Sacramento Bee – 9/30/05
By Michael Doyle, staff writer

WASHINGTON - The House on Thursday passed the most sweeping overhaul to the Endangered Species Act since the landmark environmental bill was born 32 years ago. The House approval by a 229-193 vote marks a triumph for Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, who has unsuccessfully sought changes in the law for more than a decade. But with environmentalists and moderate Republicans still skeptical, the bill's long-term prospects are uncertain.

"We knew the Endangered Species Act had problems," Pombo said. "We knew there were things that needed to get fixed, that weren't working in current law."

Co-authored by Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Merced, and backed by a deep-pocketed coalition of developers, farmers and private property advocates, the bill fundamentally rewrites endangered species protections. It's particularly important in California, home to 304 federally protected species.

The Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act replaces the much-maligned "critical habitat" system with something more narrowly focused. For the first time, it reduces protections for "threatened" species compared to "endangered" species. It gives property owners a greater say in developing species recovery plans and restricts the kind of information scientists can present when seeking to protect plants and animals. It pays property owners when their plans are thwarted by species protections.

"It's a longstanding right in this country to be compensated when the government takes your property away," Cardoza said. But many other Democrats, and some moderate Republicans primarily from East Coast states, contend the bill undercuts important environmental protections.

"The Endangered Species Act is a safety net for wildlife, fish and plants that are on the brink of extinction," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco. "It really comes as no surprise that (Republicans) would bring a bill today that would shred the safety net."

The proposed changes would be costly. The federal government spends about $379 million annually on endangered species activities. The new bill could boost this to over $600 million annually, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated. Some of the added cost would come from modifying agency rules and meeting new planning deadlines, the budget analysts say.

Higher costs would also come from having to pay fair-market value to landowners with frustrated development plans. "This bill creates an endless slush fund for developers," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. "We would pay landowners not to break the law."

The Bush administration has likewise raised concerns about the property owner compensation plan as being a potentially open-ended commitment of federal funds. The administration formally supported the bill Thursday, while raising red flags about a "significant budgetary impact."

An effort to cut Endangered Species Act funding in June 1993 marked Pombo's first foray into endangered species politics. The former rancher and Tracy City Council member charged then that the law was being used "as a method of implementing a social agenda of a chosen few."

Pombo failed in his 1993 effort to cut spending, as he did in later efforts during the 1990s to rewrite the entire law. Since then, though, the 44-year-old lawmaker has gained clout as chairman of the House Resources Committee.

Significantly, key Democrats also began conceding that the original 1973 law needed updating. While the House on Thursday rejected an alternative bill backed by environmentalists, liberal lawmakers now accept key points long championed by conservatives. Notably, the environmentalists' bill also aided aggrieved landowners and eliminated the much-criticized "critical habitat" system likewise targeted by Pombo's bill.

Habitat reform is one of the key components of the new bill, along with landowner compensation. Currently, federal officials must designate critical habitat necessary for survival and recovery of a vulnerable species. Recently, for instance, officials designated 199,109 acres as critical habitat for the California tiger salamander and 1.7 million acres as critical habitat for Central Valley vernal pool species, such as fairy shrimp.

Federal agencies must consult with environmental regulators if a federal action - such as issuing a permit - might affect a protected species.

Currently, for actions on land designated as critical habitat, anything that causes an "adverse modification" to the habitat must be offset by other measures.

"The impacts of this inflexible law have been real and devastating," said Rep. Wally Herger, R-Marysville, citing examples like the cutoff of irrigation water to the Klamath Basin in Northern California and southern Oregon.

The House bill replaces critical habitat with a narrower "recovery habitat." Fewer acres would be designated for each species.

Moreover, a harder-to-meet standard would be established requiring action only if the species is put in actual "jeopardy."

The bills' controversial compensation provision would allow landowners to seek an Interior Department ruling on whether their property plans comply with the endangered species law.

If the Interior Department didn't rule within 180 days, that would count as permission to develop. If the department tells the landowner the plans violate the act, the landowner could demand compensation for the lost land value.

Capital lawmakers voted along party lines on the measure. Republicans Herger, John Doolittle of Roseville, and Dan Lungren of Gold River supported the overhaul. Democrats Doris Matsui of Sacramento and Mike Thompson of St. Helena were opposed.

The next step is up to the Senate, where moderate Republican Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island will take charge of the legislation. Chafee has asked a Colorado-based arbitration group called the Keystone Council to bring together opposing sides and come up with a proposed compromise by next February, Chafee spokesman Stephen Hourahan said Thursday. #

The House of Representatives is expected to approve a sweeping overhaul of the Endangered Species Act on Thursday that would curtail protection of wildlife habitat and require the federal government to compensate developers and others whose land use is restricted by the act.

The legislation has been put on a fast track by its chief sponsor, Rep. Richard W. Pombo (R-Tracy), who has long argued that the 1973 law is unfair to property owners and ineffective at saving species.

Critics of the bill say it would disable one of the nation's most important environmental laws, and by weakening habitat protection, erase the benefits to humans derived from landscapes that sustain plants and animals.

"Critical habitat is 86'd," acknowledged Pombo spokesman Brian Kennedy, referring to the existing requirements for tracts of land where imperiled species can remain unmolested.

The legislation is likely to face stiffer opposition in the Senate, where Rhode Island Republican Lincoln Chafee, who heads a key environment subcommittee, has indicated his displeasure with elements of Pombo's bill, particularly its elimination of critical habitat.

"If you gut the habitat, you're really gutting the act," Chafee said. "This is a critical part of any recovery. Habitat is absolutely essential to any species."

Chafee said his subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water would consider its own revisions to the act but probably not until next year.

Pombo's bill, which has some Democratic support in the House, would also require the federal government to compensate a developer or property owner if land use is restricted as a result of the act.

Moreover, the bill is designed to expedite development decisions by giving federal officials a six-month deadline to determine whether a proposed project would harm a species protected under the act.

The bill would eliminate the requirement for an independent group of scientists to arbitrate endangered species disputes and put the secretary of Interior in charge of determining the "best available science" regarding protected species.

One controversial amendment, by Rep. Greg Walden (R-Oregon), would exempt the use of pesticides from regulation under the Endangered Species Act for five years. The amendment removes the requirement limiting the use of a pesticide known to kill an endangered species.

A broad group of wildlife and conservation organizations opposes the bill, saying it rolls back 30 years of progress in staving off extinction for scores of species, including the bald eagle, which is proposed for removal from the endangered species list.

According to Bob Irvin, an attorney for the environmental group Defenders of Wildlife, who edited the American Bar Assn. textbook on the act, Pombo's bill is an outright attack on the law.

"Mr. Pombo has spent much of his career criticizing the Endangered Species Act for its failure to get species off the list," Irvin said. "Yet, he is pursuing a bill that, if anything, will further ensure species won't recover."

But to Chuck Cushman, executive director of the American Land Rights Assn., Pombo's bill gives landowners incentives to do the right thing to help recover the species.

"If I find gold on my property, my property value goes up. If I find a spotted owl on my property, my property value goes down," Cushman said. "This [bill] changes that equation."

Laer Pearce, executive director of the Coalition for Habitat Conservation, a group of corporate landowners that works to develop alternative approaches to protecting habitat, called the bill's elimination of critical habitat "fabulous. It's absolutely fabulous."

His group includes The Irvine Co., Rancho Mission Viejo, and Lennar Homes.

Farmers, developers and others strenuously object to the current law's tight restrictions on private land use where an endangered species is discovered.

Critics of the act have argued that it backfired by creating a culture of "shoot, shovel and shut up"— in which private property owners destroy endangered wildlife or its habitat, rather than face the prospect of limited land use or undergo the lengthy process of applying for permits to use their land or pay to mitigate the effects of development.

Pombo, whose Central Valley district includes many farmers, ranchers and developers, is a leading congressional opponent of many current environmental laws and policies, including the National Environmental Policy Act, which he also wants to change.

Pombo recently proposed selling 15 national park units to help offset the federal budget deficit. And in another pending bill, Pombo would loosen environmental restrictions on energy exploration on on-shore and off-shore federal lands.

Pombo's proposed revisions to the Endangered Species Act — titled the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act — is the latest in several attempts by Congress to rewrite the act since Republicans took control of the House in 1994.

Kennedy said the bill had bipartisan support from 70 co-sponsors and predicted it would "pass with flying colors."

On Tuesday, Susan Holmes, a Washington-based lobbyist for the environmental group Earthjustice, said that "by any measure, this legislation is on an extremely fast track. The public is only now hearing about it."

Pombo released the bill just two days before holding a single hearing, in which there was testimony from only one witness opposed to the revisions of the act.

Chafee said that he was surprised by the aggressive approach taken by Pombo and others in the House, and that, if necessary, he or other Senate colleagues would call for a filibuster to stop the bill in its present form.

Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Sen. Michael D. Crapo (R-Idaho) are working on a bill that could be more in line with Pombo's, according to a spokeswoman for Crapo. That bill may be ready for consideration before the end of the year.

Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton, who has jurisdiction over the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has indicated that she shares Pombo's view of critical habitat. But defenders of the current law point to a study published in the April issue of BioScience magazine analyzing Fish and Wildlife Service data demonstrating that species with designated critical habitat have recovered at twice the rate of those without it.

Biologists have also noted an umbrella effect occurring in critical habitat areas — unexpected improvements among other plants and animals, as well as enhanced air and water quality, according to Douglas Wheeler, a Republican lawyer who was California's resources secretary under Gov. Pete Wilson.

In an interview this week, Paul N. "Pete" McCloskey, a former California GOP congressman who co-wrote the 1973 endangered species law, said habitat protection was the centerpiece of the bill.

"What we understood at the time was that the death of anything in an ecosystem could affect human health. The whole purpose of preserving endangered species is you can't preserve them without habitat. This is an outrageous bill." #

Los Angeles Times – 9/28/05

IN LOS ANGELES, BUSINESSES SOMETIMES team up to improve local shopping districts. In the eastern Sierra, they do it to buy fish food.

Hatcheries are a matter of economic survival for the state's mountain tourism industry, but because of repeated cuts in the budget of the state Fish and Game Department, they're in trouble. In response, businesses and local governments in Mono County raised about $100,000 for fish food and fuel for the Hot Creek hatchery near the town of Mammoth Lakes. It's an admirable effort but, without help from the state, it may not be enough to keep the hatchery afloat.

Even more than skiing, backpacking and mountain biking, trout fishing is the economic backbone of the eastern Sierra. About three-fourths of the anglers come from Southern California. Many fear that Fish and Game officials will close Hot Creek and the Fish Springs hatchery near Big Pine, especially after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed $3 million appropriated by the Legislature this summer for hatcheries. Production at Fish Springs has declined from a usual 500,000 pounds of trout annually to 275,000, according to Tim Alpers, who raises trophy fish at his trout farm and who is leading the effort to save Hot Creek.

Hatchery closures could decimate trout populations in eastern Sierra lakes and streams. That could be avoided if Schwarzenegger signs a bill sponsored by Assemblyman David Cogdill (R-Modesto). His AB 7 would dedicate a third of the income from sport-fishing license sales to keep the hatcheries running and to help bring back native trout species in certain areas. The measure passed the Legislature without a single "no" vote. But the Department of Fish and Game is lobbying Schwarzenegger to veto the bill, claiming that it would force cuts in other priority programs. Alpers and his allies argue that the department refuses to identify what other programs might be hurt.

Passing laws to permanently earmark money for specific programs generally is bad policy. An increasing amount of Fish and Game's budget comes from licenses and fees, and less from the state's general fund. The state budget still has red ink, but potentially dooming hatcheries by vetoing a $3-million appropriation is also poor policy. Because the state has failed to find the money to support the century-old hatchery system, the Cogdill measure is needed. Schwarzenegger should sign this bill.

California's trout hatchery production and wild trout programs both would get a significant boost if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signs landmark legislation that has reached his desk.

Assembly Bill 7, known as the Inland Fisheries Restoration Act, would dedicate 33.3% of the revenue from sport fishing license sales to the state's trout hatcheries, fish planting facilities and wild trout restoration.

"Our hatcheries and inland fisheries ought to be healthy and productive, not fighting to stay afloat," said Assemblyman Dave Cogdill (R-Modesto), the bill's author. "If the governor signs this measure, it will be a huge step toward this goal."

AB 7 cleared both houses of the legislature unanimously before landing on the governor's desk. He has until Oct. 9 to sign or veto the measure or it automatically becomes law.

Erin Guerrero, Cogdill's capitol director, said Schwarzenegger has not tipped his intentions.

"Right now, we're just working it as hard as we can," Guerrero said. "We're not really sure what he's going to do."

The California Department of Fish and Game receives roughly $54 million in annual revenues from sales of fishing licenses, which cost $33.35 this year.

Currently, only 2% of the DFG budget goes to hatcheries, according to a government memo given to the San Francisco Chronicle — even though surveys show 61% of the state's anglers fish for trout.

If signed, AB 7 would place all revenues from fish license sales into the newly created Hatcheries and Inland Fisheries Fund. The money then would be used to accomplish three goals:

Maintain a schedule of fish hatchery production based on a poundage per license formula.

Earmark $2 million to the Heritage and Wild Trout Program.

Require (by 2011) that 25% of the fish produced by state hatcheries be native species.

The DFG has not taken a public position on AB 7.

Lake Davis redux

After a decade spent trying to eradicate northern pike from Lake Davis in Plumas County, the DFG appears ready to try again.

Last week, the DFG announced it has taken the first step in an extensive process of environmental reviews that will result in a decision whether to eliminate the predatory fish species in 2006 and 2007.

The proposed project would remove 75% of the water from Lake Davis and introduce a liquid version of the poison rotenone to the lake and its upstream tributaries.

If pike were to escape downstream and reach the San Joaquin and Sacramento river delta, DFG director Ryan Broddrick said they could threaten native salmon, steelhead and other fish.

KLAMATH -- The Yurok Tribe and the Humboldt County Environmental Health Department are warning tribal members and recreational users of the Klamath River about the dangers of toxic algae.

New tests from Iron Gate and Copco reservoirs have indicated a possible health risk and on Wednesday tribal members were issuing written warnings to reservation villages along the river. New toxin levels have yet to be determined, but according to Troy Fletcher, interim executive director of the Yurok Tribe, rashes and illness have been reported by tribal members.

Animals and children seem to be particularly susceptible to the effects of blue green algae and as a precaution the tribe is recommending pets and children not swim in the river. As this is the height of salmon season, they are also asking fishermen to clean fish with fresh water and to dispose of the innards away from the river or where animals could eat them. Some fish organs seem to retain the algae toxins.

Fletcher said he met with environmental health representatives, the health department and 1st District Supervisor Jimmy Smith in an effort to shore up support in getting the word to the public.

”Toxic algae levels at these reservoirs are the highest levels that have ever been sampled to my knowledge, and we all know water flows down stream,” Fletcher said. “That certainly has an impact on the river water quality below the hydrofacility and it concerned us enough and Karuk Tribe enough to notify the county.”

If children or animals do go in the water, Environmental Health Department Director Brian Cox said they should avoid the stagnant, warmer waters where algae blooms are prevalent, and rinse off with fresh water afterwards. Health risks when exposed to mycrosystis, the toxic strain of blue green algae include: vomiting, rash, diarrhea, stomach cramps and liver problems.

Several years ago dogs had reportedly died after exposure to the algae in the South Fork of the Eel River and Big Lagoon. Reservoir algae levels so far are much higher than those tested in the Eel River and Big Lagoon after the animals died, Cox said.

”In some cases animals were dying within 24 to 48 hours of exposure, in others it was within just a few hours,” Cox said. “Blue green algae is a complicated little creature and we just don’t know enough about it yet.”

For now Fletcher said the tribe will continue to monitor the river and work with local authorities to keep the public abreast of new developments.

”We need to insure there is adequate and timely sampling,” he said. “On the longer term we need to work together to address the larger water quality problems of the hydroelectric facility.”

For more information about algae risks call the Department of Health and Human Services Environmental Health Division at 445-6215. #

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service is seeking proposals to develop projects under its Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, which helps to plan and finance improvements to native habitats.

Funding is provided on an annual, statewide, competitive basis, although projects are accepted, planned and evaluated year-round.

The Conservation Service employs biologists, soils scientists, engineers, hydrologists and other professionals to assist in project planning. All nonfederal properties are eligible, including those owned by private individuals, companies, nonprofit organizations, and local and state governments.

Up to 75 percent of a project's cost is reimbursable, and the other 25 percent can be covered by in-kind labor or equipment use. To be eligible, applicants must own the land or have an agreement to manage it.

There are several priorities that will increase a project's chances at being accepted into the program. They include protection and enhancement of riparian areas and sensitive species, such as steelhead trout.

Riparian areas are the naturally lush strips of vegetation that line streams and rivers.

These areas are important for wildlife habitat, pollution control and erosion control, among other things. Other priorities include oak woodlands or other threatened habitats, wildlife corridors or wetlands.

Examples of local projects include farmland and wetland restoration, native plantings, stream-bank restoration, oak planting, arundo or other weed removal, and vegetative stream buffers.

The Conservation Service also runs the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, a voluntary conservation program for farmers and ranchers.

Locally, the focus is on soil erosion, water quality, water quantity and wildlife habitat.

Only agricultural producers are eligible. The program reimburses up to 50 percent of a project's cost, and 75 percent for beginning farmers.

The Conservation Service also has other programs designed to help conserve habitat, water supply and quality, and soil.

Applications for programs are available at its Somis office, 3380 Somis Road.

The application deadline for the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program is Nov. 1, and Dec. 2 for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program.

For more information, contact the Conservation Service at 386-4489 or visit http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs. #

Record Searchlight – 9/16/05
RED BLUFF -- The gates at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam were raised Thursday, helping endangered winter-run chinook salmon swim up the Sacramento River and its tributaries.

The gates are raised every year about this time. They will be lowered again in May, allowing water to be diverted for irrigation while also holding water back for recreation at Lake Red Bluff.

The changes are required under the Endangered Species Act, according to the Bureau of Reclamation. Temporary pumps will continue delivering irrigation water until the end of the growing season.#

Bay Area anglers would have more trout to catch in lakes and more crabs to catch along the coast if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signs two bills approved last week by the legislature.

AB-7, by Assemblyman Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto, the Inland Fisheries Act of 2005, would require that one-third of the revenue from the sales of fishing licenses go to trout hatcheries and wild-trout restoration. The bill passed the Senate early this month, and then was approved by the Assembly 71-0 last week.

Only 2 percent of the Fish and Game budget goes to hatcheries, according to a government memo provided The Chronicle. Yet according to a survey, 61 percent of California anglers fish for trout. The result, such as at Lake Merced in San Francisco, is that the number of trout provided by the DFG does not provide a reasonable chance to catch a fish. That is why many lake operations in urban areas charge an extra fee to raise money to buy additional fish.

SACRAMENTO -- California's 840,000 trout anglers could have more fish of more varieties to catch if a three-year legislative effort by a local assemblyman is successful.

Increasing production at the state's 22 fish hatcheries -- one of which is in San Joaquin County -- has been a crusade for Modesto Republican Dave Cogdill, whose district includes the Mother Lode.

"It just seemed morally repugnant and wrong for the Department of Fish & Game to take your money and not provide the product they promised," Cogdill said.

DFG officials say they are doing the best they can with diminishing resources and are worried that Cogdill's bill, which passed the Legislature unanimously this week, will hamper their ability to perform other duties.

Statistics show that at least 1.4 million Californians fish every year, 60 percent of them for trout. Yet, a review by the state auditor earlier this year found funding for trout hatcheries declining 17 percent in the past three years.

Cogdill has tried to pass his bill twice before. This year, he bent and twisted and jumped through all the hoops needed to persuade the Legislature to pass his bill, the chief provision of which will dedicate one-third of all fishing-license revenue to the hatchery program.

"I have yet to receive a 'no' vote," Cogdill said.

But Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican like Cogdill, could be a first and fatal "no" vote if he vetoed the bill. Schwarzenegger's Department of Fish & Game isn't thrilled with the legislation.

"Obviously there is concern, because there is no new money. It is shifting between programs," said DFG Deputy Director Greg Hurner.

Hurner said his department has not decided whether to ask Schwarzenegger to veto Cogdill's bill; but he did say it could limit their efforts in other areas such as restoring the environment of the Delta, where fish stocks are crashing.

"We have a lot of priorities, and we're trying to balance them," Hurner said.

Cogdill says allocating a third of the department's license fees to serve two-thirds of their customers isn't unfair.

"They're acting like this is going to bankrupt them," he said. "It's ridiculous."

Earlier this year, Schwarzenegger vetoed $20 million in state budget money for hatcheries, game wardens and native fish restoration that Cogdill had fought hard to include.

Cogdill and a constellation of fishing groups initially fought to restore the cash but dropped that effort to focus on winning passage of his bill, which would provide the hatcheries with a steady, long-term source of funding.

It would also require DFG to begin raising more species of trout and to restore production to levels reached in the early 1990s and ultimately go beyond that.

Hurner said the department raises only two types of trout now -- the Lahontan cutthroat and a hybrid coastal rainbow-steelhead -- and that adding another three types of trout as the bill requires would be difficult, if not impossible. He said the department has been unable to raise some isolated species.

The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance is one of the few fishing groups to oppose the measure. Its chairman, Bill Jennings, says California needs more wild trout not the dull, pen-raised animals dumped into lakes and streams by hatcheries.

"It essentially shifts funds critical for biological and enforcement activities to raising fish that lack the behavioral and genetic conditioning to survive in the wild," Jennings said.

Cogdill notes that his measure would double funding for the Heritage Trout program, which helps improve habitat for California's wild trout such as the Sierra Nevada's Lahontan.

Cogdill says he's ready to fight to prevent a Schwarzenegger veto.

"I'm pulling out every stop I can think of to get this bill signed," he said. "I don't want to go to war with a Republican governor. Hopefully we can get the governor to do the right thing."

Tracy Republican Richard Pombo plans to introduce a comprehensive rewrite of one of the nation's strongest environmental laws in the coming weeks, a move that is expected to be the most significant attempt to revamp the Endangered Species Act in nearly a decade.

As chairman of the influential House Resources Committee and a fierce, career-long critic of the nation's foremost wildlife law, Pombo has the ability to put some wind behind the sails of his bill.

But attempts to change the endangered species law have always proven difficult, and Pombo's efforts in the past have been particularly controversial.

The 1973 law prohibits the killing of bald eagles and allowed reintroduction of wolves to regions of the country where they had been driven to near-extinction. It also places limits on development and government projects in the name of species that run the gamut from foxes to freshwater shrimp.

The law has been used to protect spotted owls and shut down timber operations, and in the past two decades has been invoked in increasingly tense situations.

Supporters say the law is often the only way natural resources can be protected from destruction, while detractors say it prevents legitimate activities, including construction, logging and water diversions.

In a recent interview with the Times editorial board, Pombo predicted bipartisan support for his bill and said that negotiations with Democrats are about 95 percent complete.

"If it goes the way I expect, most of the Democrats on the committee will either be original co-sponsors or will vote for it," Pombo said.

A spokeswoman for the top Democrat on the Resources Committee, Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.V., offered a cautious assessment.

"Congressman Rahall is negotiating in good faith with Chairman Pombo on (ideas) to amend the Endangered Species Act," Rahall spokeswoman Kristen Bossi said in an e-mail exchange. "It is too early to say to what extent Democrats on the committee will support a bill once it is introduced."

Environmentalists were less diplomatic and more skeptical.

"He's claimed (bipartisan support) many times in the past, and he never seems to have it," said Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity, a Tucson-based environmental group.

"It sounds very unlikely," Suckling said.

Pombo said he expects to introduce the bill in his committee later this month, and pass it to the full House of Representatives.

If that happens, it would be the first time a comprehensive rewrite of the endangered species law has gotten to the floor in years, said Pombo spokesman Brian Kennedy.

The last major rewrite was also a Pombo-led effort that passed committee but was short-circuited in 1996, an election year, and never reached the floor. Then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich was reported at the time to be concerned that the bill would allow opponents to portray Republicans as hostile to the environment.

In his interview with the Times, Pombo offered some highlights of his draft bill, which has not been released. He said it would:

• Require the federal agency that enforces the ESA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to prepare recovery plans for endangered species and then design habitat protection to fit those recovery plans. Doing so, Pombo said, would limit the agency's desire to unnecessarily "control land" by protecting habitat that is not critical to species recovery;

• Offer grants and tax breaks to private landowners who conserve endangered species habitat;

• Require that outside experts review the science in decisions to list species as endangered and to design recovery plans. Pombo asserted that such "peer review" is not done today. However, the Government Accountability Office in 2003 reported that decisions to list species are subject to peer review and experts "generally support the science behind those decisions."

Other than the peer review requirement, which environmentalists see as a ruse to infuse politics or landowner interests into the scientific process, the details offered by Pombo are not controversial.

But environmentalists are concerned about new details that will emerge in the final bill. A leaked draft from July contained a number of provisions that worried conservationists.

For example, the earlier draft called for eliminating the requirement that an endangered species be recovered, stripping protection for "threatened" species that have not yet reached the level of endangerment, and making it far more difficult to get protection for species that are not endangered throughout their entire ranges, said Suckling, the environmentalist.

Pombo distanced himself from that early draft, saying he read it on the Internet.

"That was just a working draft," Pombo said, adding that the latest draft contains, "a lot of differences." #

WATER RECYCLING IN SACRAMENTO:
Water in, water out; To stretch supplies, more projects are embracing purple-pipe systems that recycle wastewater for irrigation, industry and even recharging aquifers. There are big costs upfront, but savings down the road

Sacramento Business Journal – 9/9/05
By Robert Celaschi, staff writer

To develop real estate in the Sacramento region, having access to water is almost as important as having the land. When it's not physically or politically feasible to deliver more water, the next best thing is to get more mileage out of water that's already available.

That's the idea behind water recycling. Instead of sending treated wastewater into creeks and rivers, agencies can return it to communities through a separate set of pipes for uses that don't involve human contact.

It's already being done on a small scale. California now recycles about 500,000 acre-feet of water per year, according to the Recycled Water Task Force, a state panel formed in 2001. An acre-foot is traditionally considered enough water to supply a typical household for a year.

About half of the water now recycled in the state is used to keep plants growing on highway medians, farms, golf courses, parks and schoolyards, according to the WateReuse Association. But small amounts also find industrial uses such as in cooling towers and boilers, and even in some office buildings for toilet flushing. It's also used to recharge aquifers.

California has the potential to recycle up to 1.5 million acre-feet per year by 2030, the task force figures. That could free up enough fresh water to meet about 30 percent of the household water needed for projected population growth. But it also would require nearly $11 billion for additional pipes, pumps and other infrastructure.

Old idea, new applications: Using municipal wastewater for farm irrigation dates to the 1890s in California, according to the task force. What's relatively new is using recycled water around homes.

The most ambitious application locally is in Parker Development Co.'s Serrano project in El Dorado Hills. Each Serrano home is built with two sets of pipes, one for drinking water and one for recycled water. Already 2,774 houses have been built with dual plumbing, and the number should reach 3,500 at build-out.

"What triggered our initial interest in recycled water about 15 years ago was our water supplier -- the El Dorado Irrigation District -- had a supply issue," said Kirk Bone, Parker Development's director of governmental relations. To stretch the water that was available in Serrano's planning stages, it was decided to use recycled water for the golf course and greenbelt areas. In 1999 the idea was expanded to include houses.

The water itself comes from the irrigation district's wastewater treatment plants. Wastewater is left standing so solid material can settle out, then bacteria are added to digest more solid waste. The water is then filtered, disinfected and pumped back out through a special set of purple pipes that carry only recycled water.

In theory recycled water shouldn't cause any harm if someone gets a mouthful, but no one involved in such projects recommends it. The purple pipes are mandated by the state to help prevent cross-connections with potable water systems.

"For all the lots we've built up here, we've had one cross-connection," said Bone, and since then Parker Development has added some quadruple checks.

Running the numbers: Dual plumbing doesn't come cheap. Parker Development has spent about $20 million to create Serrano's recycled-water infrastructure. But there are savings too: It costs less to treat wastewater than to treat and supply fresh water.

"In and of itself we are running about $3,000 a house more, but we have had a positive relationship with our purveyor," said Bone. "What effectively happens when you set up these larger systems is that it doesn't end up costing more to go to a dual system. I wouldn't say it's 100 percent a push, but it's almost a push."

Along with the dual plumbing, each house has two water meters, with recycled water billed at only 80 percent of the cost of fresh, said Steve Setoodeh, the irrigation district's director of environmental compliance programs.

"Our justification was that we saved about $60 million in new treatment facilities. So the whole district basically saves," he said. "We don't want to forget that it is an environmentally good thing to do too."

A side benefit is that during a drought, it's much less likely that homeowners would be asked to stop watering their lawns, which accounts for a big chunk of residential water use.

A two-year analysis showed that Serrano residents used only 32 percent potable water and 68 percent recycled water, according to Parker Development.

Since early last year, El Dorado Irrigation has mandated the use of recycled water in areas where it's available for new construction, both residential and commercial. That primarily means El Dorado Hills, though it could be expanded to other nearby areas, said Elizabeth Wells, co-manager for the district's recycled water/wastewater division.

Recycled water now comes from the Deer Creek wastewater treatment plant and the El Dorado Hills plant, she said.

Expanding the pool: Other agencies also have climbed on the recycled-water wagon.

In 1999, the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District began construction of a system to recycle about 550 acre-feet a year at the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant in Elk Grove. The new facility went online in April 2003.

At peak production, the plant has the capacity to recycle about 5 million gallons a day, or about 3 percent of the average 165 million gallons of wastewater treated every day and discharged into the Sacramento River. The recycled water goes primarily to large users such as the Elk Grove Unified School District and the Elk Grove Community Services District for watering parks, schoolyards and roadway medians in the Laguna and Franklin areas.

Future expansion could bring peak processing up to 10 million gallons a day. The sanitation district has set a goal of 30 million to 40 million gallons a day for the Sacramento region by 2020.

At this stage the district is looking for expansion opportunities.

"We're working with the water purveyors, we're working with the land-use authorities -- cities and counties -- we're working with business, environmental groups, you name it," said Ruben Robles, senior civil engineer for the district.

One challenge is distance from the main plant. "It's not economical to generate it in Elk Grove and pipe it all the way to Folsom, for example," Robles said.

One option being looked at is a "scalping plant," a small facility that would separate the solids and pump them to the main plant while recycling the water left behind.

It's also a given that it's easiest to install dual pipe in new areas of development, when streets, parks and buildings are being designed and built. But some experts say there are opportunities for retrofitting if a large enough customer signs on, allowing a provider to pick up smaller customers nearby.

Right now the Sacramento district doesn't send recycled water to houses for landscaping. For that to change, there first would have to be an education campaign so that people know not to sneak a drink from an outdoor hose or run through the sprinklers, Robles said.

Smaller cities also have started recycling water. In Placer County, the city of Lincoln spent $3.5 million on purple pipes to irrigate medians and about 600 acres of agricultural land west of Highway 65, said John Pedri, director of public works. "The whole basis of this is the fact that we just built a new $85 million wastewater treatment facility," he said.

The regional plant came on line about a year ago, said Pedri. Plans call for extending the reclamation pipeline to the east side of Highway 65, and eventually to other parts of Placer and Nevada counties.

Pedri gave special credit for the new treatment plant to a trio of developers: Del Webb, Placer Holdings and Sterling Pacific Assets.

"Those were the three parties where we sat down and laid out the development agreement. The developers paid a good portion of the facility," he said. "It was a real team approach."

Unified approach: Recycling water is not just a matter of suppliers doing what they think is right.

"The state really regulates this -- the Department of Health Services -- even though it is a very high-quality water," said Pedri.

A permit must be issued for each recycled water use, from growing rice to hosing down sidewalks. And the rules for permits keep getting more strict, said Wells at El Dorado Irrigation.

Sometimes agencies must discharge water into streams, rather than recycle it, to ensure the health of wildlife.

"Recycled water is a balancing act with your customer base, your supplier, local and state health departments, and the Water Quality Control Board," said Paul Klein, vice president of RBF Consulting in Sacramento and president of the WateReuse Association's California section.

What makes it tough is that environmental requirements don't always line up. "I won't say case by case, but area by area. It depends on groundwater quality and interpretation of regulations at the local level," he said.

Consistent interpretation statewide is one thing his group is fighting for, he said.

It looks like the effort is making headway. Assembly Bill 371 by Jackie Goldberg, a Los Angeles Democrat, would implement the recommendations of the 2001 task force such as removing the label of "waste" from recycled water and giving the Department of Health Services pre-emptive authority to adopt and enforce uniform criteria statewide.

The bill passed the Assembly in May and was reported out of a state Senate appropriations committee in August. Goldberg's office said it's on hold until January while a few more possible amendments are worked out, but should be on the governor's desk before next summer. #

Sacramento Bee – 9/7/05
By Chris Bowman, staff writer

The Schwarzenegger administration is gutting the state's nascent program to regulate the biggest uncontrolled source of water pollution in California - the runoff of pesticides, fertilizers and salt from 10 million acres of irrigated crops.

No sooner had the state completed its hiring of enforcers to police drainage from Central Valley farms than top administration officials ordered the staff cut by two-thirds.

The Aug. 30 directive came the same day the appointed chairman of the state Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board publicly chastised its staff for asking industry representatives to divulge the names of farmers following the rules - thus identifying those not complying.

Environmentalists see the two actions as clear evidence that the Schwarzenegger administration lacks the political will to hold agriculture accountable for pollution it releases into rivers and streams.

"The regional board's efforts to prevent staff from enforcing the law, while the state is cutting that staff, is perhaps the most wretched, shameful and despicable spectacle I've witnessed in 20 years of working in the water quality arena," Bill Jennings, chairman of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, said Tuesday.

"The water boards can elect to protect our waterways or to continue shielding farmers from the law. They can't do both."

Beth Jines, acting deputy director of the state Water Resources Control Board, downplayed the decision.

"I wouldn't characterize it as significant cuts," Jines said. "It's a program still emerging."

The enforcement cutback also comes as a proposal to bolster the farm pollution program advances through the Legislature. The Assembly is scheduled to vote today on SB 646, by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, which would require farmers who release pollutants into waterways to identify themselves to the regional boards.

The Central Valley water board adopted the farm pollution-control program two years ago without an assured source of revenue to sustain its oversight.

Earlier this year, the state water board voted to charge farmers fees to run the program, but the collection effort has been hampered by unwillingness among farmers to identify themselves.

A key spokesman for the farmer coalitions said Tuesday that the success of the program doesn't ride on the size of enforcement staff, but in trusting farmers to enforce themselves, without having to divulge names and locations of properties.

"The regional board hired a lot of staff they don't need," said Bill Thomas, a Sacramento attorney representing the Southern San Joaquin Valley Water Quality Coalition, whose members own up to 4 million acres of irrigated farmland.

The state water board ordered staff cuts in the irrigated lands programs across all nine regional water boards, with the Central Valley staff taking the biggest hit. Its farm program staff of 18 will dwindle to six, according to internal state board memos obtained by The Bee.

Robert Schneider, chairman of the Central Valley water board, said Tuesday that while he is critical of the staff's recent approach with farmers, he was surprised by the administration's decision to cut the enforcement.

"It's totally unacceptable to eviscerate the ... program," Schneider said. "The money must be found. I'm going to fight for our staff."

The program emerged two years ago as a compromise between environmentalists and farmers, who long have been exempt from pollution limits that apply to other industries and sewage treatment plants.

Under the gun of a lawsuit by environmentalists, the state water board tightened the loophole.

Farmers still could avoid full regulation by joining a "water quality coalition" that monitors and cuts pollution within a drainage system. State regulators can put farmers on a more restrictive permit if they are not satisfied.

In June, the state water board adopted grower fees to raise $1.9 million for 22 new staff positions. By late August, the Central Valley regional board's program was fully staffed, but the level of grower participation and expected fees fell far short of expectations.

While some farmer groups, such as the California Rice Commission, reported 100 percent enrollment, most others reported less than 50 percent.

Statewide, state officials realized they probably would receive no more than $600,000 of the $1.9 million expected.

To bolster participation and fees, Thomas Pinkos, executive officer of the Central Valley board, sent an Aug. 26 letter to coalitions asking them to provide names of members. The coalitions refused.

"Negative effects ... will accrue if coalition participants must be identified to the board, particularly before all efforts inducing participation have been cooperatively exhausted," the coalitions said. #

Ventura County Star – 9/4/05

A watershed is the land area from which water drains into a river or other body of water. In Ventura County, those primary waterways are (from east to west) Malibu and Calleguas creeks and the Santa Clara and Ventura rivers. A watershed includes all of the natural terrain, cities and neighborhoods draining to the waterway, including your home.

How can you help keep the watershed clean?

You can help by keeping pollutants from entering the storm-drain system, the network of gutters, pipes and open channels designed for flood control. It moves water, untreated, from the watershed to the environment. Potential pollutants and ways to reduce them include:

- Household chemicals: Take all unwanted household hazardous waste, such as paint, solvents and toxic cleaning products, to local collection events. Call your city for more information.

- Repairs and construction: These are the most common source of preventable pollutants, especially concrete work and painting. Before work begins, discuss with your contractor how cleanup and waste disposal will be done.

- Fertilizers and pesticides: Apply only as needed and directed, and always store indoors. Better yet, visit your nursery for less-toxic options. Don't water the sidewalk. That runoff can carry pollutants into the storm drain.

- Pet waste: The same bacteria responsible for beach closings is found in pet waste. Keep your pet's area well-maintained and always be prepared to pick up after your pet on walks. Dispose of the waste in the trash.

- Pools and spas: Never use the gutter to dispose of pool cleaning waste. Before a pool is drained, all chlorine must be removed, and a permit might be required by your city.

- Car maintenance: Use drip pans to catch leaks until repairs can be made. Clean up spills immediately using kitty litter or rags. Take all waste material to local hazardous waste collection events. Call your city or the county for more information or visit http://www.wasteless.org/5hazwast.html.

- Car washing: If possible, take your car to a self- or full-serve car wash, where the waste water will be treated. If you wash your car at home, use as little water as possible. Washing your car on the lawn also will help reduce pollution in the watershed. #

Chico Enterprise-Record – 8/15/05

A meeting Thursday will give the public a chance to comment on a riparian restoration feasibility study on the 950-acre riparian sanctuary of the Llano Seco Unit of the Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge.

The draft report examines alternatives for habitat management and restoration. The report is part of an overall planning effort with River Partners, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Princeton, Cordora, Glenn, and Provident Irrigation Districts.

River Partners will host the meeting at 4 p.m. at its Chico office, 580 Vallombrosa Ave.

The CalFed-funded project identifies management options to improve habitat and protect irrigation district facilities.

Copies of the draft report are available for review at the offices of the Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge in Willows, the Provident Irrigation District in Willows and River Partners in Chico.

The document may also be accessed through the River Partners Web site (www.riverpartners.org).

The study area is located near the intersection of County Road 44 and Highway 45 on the Sacramento River. The north end of the Riparian Sanctuary is approximately 2.5 miles north of Glenn on the historic Llano Seco Rancho in Butte County.

Comments will be accepted on the document until Aug. 25.

Additional information is available by contacting Dan Efseaff at 894-5401. #

Chico Enterprise-Record – 8/14/05
By Rebecca Wolf, Red Bluff Daily News staff writer

MANTON — In the late 1800s, Battle Creek was so thickly populated with spawning salmon, an egg-taking station was established for the local hatcheries.

The fish eggs were even shipped to New Zealand, which today has a thriving salmon population with roots back to Battle Creek, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

While the New Zealand salmon have thrived, the Battle Creek population took a dive after a series of diversion dams, now owned by PG&E, were built in 1910.

Now biologists and state officials are working with PG&E to restore the habitat and allow for the Chinook salmon and steelhead to return to the waters.

It took thousands of pages and three binders to hold the final environmental impact documents recently released for the proposed Battle Creek Restoration project.

The area will be far from what it was in the 1800s and local residents are concerned that the habitat created in the last 95 years will be destroyed in the restoration project.

Most of the impacts for the proposed $100 million project are mitigated to a point of insignificant impact, according to the report. However, several impacts that will affect the Oasis Springs Lodge and Rocky Springs Ranch just south of Manton were considered significant and unavoidable and have the property owners and property manager concerned.

The project, about 25 miles northeast of Red Bluff, would revamp the Battle Creek hydroelectric system with the intent to restore the threatened spring-run and winter-run Chinook salmon and steelhead.

If approved, five PG&E hydropower diversion dams would be removed, new fish screens and ladders would be installed on the three remaining hydropower diversion dams, the flows from the remaining dams would increase and water from the north fork of the creek would be kept separate from the south fork, which would have a new system of canals.

"We're essentially increasing the water flow and providing fish passage where there is none," said Jim Smith, project leader for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The result will be an estimated 28 percent reduction in the amount of power generated and, project planners hope, the restoration of 48 miles of fishery habitat.

A permanent change
Lannie Johnson, general manager of Oasis Springs Lodge, said he doesn't believe all of his concerns have been addressed and is afraid the project will permanently scar the environment.

"This is no dried-out canyon. This is as good as it gets in Tehama County," Johnson said. "If they screw this one up, it's not coming back."

The EIS/EIR concedes to "significant and unavoidable aesthetic impact on Oasis Springs Lodge," with plans to blast a road into a hillside adjacent to the lodge and plans to drain the creek during construction — which is projected to last through 2009.

Johnson said project planners have dismissed plans that would have less of an impact and a lower cost.

"They're married to this plan and refuse to take off the blinders to see what else is available," Johnson said.

Bureau of Reclamation project planner Mary Marshall said the project design is based on scientific criteria and review.

"The design in the document is the result of looking at all that criteria," Marshall said.

Marshall met with several representatives from the Oasis Springs Lodge and said she is aware of their concerns. "What I think it comes down to is they would like to see a reduction in the construction footprint," Marshall said.

"We'll pursue any way to reduce the footprint ... But the current design is based on solid scientific criteria and review."

Johnson said he believes the existing fish ladders at the three dams could simply be expanded and there is no need for large concrete fish ladders in the middle of the wilderness.

Project engineers will look at minimizing the impacts to the environment and landowners, but the design will ultimately be based on what is best for the fish, Marshall said.

The plan is to construct new fish ladders and install fish screens at three dams — North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion Dam, Eagle Canyon Diversion Dam and Inskip Diversion Dam next to the lodge.

A tunnel would also be constructed at Inskip Dam to stop the mixing of water currently diverted from the north fork of the creek into the south fork.

The water temperature in North Fork Battle Creek is cooler than water in South Fork Battle Creek. Water temperatures required for spawning and rearing of steelhead and Chinook salmon are more likely to adversely affect the fish in the south fork, especially from April through October, the EIS/EIR states.

Kerry Burke, a land use planner for the ranch, said the amount of infrastructure required for the restoration project does not make sense.

"People have manipulated the environment but more manipulation is not the answer," said Burke, who is also involved with the Battle Creek Watershed Conservancy.

The conservancy was initially opposed to the project. After some of the project's plans were adjusted and the group received a thorough breakdown of the goals, the conservancy reversed its position last May.

Will the fish come?

If the project moves ahead smoothly, construction is set to begin in spring 2006 and could wrap up by summer 2009.

During that time, Johnson said the lodge, which caters to fishing enthusiasts and is known for its remote location and quiet surroundings, would shut down.

Johnson again noted he is fine with shutting down the lodge temporarily if he believed the project would help the environment and improve the fish habitat.

"There's nothing else a fish lodge would like more than to see Chinook salmon and steelhead in the water," he said.

Some of the EIS/EIR's reviewers also felt uncertain that "viable founding populations of wild Chinook salmon and steelhead are present in the Battle Creek watershed" and questioned how to successfully reintroduce these species to Battle Creek.

Project planners conceded during an information meeting last month that there were no guarantees the fish would flourish in the new environment the project creates.

But Smith said the biologists involved in the project are confident the project will work, especially after the success of similar projects on Clear Creek and Butte Creek.

"On Clear Creek we've seen five to 10 times more salmon and the same in Butte Creek for the spring-run Chinook," Smith said. "... We can talk in terms of probability and experience and we're pretty sure we know what we're doing here."

Marshall added that based on all the available scientific data, "this is a really good project and a really good opportunity for the salmon and steelhead."

Conservative estimates say the project will bring in approximately 2,500 winter-run and spring-run Chinook salmon each, 4,500 fall-run and late fall-run salmon and 5,700 steelhead.

Smith said it will take 10-15 years for the fish populations to reach the project's goals, but biologists will monitor the progress to see if the new facilities need to be adjusted.

Moving ahead
No decision will be made on the proposed project until after the 30-day waiting period at the end of August. The Bureau of Reclamation will then release a record of decision that will identify the final project and will include the environmental commitments and mitigation measures to be applied.

At the same time, the State Water Board will review the EIS/EIR to ensure it follows the California Environmental Quality Act. If it does, the door will be opened for the project to qualify for approximately $60 million in funding from the California Bay Delta Authority. #

San Diego Union Tribune – 8/12/05
By Jeff Barnard, Associated Press

GRANTS PASS, Ore. – NOAA Fisheries cut back the critical habitat for 19 species of threatened and endangered Pacific salmon by about 80 percent on Friday, arguing that an earlier designation demanded by environmentalists was poorly executed and that voluntary habitat improvements will work better.

The federal agency in charge of bringing a total of 26 species of salmon and steelhead in the Northwest and California back from the danger of extinction agreed to revise the critical habitat for 19 of those species after being sued by the National Association of Home Builders for failure to include an economic impact analysis.

"This designation is a critical step to building support for recovery actions," said Rod McInnis, southwest regional administrator for NOAA Fisheries in Long Beach, Calif. "It gives us a clear focus on which stream reaches we have got to be concentrating on in trying to build local support for restoration."

The designation cuts the number of river miles in Washington, Oregon and Idaho from 121,000 to 23,500, and in California from 46,500 to 9,800.

It estimates the economic impact of habitat protections for salmon at $201 million in the Northwest and $81 million in California.

Direct comparisons to the old designation are not valid, because they included many reaches of rivers that are not occupied by salmon, said Bob Lohn, Northwest regional administrator for NOAA Fisheries.

The new designation is made up entirely of the rivers the salmon occupy, and identifies whether a portion of a river is used for spawning, rearing, or just migration. That will help with determining whether a project harms fish.

NOAA Fisheries says the designation of critical habitat is superfluous to the protection afforded by listing a species as threatened or endangered, and incentives for private landowners to restore and improve habitat are more effective, Lohn added.

"I think the practical impact should be quite small," Lohn said.

The designation exempts rivers on Indian reservations, military bases, private lands with habitat conservation plans in force, and some urban areas where economic impacts would be too great.

The designation of rivers critical to the future restoration of salmon headed toward extinction is required under the Endangered Species Act. It's already been the target of two lawsuits, and is likely to be again as salmon advocates complained that the designation gives up on rivers not currently occupied by fish.

"That's a problem when you are talking about species threatened primarily due to habitat destruction," said Kristen Boyles, an attorney for the environmental law firm Earthjustice in Seattle. "Removing protected areas where fish have been within peoples' recent memories is not a recipe for recovery."

Ernest Platt, past president of the Oregon Homebuilders Association and chairman of the environmental committee of the National Association of Homebuilders, said the new critical habitat designation seems a great improvement because it removed many areas inside urban growth boundaries, where conflict would be heaviest.

Any development still must comply with state and federal regulations covering clean water, wetlands protection, and prohibiting direct harm to salmon, Platt added.

In the Northwest, the critical habitat designation covers streams flowing into Puget Sound in Washington, the Columbia and Snake rivers and their tributaries in Washington, Oregon and Idaho, and the Willamette River and tributaries in Oregon.

In California it covers coastal streams from Humboldt County south to San Clemente, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Sacramento River and tributaries, and the lower San Joaquin River and tributaries.

Excluded areas include portions of greater Seattle, Portland, Pendleton and the San Francisco Bay Area. #

Ventura County-Star – 8/13/05
By Matt Weiser, Sacramento Bee staff writer

SACRAMENTO -- Federal officials Friday designated 31,000 miles of West Coast waterways as critical habitat for salmon and steelhead, adding another layer of protection for the fish.

The announcement comes in response to years of competing litigation by environmental groups and their property-rights counterparts.

In California, the designation covers 8,935 miles of streams and coastlines, as well as 470 square miles of habitat in Suisun and San Pablo bays, considered an important "nursery" area for salmon and other fish.

"It will help by calling attention to areas that are most important to the recovery of salmon and steelhead," said Rod McInnis, regional administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fisheries branch. "It is a beneficial piece of work for focusing our recovery efforts in the future."

The designated habitat includes nearly all major rivers in Central California and many of their tributary creeks.

But critics said the announcement fails fish by only designating those areas where fish already exist. It excludes areas with suitable habitat where fish may have once existed, such as waterways above dams.

Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, said this makes it more difficult to keep these areas in pristine condition.

"A lot of those habitats are unoccupied because we cut them off to the fish," Grader said. "We can attempt to restore them, but the question is, can we require it under the Endangered Species Act? That's the problem."

NOAA Fisheries originally designated critical habitat for the 19 fish species in 2000. But property rights advocates prevailed in a 2002 lawsuit that claimed economic impacts were not considered, forcing NOAA to withdraw the designation.

Grader's group then sued to force NOAA to start over.

In the latest designation, NOAA predicts an economic impact of nearly $82 million annually in California and at least $700 million in the Pacific Northwest.

These costs are attributed to water project operational changes, habitat improvements and foregone hydroelectric power generating capacity.

The Pacific Legal Foundation, a frequent defender of property rights, praised the new habitat designation. The Sacramento-based group was involved in the 2002 lawsuit that forced NOAA to consider economic impacts.

Russ Brooks, the foundation's managing attorney, said it is appropriate to designate only habitat where fish actually exist today.

"If they run around designating critical habitat where the species is not even found, clearly they're wasting limited resources that can be better spent to protect species that are truly in need of protection," he said.

A critical habitat designation does not impose new land-use restrictions. It requires property owners to consult with the federal government before starting any project that has a federal "nexus." This means it involves federal funding or resources.

It remains to be seen if the designation will result in new limits on water management in California. McInnis said it won't, because the Endangered Species Act already requires federal consultation.

"I'm tempted to say there won't be a whole lot of change," said Brooks. "However, I'm sure lawsuits are going to follow to enforce this designation to the furthest extent possible." #

Redding Record-Searchlight – 8/8/05
By Gwen Schoen, Sacramento Bee staff writer

Eat more fatty fish such as salmon, say dietitians, the American Heart Association and the federal government. Salmon is good for you.

Don't eat farmed fish, say environmental groups. Farmed fish is higher in bad things such as PCBs, and the industry is destroying our oceans.

You're standing at the fish counter looking at a couple of salmon steaks. One is $6 a pound. The other is $17 a pound. The cheaper steak is farmed, the expensive one is wild salmon. What to do?

Americans' appetite for seafood has increased dramatically in the past few years. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, 10.4 billion pounds of seafood were available to American consumers in 2002. That's about as much seafood as 70 percent of the world's fisheries can produce.

In response to demand, a new industry called aquaculture is rapidly growing. Aquaculture means farming plants and animals, such as salmon, in ocean water.

"Salmon farming started in Norway 35 years ago," says Alex Trent, executive director of Salmon of the Americas, a nonprofit organization of salmon farmers. "It is a very new industry. It began in Canada about 20 years ago and in Chile 12 to 15 years ago.

"Today, about 80 percent of the salmon Americans eat is farm-raised."

There have been many heated debates over the impact of farmed salmon on the environment, on populations of wild salmon, on the economic impact of the fishing industry and on the health of the fish and the consumers who eat them.

If you just want a good piece of fish, which do you choose?

"I'm pro wild and farmed," says Dick Jones, national seafood buyer for Whole Foods markets. "I sat on the California Salmon Council for a while, so I'm a California king guy, but there are a lot of good things about both farmed and wild salmon."

Jones' advice: When wild salmon is in season, eat wild salmon, and switch to farmed salmon at other times.

"Farmed salmon has more consistent flavor," Jones says. "It tends to be milder. It's lower in fat than a king salmon, but it is also higher in omega-3s. If you like a mild fish, you might really prefer farmed salmon.

"Among the wild Pacific species of salmon, you will find very unique flavor profiles. I tend to liken it to different varietals of wine, with nuances appealing to different people. If you want a heavier, oilier fish, try king salmon. If you want one that is lighter and less oily, try sockeye or coho.

"But another interesting thing about salmon is that not only is there a specific flavor difference between species, there is also a variance in flavor depending on where it was caught. Klamath River king salmon and Columbia River king salmon will have very different flavors. It's like experimenting with types of wine."

Another factor that determines flavor is how long the fish has been swimming upstream to spawn.

"Once a salmon enters the stream, it begins to fast," Jones says. "The farther it travels up the stream, the less fat and oil it will have. For true salmon lovers, it tends not to be as good as those fish caught on the other side of the bridge, as we say."

Jones predicts that this will not be a great year for wild salmon. The number of fish that are allowed to be caught depends on "escapement," which is how many fish are allowed to go upstream before commercial fishing is open.

"There's literally a guy sitting on the edge of the river counting fish," Jones says. "Two years ago, we didn't have a good spawn, so therefore there will be fewer wild salmon available this year."

The result, Jones says, will likely be higher prices -- which makes that $6 piece of farmed salmon look even better. #

Tied to this is investigation of a groundwater aquifer called the lower Tuscan, which is being studied to determine if it could be tapped to increase water yields.

Carter, environmental project manager for the College of Engineering at Chico State University, said she thinks more pumping of water has the potential to affect groundwater levels.

She recently sent out an e-mail to people she knows in the water, environmental and agricultural communities stating she will be compiling a list of people who want to share dialogue, ideas and concerns about Sacramento Valley water issues.

Carter said there are several groups that address these issues already, but often from a narrow focus, such as individual watershed groups for local creeks, groups that focus heavily on the environmental aspects and irrigation districts.

"No forum is currently available that isn't associated strongly with one of those directions," she said. In her opinion, more people are interested in water, but don't share their views with groups with a more narrow focus.

She would like to gather ideas more broadly, she said, to really get a pulse of what locals are thinking.

"It's a community concern," she said.

"The list will create a forum for communication," she said.

She's not sure exactly how the dialogue will evolve, and purposely wants that to be left up to the group to determine.

It might be the community wants to meet face to face, it may be they want to discuss things online.

Right now, she's just trying to get more people on a list of folks who want to talk about it..

There's a possibility the group could pull together in the future to find funding for someone to coordinate the discussion, and perhaps even lobby on behalf of the area, she said.

Decisions are being made, she said.

"What is it that we need to do in order to provide a greater level of stakeholder involvement in decisions taking place very rapidly?"

In the letter she sent to people she thought might be interested, Carter states she thinks one problem is the "commodification and privatization of water."

"Water is not just another product. A threat to our water is a threat to our very humanity, our lives, our earth.

"It is now time to join together and form a group that speaks to these issues," Carter wrote.

"I would like for us to consider the development of a large stakeholder based group that shares the same concerns around groundwater and surface water transfers. It is my belief that the true costs of these transfers are not known nor is there currently in place a mechanism to compensate Northern California stakeholders for the actual cost to the environment, the economy and the people who could be ultimately affected."

She's asking anyone interested in exploring these topics further, to e-mail her at kcarter0077@yahoo.com and she will "put them on the list." #

California Farm Bureau Federation, Ag Alert – 8/3/05
By Kate Campbell, Assistant Editor

A welcome agreement tucked into the state's 2005-06 budget offers temporary relief to more than 1,600 California farmers and ranchers who use state watermaster services. They've been facing eye-popping fee increases from the California Department of Water Resources, and they've had a hard time understanding how increases of between 400 percent and 600 percent could be justified.

For the new fiscal year, however, language in the state budget specifically prohibits any increase in the assessments over the 2004-05 level--at least for the next budget year.

Although the watermaster fee increases were imposed statewide, they mostly affect property owners with adjudicated water rights in Butte, Lassen, Modoc, Napa, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou and Tehama counties. Watermaster services are provided on rivers where water rights have been settled through the courts--offered to avoid conflicts over water among neighbors. Flow rates are monitored through gauges set and checked by designated watermasters.

If not for this year's budget relief, total tax bill assessments for state watermaster charges would have risen from $803,000 in fiscal year 2004-05 to a proposed $2,243,800 for 2005-06, a 280 percent increase in one year and a 504 percent increase in just two years. The average taxpayer would have been charged $800 more than last year's assessment and in excess of $1,000 more than the rates charged just two years ago. On a property-cost basis the charges would have increased about $22 per acre-foot.

"Farm Bureau and a number of Northern California business leaders have invested considerable time and effort in educating local officials and state legislators about this service and advocating against draconian and unsupportable fee increases," said Tony Francois, California Farm Bureau Federation director of water resources.

"Several local governments have shown a considerable interest in this problem, and the Regional Council of Rural Counties has gotten involved in this, as well," Francois said. "I think together we have built a strong coalition to protect the rights and pocketbooks of rural water rights holders."

He also noted that several members of the Legislature helped secure relief from exorbitant watermaster fees in the new budget. Francois attributed key leadership to Assemblyman Rick Keene, R-Chico, who is the vice-chair of the Assembly Budget Committee; and state Sen. Dave Cox, R-Fair Oaks, who sponsored meetings with DWR to discuss the agency's budget. Cox also is the author of Farm Bureau-sponsored legislation dealing with the watermaster program.

Assemblyman Doug La Malfa, R-Richvale, and state Sen. Sam Aanestad, R-Grass Valley, also actively supported the effort to control program costs and voted for the tax-relief bill in the Legislature.

"We're pleased that these fee increases won't be part of the 2005-06 budget. But we have a lot of work to do to sort out the real costs and help develop a program that is efficient, supportable and protects the rights of both water users and the state," Francois said.

For many years, the costs of state-provided watermaster services were shared equally between those who use the service and the state, because each benefited. For the past decade, DWR has reported those program costs at about $800,000 a year, half of which county assessors have collected from farmers along with their property taxes.

For the 2004-05 tax year, DWR cumulatively billed farmers about $803,000, saying that was the state's real cost of the program. Then DWR estimated that revenue from watermaster fees paid by farmers would exceed $2.2 million during the new 2005-06 fiscal year--an inexplicable overall increase of 504 percent.

Francois said the DWR tax-bill assessments appear to cover far more than the cost of the watermasters in the field. The additional $800 charged to each water rights holder, which would have appeared on participants' tax bills if the Legislature had not intervened, would have mainly been diverted to pay for non-watermaster program services as well as to contribute to the salaries of higher echelon employees within DWR.

"There also does not appear to be a great deal of confidence in the historical accounting methods and practices used to arrive at the current fee levels, let alone to support such outrageous increases," Francois said.

Lingering questions remain, he said, about how the state calculates the cost of watermaster services. Policy makers must also decide how to administer the program fairly, now that landowners must pay the full cost of a service that benefits not only them, but also the state as a whole through protection of water resources from over-diversions on adjudicated str