[env-trinity] Sacramento Bee July 30

[Byron]

The Bureau currently is in the process of renewing Central Valley Project
water service delivery contracts.  These should conform with the law - the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act.  Since Trinity water is an issue in
contracts currently being renewed, this Sacramento Bee story is knowledge
worth having by those interested in Trinity River restoration.  

 

We will be commenting on certain of these contracts as we did on the
environmental documentation that preceded them.  Since the latter were
flawed significantly, one of our recommendations was that the environmental
documents be withdrawn.  We asked, among other things, that environmental
evaluation be completed in full compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act.  The existing documentation clearly was not in compliance with
the law.

 

Byron

 

 

Agencies Ignored Impact of Water Deal, Judge Rules 

 

By Denny Walsh -- Bee Staff Writer Published 2:15 am PDT Saturday, July 30,
2005 

 

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation violated the Endangered Species Act in
pushing through tens of millions of dollars in water delivery contracts for
Central Valley farmers in 2001 while paying scant attention to the impact on
protected species and their habitats, a federal judge in Sacramento has
ruled.

 

U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton found that biological opinions by
two federal agencies - the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service - written to support the contracts are fatally flawed.

 

"This ruling documents the government's utter failure to consider the
wide-ranging impacts of Friant diversions on downstream fisheries and the
San Francisco Bay Delta," said Kate Poole, an attorney with the National
Resources Defense Council, a plaintiff in the 17-year-old lawsuit.

 

"It is time for the government to take the blinders off and acknowledge the
effects of Friant Dam on the downstream environment and our state's
imperiled fisheries," Poole said.

 

The ruling is the second time in less than a year that Karlton has found the
Bureau of Reclamation has botched its operation of the Friant Dam and its
sale of water captured by the dam and diverted from the San Joaquin River to
Valley farmers.

 

As part of the same suit, Karlton determined last August that the bureau's
operation of the dam had dried up miles of the river, destroying fish
populations.

 

The two orders, and another upcoming on different questions of liability,
set the stage for a Feb. 14 trial on what can be done to repair the damage
done to the river, species and their habitat.

 

Spokesmen for the three government agencies said the Karlton order filed
Thursday is still under review and there will be no comment at this time.

 

Gregory Wilkinson, an attorney for the irrigation districts that buy water
from the Bureau of Reclamation, said, "I'm quite disappointed. But we'll
continue to prepare for trial on the remedies phase of the case."

 

The bureau is paid approximately $117.7 million a year to deliver diverted
waters of the San Joaquin River to 28 irrigation districts, primarily for
Central Valley agriculture along the Friant-Kern Canal that serves thousands
of farmers in Fresno, Tulare, Kern and Madera counties.

 

In Thursday's 78-page order Karlton wrote: "While numerous examples may be
found, perhaps the clearest instance of arbitrary conduct was when the
bureau, knowing the Fish and Wildlife Service based its (biological)
analysis on less than the full contract amount (of water), nevertheless,
adopted a 'no jeopardy' finding," meaning the water sale would not put any
endangered or threatened species at risk.

 

Even though the new contracts called for deliveries of 2.14 million
acre-feet a year for 25 years, Fish and Wildlife used much lower delivery
figures from 1988 through 1997 to calculate impact, explaining in its
biological opinion that "delivery of full contract quantities is
unrealistic."

 

"Simply put, FWS did not evaluate the effects of the entire authorized
agency action," Karlton pointed out. The Endangered Species Act "mandates
that biological opinions must be coextensive with the action authorized."

 

The judge also cited an e-mail from a Fish and Wildlife senior biologist to
a colleague on Jan. 19, 2001, the same day the agency's biological opinion
was issued.

 

The message discussed " 'possible holes and weaknesses in our crash
(biological opinion),' including inadequate time to do a consultation,
inadequate biological assessments, a track record of lack of compliance by
the Bureau of Reclamation, concern that the contracts are inconsistent with
the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, and lack of coordination with
the National Marine Fisheries Service."

 

The day before the message was written, Fish and Wildlife biologists met
with their field supervisor as the new contracts were about to be executed.
A biologist asked if they could even consider the issue of jeopardy, as
required by the Endangered Species Act.

 

The field supervisor, Wayne White, said it was "too late" to consider
jeopardy, according to Karlton's order. "The opinion had to be rushed out
the following day, Mr. White explained, to avoid the opinion becoming even
weaker under the incoming Bush administration," the order says.

 

"Because the bureau failed to carry out its duty to ensure against jeopardy
(to protected species) and adverse modification (of habitats), and because
the bureau knew of the deficiency, the court must conclude that its conduct
was arbitrary and capricious," Karlton wrote.

 

The judge's order states that the National Marine Fisheries Service's
biological opinion has no meaningful discussion of impact on critical
habitat for winter-run chinook salmon.

 

As to the California condor, the Fish and Wildlife opinion "appears to
contain no discussion whatever of the effect of the contract renewal on
'critical habitat,' much less mention of recovery or conservation," the
judge wrote.

 

For the Delta smelt, the Fish and Wildlife opinion "is simply inadequate by
any measure," Karlton wrote. The same is true, he said, for five other
species.

 

The 14 plaintiffs claim consultations on steelhead and spring-run chinook
salmon had not been completed before the biological opinion said the species
would not be at risk.

 

The record supports that contention, Karlton wrote.

 

Byron Leydecker, 

Chair, Friends of Trinity River

Consultant, California Trout, Inc.

PO Box 2327

Mill Valley, CA 94942-2327

415 383 4810 ph

415 383 9562 fx

bwl3 at comcast.net

bleydecker at stanfordalumni.org (secondary)

http://www.fotr.org

http://caltrout.org

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20050801/8d19274d/attachment.html>