Pacific salmon fishermen gear up for strong season
Story
From SF Chronicle – Thursday, April 14, 2011
From The Record – Thursday, April 14, 2011
Coalition response...Attempts to connect Delta pumping restrictions of past years to this year’s resurgence of salmon numbers ignores the science that disproves those claims. The National Marine Fisheries Service now identifies ocean conditions as the overwhelming reason for the salmon decline. Trucking the smolts around the Delta avoids deadly predators such as the striped bass, which devour 90% of salmon juveniles swimming through the Delta.
The California Department of Water Resources conducted a comprehensive and quantitative analysis on the impact of pumping on flows within the Delta and concluded there is little or no impact on young salmon. DWR has also stated that limits placed on pumping by the biological opinion to protect salmon do not provide any demonstrable benefits.
In each of the last three years, the total number of salmon smolts taken at the pumps was less than 1%. Ocean harvest in 2010 allowed 18% of the salmon to be taken.
Further efforts to link pumping restrictions with the increase in salmon should be challenged before being printed.
IID continues to innovate fail
Blog
By David Zetland
From Aguanomics – Friday, April 15, 2011
Coalition response...Saying that applicants make up stories to claim hardships is a pretty serious accusation when the writer provides no factual basis for his claim. Furthermore, successful fallowing programs in other parts of California are operated similar to IID’s where the buyer sets a price and allows farmers to decide whether it is better to fallow or farm in a given year. That takes the uncertainty out of the equation for the farmers who face enough of that in their daily operations.
Book Review
From NY Times – Friday, April 15, 2011
Coalition response...Why is it that people who think they know everything there is to know about California’s water system criticize it by claiming users are not paying their fair share or “market” costs? Farmers and urban water users do pay what it costs to develop and deliver their water. Contracts require this repayment schedule. Some would argue that farmers are not repaying all the costs of building the federal Central Valley Project by pointing to a congressional action to waive the share of interest costs from the repayment schedule. This is a pretty weak argument when one considers how much farmers using this water produce for worldwide consumers.
Farmers receiving water from the California State Water Project are not so lucky. Their contracts require them to not only pay the full construction and delivery costs, they are also required to pay the scheduled annual repayment costs even if they do not receive a full allocation. In the drought of the early ‘90s that meant these farmers received NO water but had to pay the costs as if they had received a 100% supply.
COURTS
Judge blocks controversial plans to raise Pardee level
Story
From The Record – Friday, April 15, 2011
Sierra foothill dam expansion blocked
Story
From Modesto Bee – Friday, April 15, 2011
From Contra Costa Times – Thursday, April 14, 2011
Big Victory for the Mokelumne River
Blog
By Dan Bacher
From IndyBay Media – Thursday, April 14, 2011
WEATHER
Report
From AccuWeather – Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Blog
By Alex Breitler
From The Record – Thursday, April 14, 2011
COLORADO RIVER
A Reprieve for Western Water Users
Blog
By Felicity Barringer
From NY Times – Thursday, April 14, 2011
CONGRESS
Water subcommittee post mortem
Blog
By Lloyd Carter
From Chronicles – Thursday, April 14, 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment