Re: [env-trinity] KlamBlog-Before the storm – Behind the scenes (2)

[FISH1IFR at aol.com]

In a message dated 9/25/2011 11:01:26 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
t.schlosser at msaj.com writes:

There are holes in each of these claims. 

1. Re. the 100,000  af, the DEIS, page 2-50, says "The diversion 
limitations would result in the  availability of irrigation water to be approximately 
100,000 acre-feet  less than the current demand in the driest years to 
protect  mainstem flows." But this confuses demand with lawful diversions at 
present.  In dry years, the coho BiOp restricts diversion to well below demand. 
So a  fairer estimate of increased water for fish would be the difference 
between  the Appendix E-1 amount and the amount permitted by the BiOp. Sadly, 
that  number is negative, i.e., the BIop reduces deliveries below the 
diversion  limitation; so the diversion limitation adds nothing for fish in such 
years.  Zero gain, not 100taf.

Glen's Response:  The Baseline for comparison for Project water  uses to 
KBRA-imposed water limitations is 1960-2000, years considered  "typical" of 
potential uses, with the Project at its current size. If there  were no 
constraints imposed by the KBRA or other laws, this is what the Project  would 
still use today, on average.  Its quite a bit higher than the  KBRA Diversion 
Limitation in dry years. 
 
The KBRA does reduce (in some dry years as much as 100,000 acre feet) total 
 allowed future Project diversons as compared to that baseline of typical 
demand,  capping it to the Diversion Limitation of 330,000 to 380,000 acre 
feet (precise  limiting amount depending on each water year).  This is up to a 
100,000 af  reduction.  My numbers are accurate -- sorry, this is not 
something you can  work your way around, it is purely mathematical.
 
You (and many others) confusingly compare the current ESA-driven BiOp  
"minimum flows" requirements against the KBRA... but the KBRA flows are intended 
 to work in concert WITH BiOp flows, not pitted against them.  The KBRA 
does  not, and never could, suspend the ESA, nor amend it in any way.  Thus  
whichever provides the BEST flows for salmon in any given water year will set  
the floor.  Implying that they conflict is simply false reasoning.
 
And if you look at the last 10 years of so of BiOp history as the ESA has  
actually been applied to govern lower river minimum flows, in some years the 
 KBRA provided more water for fish, and in other water years the ESA/BiOps 
did  so.  It all depends upon the water year, and on what the BiOp calls  
for.  It also varies by time of year which provides more.  
 
But one telling argument for firmly institutionalizing salmon-friendly  
flows through the KBRA, independent of the ESA or any other similar legal  
hook, is this:  What will those who depend completely upon the  ESA to shape 
salmon flows do when and if the ESA listing of coho salmon  disappears?  What 
will they then rely upon?  The answer, in  absence of the KBRA, is "nothing." 
 If that ESA listing goes away, those  who depend on the ESA are suddenly 
out of options to push for water  reforms.
 
And few people know how incredibly close we have come, twice at least, to  
losing that Klamath coho ESA listing in the federal Courts and in  Congress. 
 There is a Delisting Petition for coho salmon pending right now,  in fact, 
and others almost certainly coming.  And twice in the 9th Circuit  it was a 
very close vote.  PCFFA has been a lead plaintiff in defending  that 
current coho ESA listing in several cases.
 
Coho in the Klamath could be ESA delisted in at least one of three ways:  
(1) They go extinct -- all too likely, especially in the Scott and Shasta; 
(2)  ironically, they recover enough so ESA protections are no longer in place 
or  deemed necessary, or; (3) coho are judicially delisted through any of a 
number  of means, including Alsea Valley-type cases (hatchery vs. wild  
counting), a delisting petition, or reclassification of the ESU so that Klamath 
 salmon become a separate Distinct Population Segment (DPS), and then go  
extinct.  And all this is aside from the fact that, if the GOP takes full  
control of the federal Administration in the next election, including the 
Senate  and Presidency, we can likely kiss the ESA itself goodbye.   Efforts to 
repeal the ESA itself only lost in Congress in the past few years by  a 
handful of votes, or by lucky delays until the Congressional clock ran  out.  
The future of the ESA itself hangs in Congress by only a couple of  hairs.
 
My point, which I will now return to, originally was this: Dam  removal 
without the KBRA means none of the many benefits the KBRA promises to  provide, 
which are outlined and analyzed in the Draft EIS.  Dam removal  alone 
simply CANNOT get us to effective salmon recovery, nor guaranteed  water for the 
National Refuges, nor fully fund TMDL Clean Water Act  improvements, nor 
major realignment of water from the upper basin in  ways that are more 
salmon-friendly, etc., on its own.  On all those issues  you just cannot get there 
from here without the KBRA! 

2. The 30 taf will be purchases of water rights funded by federal  
appropriations, if any. We don't need the KBRA for that voluntary program,  just the 
appropriations. Also, if those additional flows into UKL are  achieved, 
that also increases somewhat the diversion limitation, reducing the  net gain 
to the river.
Glen's Response: As to your first point, good luck getting that  separate 
Congressional appropriation without: (a) any overarching plan such as  the 
KBRA to hook it to; (b) any of the incentive programs provided for  landowner 
participation through the KBRA to get them to voluntarily give up that  
water.
 
As to your second point, you are mistaken.  Achieving the 30,000 af  
off-Project reduction required under the KBRA does not change the on-Project  
Diversion Limitation, nor reduce net gains to the river in any way.

3.  The Williamson Delta, Agency Lake and Barnes Ranch storage  
areas--aren't some of these already built? Again, it's new federal  appropriations (or 
Nature Conservancy funding) that will expand UKL storage,  not the KBRA. 
Glen's Response: Yes, progress is being made on all those projects,  and 
some have been partially achieved, as in the Williamson Delta  Project.  That 
is not an argument against any of the remainder.

And, as you note, these will simply capture run-off that would  otherwise 
go to the river. Reregulating flow may help bridge drought years but  there's 
surely a value in letting the river run high and reshape and clean  itself 
during wet years, something that would be reduced by building greater  
storage and capturing high flows. 
Glen's Response:  The same could be said for any upper basin  water 
storage, since water management is a zero-sum game.  That does not  mean we should 
give up on increasing and restoring the wetlands storage base of  the upper 
basin that has been lost.   But biologically, the extra  water does salmon 
far more good during the spring for out-migration, or for  summer and fall, 
when flows are lowest (and the risk of another 2002-type adult  fish kill is 
highest) than that relatively small amount of water does in the  winter when 
the river is flooding at 5,000 cfs or greater, sometimes much  greater.  
The KBRA flow regime embodies that biological principle -- the  flow curves 
the salmon evolved for are what they thrive in best.
 
Scouring flood flows in the winter will still happen, never fear -- in  
fact, they cannot be avoided. Flood control was not build into any of  the dams 
to any significant degree.   Personally I think "bridging  drought years" 
is all to the good if we can avoid more major 2002-type fish  kills as a 
result, or at the minimum make them FAR less likely.  And that  is precisely 
what the KBRA would help to do.  It is not the entire answer,  nor can it 
address every issue, but in my view will get us a long way  toward some major 
Klamath River restoration goals.
 
 
 
=============================================
Glen H. Spain, NW  Regional Director
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations  (PCFFA)
PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR 97440-3370
O:(541)689-2000 --  Fax:(541)689-2500
Email: fish1ifr at aol.com
Home Page: _www.pcffa.org_ (http://www.pcffa.org/)   


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20110925/fef4a99c/attachment.html>