological opinion. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released a new biological opinion on Dec. 15, 2008.)
-- San Luis and Delta Mendota Water Authority vs. Salazar (filed March 3), State Water Contractors vs. Salazar (filed March 4) and Coalition for a Sustainable Delta vs. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (filed March 12) - separate suits challenging a biological opinion.
On May 29, Wanger issued a preliminary injunction requiring the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to consider environmental impacts of reduced water exports to the Central Valley Project service areas.
-- Metropolitan Water District of Southern California vs. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., filed April 8; pending before Wanger.
-- Stewart & Jasper Orchards et al. vs. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, filed May 21 by Pacific Legal Foundation; pending before Wanger.
(State court)
-- Watershed Enforcers, a project of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, vs. California Department of Water Resources - on April 18, 2007, the Alameda County Superior Court found that the department was illegally killing fish through operation of the State Water Project.
Salmon
(Federal court)
-- Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations vs. Gutierrez - order issued April 16, 2008, invalidating biological opinion for salmon.
Longfin smelt
(State court)
-- California Fish and Game Commission listed longfin as a threatened species under the California Endangered Species Act on March 4.
(Federal court)
-- State Water Contractors vs. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - filed March 25, alleging that the mitigation required is disproportionate to any harm to the smelt caused by State Water Project operations.
WATER RESOURCES
Take a good look at costly water bills - the ones in Sacramento
Traci Sheehan Van Thull, George Biagi. Traci Sheehan Van Thull is executive director of the Planning and Conservation League. George Biagi is a farmer and is president of the Central Delta Water Agency.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/05/INBM18I6SM.DTL&type=printable
While still not resolving the $26.3 billion budget crisis, the California Legislature is on the verge of considering an extensive and costly restructuring of California's water laws and water infrastructure. Does the right hand know what the left hand is doing?
Several secret bills are set to emerge this week to cover some contentious water issues, including governance of the bay-delta region, water conservation, new dams and an updated proposal for a peripheral canal, which was overwhelmingly rejected by California voters in 1982.
We need to ask some tough questions about the goals and the long-term vision of our state and its water needs.
First, we need to be honest about how much water is available. The state has already given permits for much more water than nature provides - similar to Wall Street and its debt credit swaps. That means water agencies that depend on water from the delta must figure out ways to import less. Any meaningful reform must require that these agencies increase their self-sufficiency through water conservation, recycling and improved groundwater management.
Second, the Legislature needs to take the time to do it right. Even though the public and even most legislators have not seen the bill language, the bills are scheduled for only one substantive policy committee hearing. The public needs time to look carefully at these proposals. There needs to be a delta plan that is reviewed and approved by the Legislature in consultation with affected local governments, not just new laws that give political appointees the authority to approve even the most controversial projects, without answers about how it would affect water quality, endangered fish and flood control.
The delta is the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Americas - and its ecosystem is collapsing. A comprehensive plan must use independent science to identify how much water it needs to recover. The final package must also include enforceable guarantees that the water will be there.
Delta communities need to have a major voice in the process - more than 500,000 Californians live in the delta. These community members must have a seat at the table as decisions are being made. Changes to the delta could mean increased exposure to pollutants in the waters, increased costs for water and water treatment, reduced farm production, greater loss of commercial fishing and a higher risk of flooding.
Californians have supported water bonds in the past, but the costs of any water project, especially one that encompasses storage, conservation and recovery of the delta would be the largest - with a price tag of $10 billion to $15 billion. Californians cannot be asked to pay for this without understanding the total costs and effects. The problems of the delta and California's water management are critical to all of us. That is why the Legislature cannot take short cuts.
New threat emerges to tiger salamander...David Perlman
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/05/BANT18FQEJ.DTL&type=printable
As if it isn't enough that the California tiger salamander and other amphibian pond-dwellers are forced to fight for survival against overdevelopment and pollution in the state, along comes a predatory half-breed salamander to present another serious threat.
The trouble didn't come suddenly to the native tiger salamanders, those yellow-spotted creatures once abundant in the state's ponds and vernal pools.
Their problems began some 60 years ago - even before human development began seriously impinging on their habitats - when commercial bait sellers in California imported millions of alien Texas amphibians called barred tiger salamanders whose larvae, known as "waterdogs," made excellent bait for fishermen.
The adult barred salamanders, which look remarkably like their California cousins, soon began populating ponds all over Northern California. Harmless at first, Texas invaders quickly mated with the California natives and their hybridized descendants spread all over the state and have been flourishing ever since. They are imperiling frogs and newts and, above all, the original tiger salamander, according to a UC Davis biologist.
Maureen Ryan of the Center for Population Biology at UC Davis has published a report on the problem in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It is the first complete scientific study ever made of the effects of this kind of hybridization on any animal.
Ryan and her colleagues sampled the habitats and studied the genetics of all three salamander species in ponds and pools throughout varied areas of California, particularly the Salinas Valley, where the salamanders are abundant and their problems striking. The team also built artificial ponds in the valley to study the natives and hybrids more closely.
More than 20 generations of hybridization, she and her colleagues reported, have resulted in a host of negative effects. One negative effect is that the hybrid salamanders out-compete the tiny larvae of the native tiger salamanders for food. With little food, the native larvae's normal transformation into full-grown adults becomes delayed, making the less agile little ones easy prey to the hybrids for a longer period of time each season, the researchers reported.
Ryan also reported changes in the genes of the hybrids. In a series of experiments conducted in artificial ponds on the Davis campus, she found that the hybrids are delaying emerging from their larval stage for longer and longer periods. She also noted that the hybrids have grown much larger than even the largest native tiger salamanders. Their gaping jaws, in fact, have become wide enough to engulf smaller varieties of the natives as well as their larvae, Ryan found.
Other victims of the hybrid hordes include Pacific Chorus frogs, otherwise known as California tree frogs, that are known for their raspy nocturnal trills, and the California newt that mostly occupies the moist forests of the state's coast range.
The hybridized salamanders also pose a threat to the survival of the rare and tiny endangered Santa Cruz long-toed salamander, whose only known habitat is a watery mating swamp near Watsonville. The habitat made news nearly 40 years ago when it was threatened by a proposed trailer park. It was finally ordered preserved only after UC and Cabrillo College students and scientists mobilized to save it.
In the report this week, Ryan also warned that the threatened California red-legged frog is in greater danger from the spread of the predatory hybrid salamanders. .
Because of heavily sprawling urban development, the California tiger salamanders have long been listed as threatened throughout the state, but small populations in Sonoma County and near Santa Barbara are designated as endangered, which calls for even greater habitat protection.
Even so, the hybrids pose a conundrum in some ways, Ryan said in an e-mail.
"The hybrids are displacing the native threatened species and are therefore a threat," she said. "But in places where they already exist, should we protect them because they're part native?"
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which can classify animals as threatened and endangered, is grappling with the issue, she said.
Ryan's co-authors are Jarrett Johnson, a colleague at UC Davis, and Benjamin Fitzpatrick, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Tennessee.
VANISHING HABITAT
As the delta goes, so go our salmon...Zeke Grader. Zeke Grader is the executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman's Associations, which represents 14 commercial fishing groups.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/05/INBM18I79J.DTL&type=printable
California is without its salmon for a second year. Prospects for the reopening of the season next year are encouraging, but the future of this iconic fish beyond that is uncertain.
Pacific salmon - born in free-flowing streams, reared in rivers before going to sea and then returning to their natal streams to spawn and die - face innumerable threats. These include predators - larger fish, birds, marine mammals and man - and the whims of nature.
Civilization has presented its own challenges to these fish. Large dams now block or impede their passage on most major salmon rivers. Mining and logging operations have devastated salmon habitat. Diversions have dried up streams or caused water temperatures to rise to lethal levels.
About 90 percent of California's salmon, however, face another problem: the decline of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta/San Francisco Bay estuary, the migratory path where the fish need to grow and gain strength before heading to sea.
Much of the estuary's shallow-water habitat, where salmon fed and hid from predators, has been lost. Municipal and agricultural discharges have polluted the waters, and invasive species have adversely affected the estuary's ecology.
But the single largest problem for salmon migrating through this estuary between Sierra streams and the Pacific is the amount of freshwater that is withdrawn - upstream and within the delta. In some years, more than 50 percent of the freshwater headed for the estuary is diverted.
Baby fish become caught in the massive state and federal pumps, and even more become lost within the delta and are easy targets for predators when their migratory route is no longer west to the sea. Trucking to the bay is now afforded hatchery salmon but not for the progeny of natural spawners migrating through a nursery transformed to a gauntlet.
The estuary is dying. California has long viewed the delta as a massive reservoir it could endlessly plumb for agriculture and development. Water "wasting" to the sea is seen as a massive leak. In reality, the delta is an ecosystem - it is our Everglades, our Chesapeake Bay. An estuary's lifeblood is its freshwater inflow mixing with saline tidal flows to create a rich, brackish water that nourishes salmon, crabs, sole, oysters and shrimp.
As the estuary dies, so do California salmon. Another icon is lost. Salmon, however, are different from grizzlies or bald eagles.
These wild fish are what sustained California's native peoples for 10,000 years. They fed the miners headed for the gold fields. They are fine dining, the purpose of a day's ocean excursion, what we grill on the Fourth of July. They are food, jobs, recreation and part of who are on the Pacific Coast.
So we have a choice: Are we going to destroy our salmon or restore them? Restoring California's salmon fishery begins with the delta. We can reallocate flows to the estuary, as the science recommends, or continue business as usual - diverting more from the delta or grabbing flow upstream through a peripheral canal. The better choice, it seems, is to develop sources of water outside the delta, saving the estuary and creating a truly reliable water supply. In the end, sustaining salmon might sustain California.
LEGISLATION Protect water, protect fish
California isn't only out of money; it's out of water. Next week, the Legislature will take up a package of bills to find a way to create a more reliable water supply in the state. Here's a summary.
SB12
Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto: The bill establishes the Delta Ecosystem and Water Council to advance two equal goals: restoring the delta ecosystem and creating a more reliable water supply in California. The bill is scheduled for a hearing by a joint session of the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife and Senate Natural Resources and Water committees on Tuesday.
AB39
Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael: This bill requires development of a new plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta that implements the Delta Vision Strategic Plan issued by the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force. The plan calls for improving the existing water channel through the delta to move the water south and creating a second channel to carry the water around the delta to the pumps that export the water south. The document refers to the channel as a conveyance facility. In years past, this idea was referred to as the peripheral canal.
AB49
Assemblymen Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles, and Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael: Requires a 20 percent reduction per capita in urban water use by 2020. This bill is scheduled to be heard Monday in the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee.
SB457 and SB 458
Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis: This bill requires the Delta Protection Commission to review all general plans of cities and counties within the delta protection area. This bill authorizes the commission to cover the cost of the review by imposing a per acre-foot fee on any water diversion within the delta watershed, and a fee on any water conveyed through or around the delta.
Water use must change whether fish live or die...Cynthia Koehler. Cynthia Koehler is a consulting attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund, a national nonprofit organization.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/05/INUL18HM0G.DTL&type=printable
Why should anyone care if California salmon, or local fishermen, go the way of the dodo?
Can't we just buy fish from Alaska? And what's wrong with the farmed stuff, anyway? Because of economic suffering in the Central Valley, some are calling for an end to environmental protections for California's once-mighty salmon runs.
At the center of the salmon debate is the fate of the Bay-Delta Estuary, the West Coast's largest and most important estuary. Estuaries are the interconnection between land, rivers and ocean, providing spawning and nursery habitat for commercial and recreational fisheries as well as birds, waterfowl and wildlife. Losing that diversity, turning rivers into canals that no longer support life, risks turning our estuary into a degraded system with more invasive and pest species while local fish, birds, invertebrates and wildlife die off.
Wild salmon is valuable as a harvestable, healthy and tasty food commodity loaded with omega-3 fatty acids.
But the health and viability of local salmon has everything to do with the health and viability of the aquatic ecosystem that surrounds us. As biologists will attest, if you want to measure the health of aquatic ecosystems, you need to measure fish.
As salmon begin to go extinct, it sets off a chain reaction in the natural community and a chain reaction for people impacted by loss of revenue from salmon and sport fishing, farming and tourism in the bay delta. It also has major implications for the costs and quality of California's water supply.
As we ignore these warning signs and call for more water and less fish, we miss an important opportunity to prepare for a smarter water future. We have water in California, but an ancient system of rights and distribution leads to some farmers paying higher prices for limited supplies, while others receive full allocations at relatively low rates. Some urban areas use 100 gallons per person per day, while others use more than 300.
We have tremendous potential to grow "new" water supplies with recycling and conservation. Innovators like PureSense are helping growers realize more profit per acre through the efficient use of water. Hydropoint is helping eBay, Lockheed Martin, Cisco, Amazon and Advanced Micro Devices use less water in landscaping. There are reasonable answers to these conflicts if we avoid getting trapped in rhetorical divides.
We could pump water out of this estuary indiscriminately as some are calling for, but at some point, California would still bump up against limitations in the amount of water in its system, the rising costs of extracting and moving it, and increasing droughts from climate change.
We could, in other words, destroy what is left of the most important estuary on the West Coast and still not solve the economic problems facing much of the Central Valley. Sooner or later California is going to have to change how it uses water. We can do it before we lose our salmon, or after.
Limit agribusiness - for salmon's sake...Paul Johnson. Paul Johnson is president of Monterey Fish Market of San Francisco and Berkeley and the author of "Fish Forever" (Wiley, 2007).
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/05/INGV18GJGP.DTL&type=printable
When I look at a salmon, I don't just see a silver fish, I see California.
Salmon fishing is part of our heritage, a way of life that has been passed down for generations, deeply connected to the community and tradition. The forests, streams and wildlife of California depend on the return of the salmon for food and nutrients.
Salmon is one of our last great wild foods, a pillar of the healthy, sustainable and delicious cuisine that we all have come to know and love in California. A fat, fresh piece of salmon pulled from the sea, passed over the coals and into your mouth, will light your senses and let you know that this is real food.
Wild salmon have been tied to the heritage, culture and history of California since the first people crossed the land bridge connecting Asia to the new world some 12,000 years ago.
Those first North Americans built a rich culture and economy based on the annual return of salmon to their natal streams. Many of California's indigenous peoples, such as the Miwok, Yurok, Wintun and others, were dependent on salmon to provide a substantial part of their staple diet and economic stability. Their cultural and religious ceremonies reinforced the central role that salmon played in their natural view of the world.
Early explorers such as Lewis and Clark considered salmon "the West's greatest source of wealth" and made note of the abundance of salmon in every stream and river and its importance to local peoples. As the West was settled, salmon was to become an important cog in its economic engine. The first Pacific Coast salmon cannery was on a barge moored on the banks of the Sacramento River. This small canning operation was the beginning of an industry that would spread to all the great rivers of the West, leaving a legacy of jobs and wealth based on the natural cycle of the salmon's return.
This is a heritage we are in danger of losing forever. For the second year in a row, the Pacific Coast has been closed to salmon fishing, both commercial and recreational, because of the collapse of Sacramento River runs. But it is not only the salmon and the salmon community that are suffering, it is the entire Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ecosystem, the most important and productive wetlands on the West Coast, that is threatened.
In five years, we've seen the complete collapse of the food web in the delta. Populations of plankton and fish that feed on them - delta smelt, longfin smelt, shad, immature striped bass and salmon - have declined by 90 percent or more. We are experiencing a catastrophic collapse of the entire delta ecosystem.
The reason for this is plain and simple: water exports. Not enough water is flowing through the delta. Water issues in California are often framed as "water needed for agriculture, jobs and cities is being sacrificed for an inconsequential little fish, the delta smelt."
The truth is, water that could be used to the benefit of wildlife, cities, family farmers, fishermen and California's Indian tribes has been appropriated by corporate agribusiness. Tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars are being lost because of the delta crisis, and the treasured salmon runs of California are in real danger of disappearing.
In coming weeks, the California Legislature will address legislation on one of the state's most important issues, the management of our water. We need to ask our legislators some questions before they make the difficult decisions that will determine the future of the delta ecosystem, our water and our fisheries:
Do we really believe that more dams, reservoirs and a $25 billion peripheral canal (a pipe three football fields wide), to pump water around the delta, will save the delta?
Why do we as taxpayers subsidize water for agribusiness to grow water-intensive cotton and alfalfa in the desert?
How did it come to be that 10 percent of California's farmers use 70 percent of California's water?
Maybe we need to consider conservation incentives rather than water subsidies. Instead of more reservoirs, we should talk about recharging the ground water aquifers that already exist, recycling, desalination and retiring drainage-impaired agricultural land in the San Joaquin Valley.
At 9 a.m. Tuesday, the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee will hold a hearing on proposed delta solutions legislation in Room 4202 of the state Capitol in Sacramento. Possibly this will be the one and only hearing for the public to comment on policies that could permanently shape the delta's future and water use in California.
THERE'S ANOTHER THREATENED SPECIES - HUMANS...R. William Robinson. Ralph E. Shaffer. R. William Robinson is an elected director of the Upper San Gabriel Valley Water District; Ralph E. Shaffer is professor emeritus of history at California State Polytechnic University at Pomona.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/05/INGV18H0TP.DTL&type=printable
For Californians south of Tracy's water delivery pumps, U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger's recent ruling on the delta smelt has transformed 2009 into both the best of times and the worst of times.
Despite what some view as a victory for 20 million residents dependent upon delta water, Wanger's decision to delay imposition of permanent pumping restrictions merely lengthens litigation and threatens further damage to the state's once-vibrant economy.
Because of another opinion protecting salmon, most of the state's water users still face rationing. In December, Wanger imposed a draconian order curtailing pumping of water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta into the California Water Project for shipment south. In late May, responding to a lawsuit by western San Joaquin Valley water agencies challenging that ruling, Wanger agreed with Westlands Water District lawyers that the limits he had at first supported needed revisiting. He ordered federal authorities to justify the limits they had placed, and which he had at first accepted, on diverting water to the state aqueduct. Those restrictions were intended to protect the delta smelt.
Apparently bowing to the argument that people were being harmed by an unreasonable concern about the welfare of a fish, Wanger instructed the feds to consider more than the impact pumping would have on the endangered delta smelt. Under his new ruling, the government must also calculate the effect that a reduced allocation will have on the millions of Californians dependent on the delta for residential, industrial and agricultural water. To date, pumping restrictions have denied Southern California water agencies about 1.1 million acre feet, worth approximately $330 million.
That expense will fall on the ratepayers. Water companies and districts still must meet the obligations on their bonded indebtedness. They are expected to sell the water that the judge denied them. That means customers will pay more and receive less water. Stand by for breathtaking rate increases.
Wanger's latest ruling might give hope to residents and farmers, but the case is not over. The delta smelt is not alone. In June, the National Maritime Fisheries Service favored the delta's salmon with a ruling that will surely be appealed. Thirty water agencies have joined a lawsuit to overturn the salmon protection plan. Already, at least a dozen related cases involving fish and delta pumping are working their way through federal and state courts. Furthermore, the longfin smelt is seeking a similar court accommodation. The California Fish and Game Commission voted unanimously in March to protect that smelt under the state's Endangered Species Act.
Until Wanger reversed his position, the trend was clear but not very bright for another endangered species - humans. While people clamor for water and local water districts impose rationing and send out water cops to ticket folks who waste water brushing their teeth, lines of those other "threatened" species - the smelt and salmon - are assembling before federal courthouses. As the feds prepare to justify the drastic pumping restrictions that they wish to impose to protect the fish, critics complain that their regulations - referred to as a biological opinion - are based on a combination of skewed science and junk science, creating a rigged evidentiary record. The scope of Wanger's evidentiary record was limited, covering state and federal pumps. That misguided approach denied millions of Californians access to a water supply that they had grown accustomed to.
Wanger's reversal indicates that he may now insist on a balance between the interests of wildlife and that of humans. If the feds are able to convince Wanger that the limitations he previously accepted are justified, the fish might yet win. In fairness to the fish, however, Californians should ask if water agencies have failed to acknowledge that we can't have unlimited population and commercial growth. Our water supply is finite. We erred 50 years ago when Gov. Edmund G. "Pat" Brown allowed the state's limited water to irrigate a virtual desert in the western San Joaquin Valley. It was also a mistake to allow unlimited development in Southern California.
But practical politics dictate that a compromise solution regarding the delta must be reached. Already, several bills are pending in Sacramento, and an arrangement is necessary to guarantee larger springtime flows of California aqueduct water to the Central Valley and Southern California.
Warning on trout hatcheries could force changes...Peter Fimrite
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/05/MNCU188EDD.DTL&type=printable
Hatchery-raised steelhead trout pass on genetic defects that hamper survival of even their wild-born offspring, according to a study that biologists say could lead to a radical shift in the way salmon breeding programs operate on the West Coast.
The recent Oregon State University study found that even hatchery fish whose parents were wild develop and pass on genetic defects severe enough to hamper the reproductive ability of their offspring.
The implication, scientists said, is that hatchery programs for all salmonid species, including steelhead, chinook and coho, could actually be harming the natural balance and contributing to the demise of the once plentiful salmon runs in California, Oregon and Washington.
"Past studies have always suggested that hatchery-produced fish are of lesser quality, but this study shows it is more disturbing than we thought," said Tina Swanson, a fishery scientist and the executive director of the Bay Institute. "This is the clearest indication that hatchery-produced fish can actually harm wild stocks. It underscores my suspicion that hatcheries are not the solution."
The issue is critically important to biologists, fishermen and water managers in California, where the commercial salmon fishing season was shut down for a second straight year after another paltry return of spawning fall run chinook.
The Sacramento-San Joaquin River fall run is historically the largest run of salmon on the West Coast and the vast majority of those fish are mass produced in hatcheries.
Scientists point to a host of environmental and habitat problems, including a warming ocean, for the decline. A biological review this month by the National Marine Fisheries Service placed much of the blame on diversions by the state and federal water systems.
Hatcheries, though, have always been seen as part of the solution. The Oregon study released in June shows that they may instead be part of the problem.
Michael Blouin, a professor of zoology at Oregon State and the lead author of the study, said the genetic fingerprints of three generations of wild and hatchery-raised fish from Oregon's Hood River, in the Columbia River system, were studied for how well they reproduced in the wild. The analysis involved genetic data on thousands of fish dating back to 1991.
On average, he said, the offspring of two hatchery-reared steelhead were only 37 percent as reproductively fit as fish whose parents were both wild. The fish with two hatchery parents were 87 percent as fit as the offspring of one wild parent and one hatchery parent.
Meticulous standards
These differences were detectable even after a full generation of natural selection in the wild, Blouin said.
"What's surprising is how poorly the first generation of fish do," Blouin said. "There's a rapid decline in the fitness of those fish when they go out and spawn in the wild."
The results are important because until now most biologists thought genetic problems developed over several generations and only in hatcheries that were lax in their efforts to ensure genetic variability.
But the Hood River hatchery is used for conservation purposes, meaning the fish are meticulously bred, are fed in a way that is as natural as possible and are regularly interbred with wild fish in an attempt to help with genetic diversity.
A previous Oregon State study published in the journal Science in 2007 showed that hatchery fish that migrate to the ocean and return to spawn leave far fewer offspring than their wild relatives. This latest study, Blouin said, strongly suggests that hatchery salmonids are also reducing the fitness of wild populations when they interbreed.
40 million salmon per year
The potential ramifications are frightening when one considers that 40 million hatchery-raised salmon are released into California river systems every year. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service releases 12 million chinook smolt and the California Department of Fish and Game releases 20 million smolt annually into the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system. The rest are dumped into the Klamath River.
Of the four big hatcheries run by the state and two by the federal government, only the federally run Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery at the base of Shasta Dam and the state's Warm Springs Hatchery for coho in the Russian River Basin have the same quality standards as the Hood River hatchery.
In fact, the vast majority of the California chinook are farmed for the fishing industry as mitigation for construction of dams and other diversions by the state and federal water projects.
"The purpose is not to restore wild fall run chinook to the Sacramento," said Bob Clarke, the acting regional fisheries manager for the Fish and Wildlife Service. "It is to help support a commercial and recreational fishery."
The Oregon study, which shows that even cautious breeding of fish can be harmful, means that the mass production of salmon in California hatcheries could be much more damaging than previously thought, according to scientists.
"If steelhead are at all similar to chinook then this is very, very, very worrisome," said Swanson, adding that nobody even really knows if any wild fall run chinook still exist. "We're doing a bunch of things that we already know are wrong and this study has identified another flawed practice."
The study acknowledges that steelhead trout may react to captive breeding differently than chinook, but it nevertheless warns fishery managers not to rely on hatcheries for the recovery of salmonids.
A growing movement
"There is a lot circumstantial evidence that what we have shown is also happening to other species," Blouin said. "What it means is that if you are trying to help a wild population recover then putting hatchery fish in there is probably not a good idea."
The study gives credence to a growing movement to change the way hatcheries operate. One proposal is to mandate removal of the adipose fins on all hatchery fish for identification purposes. Another is to make hatchery conditions more riverlike and feed young fish underwater instead of using the unnatural method of throwing pellets on the top of the water.
"Even hatchery reform is not a solution, which is why no matter what you do in the short term, the goal must be self-sustaining populations of wild fish," said Steve Mashuda, an environmental attorney for Earth Justice.
The positive thing about the study, Blouin said, is that it shows how quickly fish adapt. If steelhead can change their genetics and behavior to out compete others in the unnatural environment of a hatchery, he said, they can certainly do it in the wild.
"If you fix the habitat and leave it alone," he said, "natural selection will very quickly create a locally adapted population."
ON PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE BCDC AS A STATE AGENCY
It takes a watchdog to preserve the bay...Editorial
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/05/EDT218FRQ2.DTL&type=printable
The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) has protected San Francisco Bay for the past four decades. The state agency regulates all filling and dredging, protects eco-sensitive marshland, and tries to minimize development pressures around the bay's edges. In short, it's one of the Bay Area's top partners when it comes to protecting, preserving, and yes, saving the bay.
Now the commission needs our help. In his May revisions to the state budget, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called for eliminating it as a state department and realigning it as a "regional entity" by the year 2010. Schwarzenegger's staff says the change is about "good government" and "improving efficiency." Because most land-use decisions are made at the local level, they told us, it would make sense to offer local governments more "local oversight" of the bay.
But the reason the commission was created is because local oversight of the bay was so shoddy. "Before BCDC, every local government had an incentive to fill the bay so that it could have a garbage dump, or so that it could have more houses and therefore more property tax," said Will Travis, executive director of the commission. "It was the classic tragedy of the commons." The bay was, and still is, paying the price - it's a third smaller than it was when California became a state.
Schwarzenegger's staff insists that there's a way for the state to jettison control of the agency - and the $4.1 million it requires annually from the state's general fund - without plunging the bay into disaster. There are certainly options - the commission could ratchet up the permit fees it charges companies and government agencies for development and disposal in the bay region, and try to fund itself that way. Or it could reconstitute itself as a quasi-independent agency on the model of the California Coastal Commission. But state legislators must proceed cautiously. "Local oversight" has failed the bay badly in the past - what's to say it won't fail again?
So far, legislators have been cautious - rather than accepting the governor's proposal immediately, they've been asking questions. The governor's office says that research and planning can come after legislators have approved the proposal, but we disagree. If this is to work at all, it needs to be figured out in advance, and with a great deal of care.
Wisely, the commission is neither panicking nor waiting for Sacramento to act sensibly. When it comes to public policy, Travis agrees with us - the commission should remain a state interest because the bay is the state's interest. "The general public is the beneficiary of what we do," Travis said. "The health of the bay affects the health of the entire state."
But Travis believes that certain things could be easier without state oversight - like running the organization. "My largest division is administrative services, because I can't do anything without getting the approval of different state departments," he said. "We have huge costs in terms of going through review. And as a stand-alone agency, we wouldn't have those costs."
In response to the governor's proposal, Travis added, the commission is already starting its own research into how it might function without the support of the state. Working with the Bay Area Council Economic Institute and the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, the commission is examining all of its options to stay afloat without the state's support. It turns out that some of the options would force the state to pay one way or another - for example, if the commission increased its permitting fees tenfold (the amount they'd need to if they're to survive based on them). Currently, state agencies are paying the commission the biggest fees, because of their projects in and around the bay. If their fees were to increase tenfold, guess who would have to give those state agencies that money?
Regardless of how the commission reconstitutes itself, it's essential that the organization keeps some form of state oversight. "Local control" may be an appealing concept, but history has shown it to be destructive to the bay. In addition, the bay's health doesn't just affect the nine-county Bay Area region. As a port, the bay plays a vital role in shipping goods all over the state. As a draw for tourists, it contributes vital dollars to the public purse. These are among the reasons the commission was created as a state organization - and it has proved effective.
The San Francisco Bay needs a strong, regional watchdog to protect it from the many threats to its shoreline, water quality and overall value as a precious environmental, economic and recreational resource.
States digging deep to monitor water...DAVID TIRRELL-WYSOCKI, Associated Press Writer
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/07/05/national/a094549D53.DTL&type=printable
About a quarter mile into dense woods, geologists watch as a drilling rig twists a shaft deep into the granite bedrock of southeastern New Hampshire. They are searching for water — not to drink — but to watch.
State and federal agencies have been watching, or monitoring, lakes and rivers for more than a century, but less attention has gone to vast amounts of water in cracks and rock fissures deep underground, leaving a void in understanding a resource growing in importance as demands for water increase and surface water sources are being used to the fullest in many areas.
New Hampshire is drilling a series of wells to monitor groundwater in cracks in granite hundreds of feet below the surface. The goal is to allow scientists to check for contamination; learn about how long it takes for rainfall or melting snow to make its way into the supply; and keep tabs on how climate change, population growth and development affect the water.
State Geologist David Wunsch would like to share the information as part of a nationwide network.
"In the future, your water may come from hundreds of miles away, so in order to get that national picture of 'Are we depleting some area for the sake of another region?,' you need to have that national picture," said Wunsch, who represented state geologists on a national committee that has developed a national groundwater monitoring plan.
Groundwater provides drinking water for 130 million Americans and 42 percent of the nation's irrigation water, and while many states have monitored groundwater, they have done so for state-specific reasons, using different criteria. So, while groundwater supplies spread beneath large regions, monitoring generally stops at state lines.
"Some states have several hundred wells and sample them four times a year. Others have absolutely nothing," said Wunsch.
The goal of forming a network got a boost this year as Congress approved the SECURE Water Act, directing the U.S. Geologic Survey to work with states to develop a national monitoring program for underground water supplies, known as aquifers.
There is no national big picture on groundwater levels or quality because the information exists only "in bits and pieces," said Christine Reimer of the National Ground Water Association, in Westerville, Ohio.
She emphasized that a national monitoring effort would not put the government in charge of groundwater management, but said information showing trends or changes in groundwater quality or levels could help guide local decisions.
Montana approved groundwater monitoring in 1991 because its water information was inconsistent and not part of any system, said Thomas Patton, the state's groundwater assessment program manager.
"If you are going to relate precipitation to water levels in wells, you've got to collect precipitation over time and water levels over time," Patton said. "If you are going to compare water levels to development, you've got to have the water levels, over time."
Information collected from 900 Montana wells has been valuable, especially in watching how groundwater levels responded to six or seven years of drought and to irrigation or rainfall, he said.
Patton and Wunsch said ideally, states will gain information valuable to their own water planning and share with the federal government, which will share the cost of the monitoring.
Wunsch said monitoring will be a great help in New Hampshire, where more than a third of the state's population gets drinking water from bedrock wells. Before work began on the current network of 10 wells, the state had only one bedrock monitoring well. He hopes for significantly more.
Contamination is a particular concern around the country, he said, because homeowners are not required to test their wells. About 20 percent of New Hampshire's bedrock wells contain arsenic levels above the government standard. Bedrock water also contains uranium and radon, even unsafe levels of fluoride.
Another major concern is just how long it takes for rainfall or melting snow to flow down to, or recharge, the aquifer.
"We don't know how quickly rain gets to bedrock," Wunsch said. "It might take a day, a week, a year for it to migrate down."
Monitoring that process, over time, might show how climate change and development affect levels and quality.
For instance, rainfall that now percolates into the ground gets diverted by the paved surfaces of development and is carried away by storm drains.
And climate change may mean less snow around the country, with more rain, in more severe storms, Wunsch said, which could mean more groundwater, but at different times of the year.
Los Angeles Times
Wal-Mart's good-guy stance on healthcare reform
It's not clear what the retailer's motives may be, nor does it truly matter. Wal-Mart is to be commended for taking a stand -- something far too many businesses have been reluctant to do...David Lazarus
http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-fi-lazarus5-2009jul05,0,4373934,print.column
Whatever the company's motive, retail behemoth Wal-Mart Stores Inc. made healthcare reform significantly more likely last week by throwing its weight behind a requirement that all employers provide health coverage.
The company made its position known in a letter to President Obama, who has said an employer mandate is vital to helping cover the roughly 46 million people in the United States who lack medical insurance.
Although it wasn't in the letter, Wal-Mart also says it supports a mandate for all uninsured people to buy reasonably priced coverage -- another key element of the healthcare debate.
"It's pretty clear that we're advocating for reform," Greg Rossiter, a company spokesman, told me. "We've said for some time that we support healthcare reform. It needs to be comprehensive and it needs to happen."
If those remarks caused you to do a double take, you're not alone.
This is Wal-Mart, right? The same company that's drawn fire from unions and municipalities for not providing sufficient coverage to its own 1.4 million U.S. workers?
The same company that just a few years ago was fighting aggressively against similar proposals at the state level?
"Wal-Mart has been working hard to improve its image on healthcare," said Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change, a Washington think tank. "They've moved from being a bad guy to a good guy."
That was the consensus among various healthcare experts I spoke with. While none could say for sure what Wal-Mart's motive may be, there was general agreement that whatever the company is up to, its contribution to the reform debate is a positive one.
"This blows a hole in business opposition to reform efforts," said Judy Feder, a Georgetown University public policy professor who also serves as a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
The center's president, John Podesta, who helped lead Obama's transition team after the election, joined Wal-Mart Chief Executive Mike Duke in submitting last week's letter to the White House.
Also signing the letter was Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, which has been at odds with Wal-Mart in the past but is aligned with the company on healthcare issues.
When I pressed Rossiter on the company's motive for embracing healthcare mandates, he insisted that Wal-Mart has always recognized a need for overhauling the healthcare system.
The record, I believe, says otherwise. Until relatively recently, Wal-Mart has been viewed primarily as an opponent to reform, not an agent of change.
So what gives?
Many healthcare activists are reluctant to go on the record criticizing Wal-Mart for fear they'll discourage the company from continuing down the reform path. But privately, they say it's possible Wal-Mart is backing mandates as a way to head off more onerous legislation.
Specifically, the company may be trying to put the kibosh on a "free-rider provision" that would require employers to contribute to individual policies or government programs like Medicaid if workers have no other recourse for coverage.
About 52% of Wal-Mart employees are insured through the company, up from roughly 46% several years ago. The rest have to look elsewhere for coverage.
Often, coverage ends up being provided by taxpayers. As the nation's largest employer, Wal-Mart would perhaps have the most to lose from a free-rider provision.
Another catalyst for the company's born-again reform zeal could be a calculation
that its size and income --
$13.4 billion in profit last year -- make it better positioned than rival retailers to withstand the financial burden of a mandate.
Observers made a similar case in trying to explain why Philip Morris broke from other tobacco companies to support regulation of its business by the Food and Drug Administration. Simply put, Philip Morris had less to lose from FDA oversight and more market share to protect.
Many large and medium-size retailers may find a healthcare mandate too great a challenge amid ever-narrowing profit margins. For Wal-Mart, the higher cost of insurance could be offset by an influx of new customers.
"It's hard not to imagine that there's a lot of self-interest here," said Bob Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Still, he and others are prepared to give Wal-Mart the benefit of the doubt on the company's sincerity in its recognition that, as it says in the letter, "now is the time for action on this vital issue."
No less intriguing, Wal-Mart apparently remains open to Obama's proposal for a public insurance plan that would compete with private insurers.
"At some point, we'll have something to say about it," Rossiter said.
It's strange to think of Wal-Mart as one of the good guys in the healthcare debate. But the company is to be commended for taking a leadership position in advocating change -- something far too many businesses have been reluctant to do.
Question its motive all you like. The only thing that counts is where we end up.