[env-trinity] Trinity Journal Guest Column- Tom Stokely: Peripheral Canal a greater threat to Trinity lake, river

[Tom Stokely]

I meant to say in the first sentence of the second paragraph that "...Reclamation will take more water out of Trinity Lake during a NORMAL year than a dry or critically dry year.
The two other Trinity Journal pieces referenced below are located at:
http://www.trinityjournal.com/opinion/editorials/article_53b5d21e-9411-11e1-bd03-0019bb30f31a.html 
and
http://www.trinityjournal.com/news/local/article_05958092-8904-11e1-bc07-0019bb30f31a.html 
The Trinity Journal no longer embargoes its articles for 2 weeks.
Tom Stokely
Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact
California Water Impact Network
V/FAX 530-926-9727
Cell 530-524-0315
tstokely at att.net
http://www.c-win.org

Peripheral Canal a greater threat to Trinity lake, river

By Tom Stokely Mt. Shasta, Calif. California Water Impact Network
Posted: Wednesday, May 9, 2012 6:15 am 
http://www.trinityjournal.com/opinion/guest_columnists/article_3e398a28-9995-11e1-b179-0019bb30f31a.html 
Thank you for your editorial of May 2 “Water-year determinations need better flexibility.” I do not write to refute your opinion and that of Mr. McHugh that the five water year types are “coarse” and are not flexible for years like this when the water year determination is on the cusp between water years. However, I would like to take the opportunity to point out that there are some erroneous assumptions inferred in your editorial as well as in the April 18 article “A wet recovery: State upgrades water year to ‘normal;’ More Trinity Lake water to flow to Central Valley.”
First, your editorial and the April 18 article continue the myth that the Bureau of Reclamation will take more water out of Trinity Lake during a wet year than a dry or critically dry year. This is simply not true! A comparison of BOR’s wet and dry forecasts for April and February illustrates that Reclamation will take more water from Trinity Lake in a critically dry year than a dry year or a normal year. The February critically dry forecast called for April-December exports through the Clear Creek Tunnel to Whiskeytown of 576,000 acre-feet of water. The February dry forecast called for Clear Creek Tunnel exports during the same period at 567,000 AF, 9,000 AF less than a critically dry year! The same logic applies to the April forecast where the drier forecast would export 557,000 AF and the normal forecast calls for an export of 539,000 AF, 18,000 AF less.
In summary, the February critically dry forecast called for Clear Creek Tunnel exports of 37,000 AF more than the April normal year forecast, clearly refuting the myth that more Trinity Lake water will go to the Central Valley because the water year is normal instead of dry or critically dry.
The second myth inferred from your editorial is that somehow the normal water year designation on the Trinity would also directly trigger more water going to farmers. This is not true either — water contract allocations for CVP water contractors are governed by inflow to Shasta Reservoir, not Trinity Lake.  
The bottom line good news is that even with the normal year flows down the Trinity River, predicted Trinity Lake storage at the end of September 2012 under a normal water year will be 41 feet than higher it would have been under a critically dry year forecast.
Nonetheless, I do agree with the editor and Mr. McHugh that the need for higher Trinity Lake carryover storage is vital for the Trinity River’s fisheries as well as the Trinity Lake economy and Trinity PUD’s low electric rates. However, rather than arguing over fishery flows, I think the real culprit is how much water the Bureau of Reclamation will take out of Trinity Lake when we have consecutive years of dry and critically dry years, as well as during the wetter years when there is a chance to rebuild storage.
FYI, the Bureau of Reclamation and its water contractors are planning on taking MORE water from Trinity Lake in the future with a Peripheral Canal. The Administrative Draft EIS/EIR for the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (code for Peripheral Canal or Tunnel) calls for increased water deliveries south of the Delta by over a million acre-feet, and some of that water will come from Trinity Lake. The document predicts with a Peripheral Canal or Tunnel, there will be a 10 percent increase in the frequency of Trinity Lake “dead pool” where the water level is so low that water cannot be released by gravity from the bottom outlet on Trinity Dam. Amazingly enough, the documents state that there will be no harm to Trinity River fisheries even if the river dries up and there is no cold water left in Trinity Lake! I hope that The Trinity Journal will focus its efforts on exposing the real threats to Trinity Lake, the Trinity River and Trinity PUD electric rates in an effort to unite local interests against those who plan on taking even more Trinity Lake water.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20120509/7e4caa60/attachment.html>