[env-trinity] Trinity Journal Article July 21, 2004

[Byron]

TRINITY RIVER RULING UPDATE

 

By AMY GITTELSOHN

            With an appellate court ruling last week in favor of a plan to
restore the Trinity River, full implementation of that plan -- including
very high spring flows for wet years -- is expected in 2005 or 2006.

            Barring further legal action by the opposition, the remaining
obstacles are structures.  Although work to replace four bridges to
accommodate higher flows is to be completed by the end of December, there
are other issues in the flood plain that haven't been addressed, said Ed
Solbos, implementation branch chief for the Trinity River Restoration
Program.

            "We are trying very hard to be ready by the spring of '05,"
Solbos said, but measures also have to be in place to protect some houses
and roads. So far it appears the Bureau of Reclamation will foot the bill
for that work, although three programs will fund the bridge work.

            If that work cannot be completed this year, Solbos said that all
efforts will be made to see that "we absolutely make the following year."

            "We're all thrilled with the ruling," Solbos said, "and we'll
get the river ready."

            It already is ready for implementation in a "normal" water year
in which the spring peak is 6,000 cubic feet per second at Lewiston. In
fact, the appellate court allowed implementation of a normal year flow this
year before its final decision was rendered last week.

            But the 8,500 cfs peak called for in a "wet" year would impact
structures, as would the 11,000 cfs high in an "extremely wet" year.

            The decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San
Francisco was hailed as a victory by the Hoopa Valley Tribe which appealed a
lower court decision blocking the higher flows.

            "I think it's essentially a total victory for the river and the
tribes and for the sports users," said attorney Tom Schlosser, who argued
the case for higher flows.

            Writing for a three-judge panel that heard the case, Judge
Alfred T. Goodwin stated that with 40 years of diversion of Trinity River
water to the Sacramento River Basin, Trinity River chinook salmon, coho
salmon and steelhead trout populations "have been decimated by the decades
of reduced water flows."

            Throwing out most of the rulings by U.S. District Court Judge
Oliver Wanger, Goodwin stated that there was no need for the supplemental
report Wanger ordered with more information on mechanical alternatives and
effects on power generation.

            The report did consider non-flow alternatives, he stated, and
the authors were not required "to have considered every conceivable
permutation of flow and non-flow measures."

            He noted that according to former Interior Secretary Bruce
Babbitt's Record of Decision of December 2000, the restoration plan would
equate to "a reduction in the statewide electrical energy supply of
approximately one-tenth of one percent."

            "The number and length of the studies on the Trinity River,
including the EIS, are staggering," Goodwin stated, "and bear evidence of
the years of thorough scrutiny given by the federal agencies to the question
of how best to rehabilitate the Trinity River fishery without unduly
compromising the interests of others who have claim on Trinity River water."

            Under the restoration plan, yearly flows will range between
369,000 acre feet in critically dry years to 815,000 acre feet in extremely
wet years. On average, 52 percent of Trinity River water would still be
exported for agriculture and other purposes.

            The program also includes 47 new habitat rehabilitation sites to
be constructed, mostly bank feathers. Judge Wanger had not held up the
stream bank work in his ruling, but it has yet to begin.

            The latest ruling by the appellate court came as a blow to the
Westlands Water District which initiated court proceedings to block the high
flows.

            Westlands spokesman Tupper Hull called the ruling "mixed"
because the appellate court upheld Wanger's decisions on a couple of items,
but acknowledged that "we're obviously disappointed the bulk of the ruling
is unfavorable to Westlands and the Central Valley Project water users."

            In Westlands' favor, the appellate court agreed with Wanger that
a mitigation measure insisted upon by the Fish and Wildlife Service to
offset salinity in the Delta is too extreme and the implications had not
been analyzed, and another agency exceeded its authority in stating that the
restoration plan must be put into effect immediately.

            "We are looking at the ruling very carefully... It's mixed in
terms of its impact on the record of decision," Hull said, adding that at
this point Westlands has made no decision on how to proceed.

            "I expect they will petition for a rehearing by the 9th Circuit
Court either by the full board or the same three, and if that's denied will
petition for a Supreme Court review," said Schlosser, the attorney for the
other side. "They'll throw some more money at this problem."

            However, Schlosser said he believes both efforts are likely to
be rejected.

 

Byron Leydecker

Chair, Friends of Trinity River

Consultant, California Trout, Inc.

PO Box 2327

Mill Valley, CA 94942-2327

415 383 4810 ph

415 519 4810 ce

415 383 9562 fx

bwl3 at comcast.net

 <mailto:bleydecker at stanfordalumni.org> bleydecker at stanfordalumni.org
(secondary)

http://www.fotr.org

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20040721/192483e1/attachment.html>