Congressional Proposal will be the final nail in our California anadromous Fisheries

[Mike McKenzie]

Coffin, if passed! The following California Congressional Representatives Mr. VALADAO (for himself, Mr. MCCARTHY, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. NUNES, Mr.LAMALFA, Mr. DENHAM, and Mr. MCCLINTOCK) introduced the following bill;

A BILL
To provide drought relief in the State of California, and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
4 (a) SHORT TITLE.- This Act may be cited as the
5 "Western Water and American Food Security Act of 2015". this Act is as follows:

(What it's real title should be is the "Official Paramount Farms (POM Wonderful) and Westlands Irrigation District kill all of California's sport-fisheries so we can get all the water to grow almonds, pistachios and pomegranates in the southern San Joaquin Valley desert" Bill.)

The more salient parts...

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF NONNATIVE PREDATOR
1 FISH REMOVAL PROGRAM.-The Secretary and the districts, in consultation with the Director, shall jointly develop and conduct a nonnative predator fish removal program to remove nonnative striped bass, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, black bass, and other nonnative predator fish species from the Stanislaus River. The program shall (1) be scientifically based; (2) include methods to quantify the number and size of predator fish removed each year, the impact of such removal on the overall abundance of predator fish, and the impact of such removal on the populations of juvenile anadromous fish found in the Stanislaus River by, among other things, evaluating the number of juvenile anadromous fish that migrate past the rotary screw trap located at Caswell; (3) among other methods, use wire fyke trapping, portable resistance board weirs, and boat electrofishing; and (4) be implemented as quickly as possible following the issuance of all necessary scientific research.


SEC. 313. SAN JOAQUIN RIVER SETTLEMENT.
(a) CALIFORNIA STATE LAW SATISFIED BY WARM WATER FISHERY.
(1) IN GENERAL.- Sections 5930 through 5948 of the California Fish and Game Code, and all applicable Federal laws, including the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11)and the Stipulation of Settlement (Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Kirk Rodgers, et al., Eastern District of California, No. Civ. S-88-1658- LKK/GGH), shall be satisfied by the existence of a warm water fishery in the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, but upstream of Gravelly Ford.
(2) DEFINITION OF WARM WATER FISHERY.-
For the purposes of this section, the term "warm water fishery" means a water system that has an environment suitable for species of fish other than salmon (including all subspecies) and trout (including all subspecies).

The above are the most egregious parts of the bill but there is a hell of a lot more bad stuff in it which will pretty much decimate ALL our "game fish" in the Sacramento and San Joaquin drainage's as well as The Trinity River which will also impact the Klamath River

Here it is, Have a fun read.
http://valadao.house.gov/uploadedfiles/western_water_and_american_food_security_act_of_20 15.pdf

Start prayin' for our fisheries. I also hopes this wakes up the largemouth bass fishers!

Striperfest is working on a "plan of Action" with the Golden Gate Salmon Association
Mike

[tcorfey]

I think we need a bill for drought relief and its first priority should be to remove all non-native plants and trees from any area of the southern San Joaquin Valley desert. This emergency action is needed to retain water for the residents of California and our native wildlife.

[Ryan]

When I go into all the different kinds of cutouts, back sloughs, and tributaries in our valley rivers. In the summer, I see absolutely massive schools of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of baby “pike minnows” (2-3”) or “squaw fish” in the shallows where tributaries meet the main river. Not far from all the pike minnows, it’s pretty typical to find schools of smallmouth and maybe a few spotted bass. I know the spots and smallmouth gorge themselves on these pike minnows. The numbers of baby pike minnows I see are absolutely mind blowing. And there is usually just 6-12 bass around ready to ambush the all you can eat buffet. If DFW kills every “invasive” bass in the valley rivers, it makes sense to me that we would see an increase in the already booming native pike or squawfish populations.

Could something like this just replace the largemouth, smallmouth, spotted bass, and stripers with squawfish? Could this replace a few invasive predatory species for a single native predatory species that is already booming as is?

[Fly Guy Dave]

I am no expert, but I doubt VERY much that this will ever pass. The time, effort and cost that it would take to do this would be astronomical, and even then I doubt they would be successful. Remember how hard it was to get all of the pike out of Lake Davis? Or do you recall how many legal challenges it took to drag out the whole case at Silver King Creek? Removing all non-native fish from a huge river system and all of its tributaries? Sounds pretty impossible to me. Even if this somehow passed (which I doubt it ever will), the legal challenges would tie it up in court for years, maybe even long enough for it us to start having normal precipitation again, and then they would probably drop it anyhow.

I think you're absolutely right in that the representatives listed are doing this to kowtow to the wealthy farmers in their districts so it gives the illusion that they are doing something to help them get more water, even if the piece of legislation that they are putting forth is an absolute long shot, at best. A snow balls chance in Death Valley in mid July.

[Mike McKenzie]

the illusion that they are doing something to help them get more water, even if the piece of legislation that they are putting forth is an absolute long shot, at best. A snow balls chance in Death Valley in mid July.

FlyGuy,
You may be right but regardless of whether or not they can eradicate the "predatory non-native" fish, the idiots will spend taxpayer dollars on a huge waste of time and money trying too. It definitely won't be their own money they'll be spending. As it is now, the way the water contractors control BuRec and CA DWR and thus the river flows that the anadromous native species depend on, the whole effort will end up moot... At the rate they're killing them off through egregious water mismanagement with respect to the anadromous fisheries, they'll most likely be gone in the next 10-15 years anyway!

BTW, Nice pict's of the Great Basin Trout on your blog site! I spend a lot of time wandering around S/E Oregon and the Northern half of Nevada chasing them Redband trout as well as the Cutts, Browns and Brookies that are found in all that country...

Mike

[Darian]

Ryan,.... More than one commenter on the former BDCP EIR/EIS made the point that removal of one predator from among several, resulted in expansion of the remaining predator(s) into the vacancy left by eradication or reduction of population of the competing/original predator. So, it looks like the answer to your question appears to be, yes.... An aggressive predator like Pike Minnow will probably increase in population numbers and their impact on prey species.

Mike, in my initial scan of the bill, I thought predator removal might be limited to the lower Stanislaus River. Can you confirm whether that's correct or not??? From what little I've read on water issues/rights, this bill appears to reform the relationships between water rights holders and elevates the status of water contractors. one of the main thrusts appears to be at guaranteed flows at specified levels to the CVP/SWP pumps unless it's proven that lesser amounts are warranted to protect listed species. Specified flows for identified water conditions are written into this bill and baselined at period 30 years ago.

There's a lot more that I haven't read yet. Scary thought,.... The danger of this bill becoming law and implementation/construction of the Delta tunnels project.

[tcorfey]

WOW, I just read that whole thing and that is unbelievable that we have people that are intelligent enough to write this document but, whom lack any social or moral or environmental conscience.

The statement that the environmental act of 1973 should be followed as long as it does not impact the volume of water delivered to the central valley water project. Wow! Let's just take a step backwards 50 years.

Environmental issues can be ignored if…
DETERMINATIONS.—For the purposes of this section, a Secretary may deem a project to be in compliance with all necessary environmental regulations and reviews if the Secretary determines that the immediate implementation of the project is necessary to address—
(1) human health and safety; or
(2) a specific and imminent loss of agriculture production upon which an identifiable region depends for 25 percent or more of its tax revenue used to support public services including schools, fire or police services, city or county health facilities, unemployment services or other associated social services.

REPEAL OF THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER SETTLEMENT.
—As of the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary of the Interior shall cease any action to implement the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (subtitle A of title X of Public Law 111–11) and the Stipulation of Settlement (Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Kirk Rodgers, et al., Eastern District of California,

Manage the San Joaquin river to a 1:1 ratio of inflow / outflow. In other words I guess this means to run the San Joaquin dry?

Steps to reduce water flow to the pumps can only be taken if it can be proven that continued pumping at maximum levels will adversely affect Delta Smelt or Salmonoids in the long term. You have to read this because there is a bunch of other requirements that need to be met to in order to reduce water flows.

If I read this correctly they want 5000 cfs minimum at the pumps at all times. If the Freeport gauge is at or above 17,000 cfs then they want 7,500 cfs minimum. I guess this means they want close to half of any water coming through Freeport at a minimum. I checked and the Freeport gauge is at 10,900 cfs today.

RESERVED WATER RIGHTS.—Effective December 22, 2014, there shall be no Federal reserved water rights to any segment of the San Joaquin River related to the Project as a result of any designation made under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.).

I believe there is even a provision for the water districts to take over control of at least one major dam if not more
they mention New Melones and Folsom.

There is also a provision to minimize releases of water down the Trinity river with maximums set for various water year types for example a maximum of 369,000 acre-feet in a ‘‘critically dry’’ year. So that is what about 1000 acre feet per day all year. I wonder what that translates to in cfs considering the river is about 40 feet across and several feet deep? Will that be enough to keep the water cold enough for Salmon and steelhead migrations in the lower reaches of the river?

Not to mention the section on conducting a nonnative predator fish removal program to remove nonnative striped bass, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, black bass, and other nonnative predator fish species from the Stanislaus River. Catfish also maybe?

There is also a section regarding all water contracts must be fulfilled 100% except in extremely dry years and then they must be fulfilled at 50%. Now we all know that UC Davis study said that water contracts have allocated more water than we ever receive in a given year so how can the government ever deliver 100% when they over allocated the available water? Why would our government officials write that in to a bill when they know the government can not deliver the goods?

You really have to read this. I know it is pretty boring and long winded but the stuff written about so far is just the tip of the iceberg.
There is so much else in here all slanted toward giving all available water to agriculture.

It is unbelievable to me that people can be this greedy (in general) and this ignorant of environmental issues.

Is this for real?

[Mike McKenzie]

.

Mike, in my initial scan of the bill, I thought predator removal might be limited to the lower Stanislaus River. Can you confirm whether that's correct or not???

There's a lot more that I haven't read yet. Scary thought,.... The danger of this bill becoming law and implementation/construction of the Delta tunnels project.

Darian,
You're correct about predator removal in the lower Stanislaus, but you know these folks. Once the door is open they want it all. We are currently fighting a really stupid bill in the CA legislature, AB 1201. It foists another unfunded mandate of on CA DFW to do more "predation studies" with money they won't have unless the legislature gives them some... FAT chance of that....!

The insanity continues :mad:

Mike

[Mike McKenzie]

WOW, I just read that whole thing and that is unbelievable that we have people that are intelligent enough to write this document but, whom lack any social or moral or environmental conscience.

The statement that the environmental act of 1973 should be followed as long as it does not impact the volume of water delivered to the central valley water project. Wow! Let's just take a step backwards 50 years.


It is unbelievable to me that people can be this greedy (in general) and this ignorant of environmental issues.

Is this for real?

It could be real if it gets passed and survives a lot of lawsuits but that's the way they win.. forcing their opposition to spend their limited resources tryin' to stop their greedy madness. The winning difference is that they have enough of the state and federal legislators and more money than anyone else!
The only way the angling community can stop them is to get every single one of us that love fishing and want to pass it on to their prodigy, to beat down the doors of their state and federal legislators and let them know that Corporate Ag. doesn't have as many votes as we do. Yeah they got money but dollars don't vote and can't buy an informed electorate...
IMHO anyway,
Mike
P.S. there has been somewhere over a 100,000 almond trees planted during our drought. for each single nut they grow it takes a gallon of water!

[tcorfey]

Mike, I know I drove through the Central valley the other day, lots of new orchards planted, temps around 100 degrees, water sprinklers shooting water 50 feet in the air, orchards flooded, and all the canals are full. I got home to have a letter from the water company and they told us that we are in the top 3 percent of water conservationists in the state, in other words at least 97 % of the state uses more water per month than we do. While I am proud of my family for doing their part when I drive through the valley it does not seem to be worth a hill of beans when I see how much water is wasted.

[tcorfey]

One more nail in the coffin for Salmon. Steelhead and Bass. The House passed this legislation today on a strict Republican vote.

Now it goes to the Senate.

Better write your Senator before it is too late.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-house-drought-bill-20150716-story.html