Anglers and conservationists scored a big – but temporary - victory in January when the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) rejected an application by the State Department of Water Resources for a permit to begin the building of barriers in the South Delta, part of the first phase of the so-called South Delta “Improvement” Project.

The state, in cooperation with the federal government, had planned to build the tidal gates in an effort to increase the capacity of the state and federal pumping facilities to export more northern California water to the Westlands Water District and Southern California.

The SDIP had three major objectives:

• Increase water supply to the State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP) water contractors south of the Delta by increasing diversion at the existing Clifton Court Forebay gates and maximizing the frequency of 8,500 cfs exports at the Harvey O. Banks Pumping Plant.
•  Ensure water of “adequate quantity and quality” for agricultural diversions within the South Delta.
• Reduce entrainment of Central Valley fall/late fall chinook salmon from the San Joaquin River.

Fishing groups, conservation groups and the Winnemen Wintu Tribe, in hearing after hearing, blasted the state and federal governments for pursuing the project at a time when the food chain of the Delta is in severe decline, with Delta smelt, longfin smelt, threadfin shad and juvenile striped bass declining to record lows.

“DWR’s Spin Doctors would have us believe that building barriers and increasing exports will improve the ecology of the Delta along with its collapsing food web and fisheries, but that is simply not true,” said John Beuttler, conservation of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance.

The Army Corps of Engineers had originally issued a permit for the building of four permanent water barriers in the South Delta by the state to control salt water intrusion. This permit required consultation with NOAA Fisheries Under the federal Endangered Species Act.

However, the federal agency decided to suspend consultation after the Inspector General ordered the NOAA Fisheries to reinitiate consultation for a parallel program, the long term operation of the state and federal water projects under the Operations and Criteria Plan (OCAP).

Rather than pursuing a “piecemeal” approach, the agency wanted to look at the big picture of federal and state Delta water exports, according to Mike Aceituno, the National Marine Fisheries Service area supervisor.

In a letter to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Rod McInnis, regional administrator of NOAA Fisheries, the agency cited three major concerns:

•  The interrelated aspects of the SDIP barrier construction actions with the long-term operations of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project under the OCAP.  “Analysis of the SDIP as a separate project, without consideration of how it will be used under OCAP, would be seen as piecemealing under the ESA,” said McInnis.
•  The modeling analysis done for the SKIPD is “no longer in harmony with the current modeling for the reinitiated OCAP consultation.”
• The modeling conducted for the SDIP actions neglected to assess the use of the permanent barriers with the current level of water diversion (6,680 cfs). “This modeling run is important to know since the future increase in the SWP diversion rate to 8.500 cfs is not a guaranteed action,” concluded McKinnis.

In 2004, NOOA Fisheries approved a new and controversial plan to export water from northern to southern California. However, whistleblowers from the federal agency revealed that they had been pressured by higher ups in the Bush administration to prepare a document that declared there would be “no jeopardy” to Delta smelt, salmon, steelhead and other endangered and threatened fish species, even though the data clearly indicated otherwise.

After receiving massive criticism from environmental and fishing groups and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, the Inspector General report found “procedural irregularities” that resulted in decreased environmental safeguards for listed species. In addition, an independent scientific panel found that the “best available science” had not been followed. As a consequence, the agency was forced to reinitiate its consultation with the Bureau of Reclamation and State Department of Resources over OCAP.

In the meantime, NOAA Fisheries listed another species, green sturgeon, as threatened under the ESA, in addition to declaring the Delta as critical habitat for ESA listed species.

In reaction to increasing criticism by fishery groups and conservation groups that the SDIP shouldn’t proceed because of potential environmental damage caused by increased exports, state officials also said they would suspend the operational aspect of the project – while proceeding with the physical construction of the project (Stage 1).

“Our attorneys decided that you couldn’t separate construction of the SDIP from the use and operation of the SDIP,” said Russ Stratch, the NOAA Fisheries assistant regional administrator for protected resources. “Based on the attorney’s recommendation, we decided to suspend the SDIP until OCAP was reinitiated.”

“NOAA didn’t deny us the permit,” noted Paul Marshall, principal engineer for the California Department of Water Resources. “They asked us to roll Stage 1 of SDIP into the larger regional process of OCAP. It will push our time frame for proceeding with SDIP back by a year or more.”

John Beuttler, conservation director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, said he was “extremely pleased” to see NOAA step up to the plate and require the California Department of Water Resources to provide the needed information to make a decision regarding SDIP.

“We applaud the Service's clear thinking and acknowledgment of their legal responsibilities,” added Beuttler. “We believe that this will only provide a temporary, but important suspension of the SDIP. It doesn’t stop SDIP - it only slows it down.”  

Blue Ribbon Delta Vision Task Force A Big Disappointment  

On the down side of Delta developments, the Governor recently appointed a "Blue Ribbon Delta Vision Task Force" that is to is to develop a “Delta Vision” to provide a sustainable management program for the Bay-Delta.

The Task Force will prepare an independent “public report” and submit it to the Delta Vision Committee and the Governor that sets forth their findings and recommendations on the management of the Delta by January 1, 2008. This is to be followed by a “Strategic Plan” to implement the Delta Vision by October 31, 2008.

“Looking through the list of those appointed has left me wondering why the term ‘Blue Ribbon’ is being used in this context,” quipped Beuttler. “With the possible exceptions of Phil Isenberg and Sunny McPeak, the appointments don't appear to have significant qualifications in the field of restoring the estuarine ecology, water quality or fisheries -- the three critical areas that require to be addressed if the Delta Vision Process is not to turn into a continuation of the Delta Nightmare Process.”

I totally agree with Beuttler’s analysis. Recreational anglers, commercial fishermen and Indian Tribes are very wary of any “blue ribbon “ panel or commission because these “august bodies” are normally filled with political hacks or know little or nothing about fish and wildlife.

Troy Fletcher, a Yurok tribal member and the tribe’s consultant on natural resources, has repeatedly called for the convening of “blue collar” commissions – whose members are required to actually touch the water – rather than elitist “blue collar” panels to deal with the Klamath and other contentious California water issues.

On the heels of the appointment of the blue ribbon task force, the Public Policy Institute (PPIC) of California, released a study, “Envisioning Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta” on February 7.

“This report finds that the Delta, a vital natural resource and major supplier of the state’s water, is on a dangerously unsustainable path and could become an environmental and economic disaster due to changing conditions and increasing vulnerabilities to its system of levees,” according to PPIC.

The report’s six authors – who include experts in engineering, water policy, biology, geology, and economics – are Ellen Hanak (PPIC), Jay Lund, William Fleenor, Richard Howitt, Jeffrey Mount and Peter Moyle (University of California, Davis). They propose a number of alternatives for saving the Delta, ranging from reducing pumping in the state and federal pumps to a peripheral canal. Delta restoration advocates had mixed reviews of the controversial document.

“The report has raised important questions and concerns about the current and evolving Delta crisis,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla Campaign Director of Restore the Delta. “Restore the Delta agrees with the authors that business as usual will lead to a complete environmental and economic disaster for the region and the state.”

At the same time, Barrigan-Parrilla said she has been “somewhat amazed” at the media’s coverage of the report.  As one Restore the Delta supporter noted after his initial reading, “…the peripheral canal is only one part of one of the solutions and it is not clear that this is the best solution.” 

“Perhaps, because the term peripheral canal shows up 91 times in the document, reporters have latched onto the peripheral canal as being the one and only solution,” said Parrilla.

John Beuttler said the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance is still analyzing the report. “What is impressive about the study is that the authors have done a great deal of work looking at a wide range of solutions to the problems of the Delta,” he explained. However, he emphasized that the state has to boil down these alternatives to tangible opportunities for what works best to restore the declining estuary.