Mike McKenzie
07-30-2005, 07:58 AM
The corporate welfare Queens lose a round as the rampant corruption in the agencies that are supposed to protect the public's resources gets called on the carpet...See the article below!!
Thank You Judge Karlton!! :D :D :D :D
Agencies ignored impact of water deal, judge rules
By Denny Walsh -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 am PDT Saturday, July 30, 2005
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation violated the Endangered Species Act in pushing through tens of millions of dollars in water delivery contracts for Central Valley farmers in 2001 while paying scant attention to the impact on protected species and their habitats, a federal judge in Sacramento has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton found that biological opinions by two federal agencies - the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service - written to support the contracts are fatally flawed.
"This ruling documents the government's utter failure to consider the wide-ranging impacts of Friant diversions on downstream fisheries and the San Francisco Bay Delta," said Kate Poole, an attorney with the National Resources Defense Council, a plaintiff in the 17-year-old lawsuit.
"It is time for the government to take the blinders off and acknowledge the effects of Friant Dam on the downstream environment and our state's imperiled fisheries," Poole said.
The ruling is the second time in less than a year that Karlton has found the Bureau of Reclamation has botched its operation of the Friant Dam and its sale of water captured by the dam and diverted from the San Joaquin River to Valley farmers.
As part of the same suit, Karlton determined last August that the bureau's operation of the dam had dried up miles of the river, destroying fish populations.
The two orders, and another upcoming on different questions of liability, set the stage for a Feb. 14 trial on what can be done to repair the damage done to the river, species and their habitat.
Spokesmen for the three government agencies said the Karlton order filed Thursday is still under review and there will be no comment at this time.
Gregory Wilkinson, an attorney for the irrigation districts that buy water from the Bureau of Reclamation, said, "I'm quite disappointed. But we'll continue to prepare for trial on the remedies phase of the case."
The bureau is paid approximately $117.7 million a year to deliver diverted waters of the San Joaquin River to 28 irrigation districts, primarily for Central Valley agriculture along the Friant-Kern Canal that serves thousands of farmers in Fresno, Tulare, Kern and Madera counties.
In Thursday's 78-page order Karlton wrote: "While numerous examples may be found, perhaps the clearest instance of arbitrary conduct was when the bureau, knowing the Fish and Wildlife Service based its (biological) analysis on less than the full contract amount (of water), nevertheless, adopted a 'no jeopardy' finding," meaning the water sale would not put any endangered or threatened species at risk.
Even though the new contracts called for deliveries of 2.14 million acre-feet a year for 25 years, Fish and Wildlife used much lower delivery figures from 1988 through 1997 to calculate impact, explaining in its biological opinion that "delivery of full contract quantities is unrealistic."
"Simply put, FWS did not evaluate the effects of the entire authorized agency action," Karlton pointed out. The Endangered Species Act "mandates that biological opinions must be coextensive with the action authorized."
The judge also cited an e-mail from a Fish and Wildlife senior biologist to a colleague on Jan. 19, 2001, the same day the agency's biological opinion was issued.
The message discussed " 'possible holes and weaknesses in our crash (biological opinion),' including inadequate time to do a consultation, inadequate biological assessments, a track record of lack of compliance by the Bureau of Reclamation, concern that the contracts are inconsistent with the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, and lack of coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Service."
The day before the message was written, Fish and Wildlife biologists met with their field supervisor as the new contracts were about to be executed. A biologist asked if they could even consider the issue of jeopardy, as required by the Endangered Species Act.
The field supervisor, Wayne White, said it was "too late" to consider jeopardy, according to Karlton's order. "The opinion had to be rushed out the following day, Mr. White explained, to avoid the opinion becoming even weaker under the incoming Bush administration," the order says.
"Because the bureau failed to carry out its duty to ensure against jeopardy (to protected species) and adverse modification (of habitats), and because the bureau knew of the deficiency, the court must conclude that its conduct was arbitrary and capricious," Karlton wrote.
The judge's order states that the National Marine Fisheries Service's biological opinion has no meaningful discussion of impact on critical habitat for winter-run chinook salmon.
As to the California condor, the Fish and Wildlife opinion "appears to contain no discussion whatever of the effect of the contract renewal on 'critical habitat,' much less mention of recovery or conservation," the judge wrote.
For the Delta smelt, the Fish and Wildlife opinion "is simply inadequate by any measure," Karlton wrote. The same is true, he said, for five other species.
The 14 plaintiffs claim consultations on steelhead and spring-run chinook salmon had not been completed before the biological opinion said the species would not be at risk.
The record supports that contention, Karlton wrote.
Thank You Judge Karlton!! :D :D :D :D
Agencies ignored impact of water deal, judge rules
By Denny Walsh -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 am PDT Saturday, July 30, 2005
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation violated the Endangered Species Act in pushing through tens of millions of dollars in water delivery contracts for Central Valley farmers in 2001 while paying scant attention to the impact on protected species and their habitats, a federal judge in Sacramento has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton found that biological opinions by two federal agencies - the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service - written to support the contracts are fatally flawed.
"This ruling documents the government's utter failure to consider the wide-ranging impacts of Friant diversions on downstream fisheries and the San Francisco Bay Delta," said Kate Poole, an attorney with the National Resources Defense Council, a plaintiff in the 17-year-old lawsuit.
"It is time for the government to take the blinders off and acknowledge the effects of Friant Dam on the downstream environment and our state's imperiled fisheries," Poole said.
The ruling is the second time in less than a year that Karlton has found the Bureau of Reclamation has botched its operation of the Friant Dam and its sale of water captured by the dam and diverted from the San Joaquin River to Valley farmers.
As part of the same suit, Karlton determined last August that the bureau's operation of the dam had dried up miles of the river, destroying fish populations.
The two orders, and another upcoming on different questions of liability, set the stage for a Feb. 14 trial on what can be done to repair the damage done to the river, species and their habitat.
Spokesmen for the three government agencies said the Karlton order filed Thursday is still under review and there will be no comment at this time.
Gregory Wilkinson, an attorney for the irrigation districts that buy water from the Bureau of Reclamation, said, "I'm quite disappointed. But we'll continue to prepare for trial on the remedies phase of the case."
The bureau is paid approximately $117.7 million a year to deliver diverted waters of the San Joaquin River to 28 irrigation districts, primarily for Central Valley agriculture along the Friant-Kern Canal that serves thousands of farmers in Fresno, Tulare, Kern and Madera counties.
In Thursday's 78-page order Karlton wrote: "While numerous examples may be found, perhaps the clearest instance of arbitrary conduct was when the bureau, knowing the Fish and Wildlife Service based its (biological) analysis on less than the full contract amount (of water), nevertheless, adopted a 'no jeopardy' finding," meaning the water sale would not put any endangered or threatened species at risk.
Even though the new contracts called for deliveries of 2.14 million acre-feet a year for 25 years, Fish and Wildlife used much lower delivery figures from 1988 through 1997 to calculate impact, explaining in its biological opinion that "delivery of full contract quantities is unrealistic."
"Simply put, FWS did not evaluate the effects of the entire authorized agency action," Karlton pointed out. The Endangered Species Act "mandates that biological opinions must be coextensive with the action authorized."
The judge also cited an e-mail from a Fish and Wildlife senior biologist to a colleague on Jan. 19, 2001, the same day the agency's biological opinion was issued.
The message discussed " 'possible holes and weaknesses in our crash (biological opinion),' including inadequate time to do a consultation, inadequate biological assessments, a track record of lack of compliance by the Bureau of Reclamation, concern that the contracts are inconsistent with the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, and lack of coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Service."
The day before the message was written, Fish and Wildlife biologists met with their field supervisor as the new contracts were about to be executed. A biologist asked if they could even consider the issue of jeopardy, as required by the Endangered Species Act.
The field supervisor, Wayne White, said it was "too late" to consider jeopardy, according to Karlton's order. "The opinion had to be rushed out the following day, Mr. White explained, to avoid the opinion becoming even weaker under the incoming Bush administration," the order says.
"Because the bureau failed to carry out its duty to ensure against jeopardy (to protected species) and adverse modification (of habitats), and because the bureau knew of the deficiency, the court must conclude that its conduct was arbitrary and capricious," Karlton wrote.
The judge's order states that the National Marine Fisheries Service's biological opinion has no meaningful discussion of impact on critical habitat for winter-run chinook salmon.
As to the California condor, the Fish and Wildlife opinion "appears to contain no discussion whatever of the effect of the contract renewal on 'critical habitat,' much less mention of recovery or conservation," the judge wrote.
For the Delta smelt, the Fish and Wildlife opinion "is simply inadequate by any measure," Karlton wrote. The same is true, he said, for five other species.
The 14 plaintiffs claim consultations on steelhead and spring-run chinook salmon had not been completed before the biological opinion said the species would not be at risk.
The record supports that contention, Karlton wrote.