Say goodbye to the Delta and everything connected to it if this goes through. This document along with the USFWS and NOAA BioOp were extremely rushed and not based on good science. This is the biggest threat to CA fisheries in the last twenty years.
Let BOR know what you think.
https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_pr...oject_ID=39181
"They" are not going to stop............... Unless the culture of this State favors fisheries and prioritizes fisheries management, this will continue........
Editorial comments: Read the summary, so far. Looks like Trump/McCarthy/Nunez are going to try to keep past promises for increased water deliveries thru the Interior Secretary to southern San Joaquin Valley growers. As I'm not a scientist I can't comment about the quality of research involved but if it's anything like the climate change issue and many of the issues raised by southern San Joaquin growers in the past....
This shouldn't surprise anyone. On his (Trump) visits to California, he has been for re-negotiating these contracts between the CVP/SWP This is just the latest angle to attempt to acquire more water for agriculture. If this fails, something else will be thought up and tried.
Since neither political party has anyone in them who will champion the Delta and its fisheries, It's just a matter of time before they collapse.
Sorry for the rant....
Here's an article from a few weeks back about the rushed BioOps. Typically these take about 1.5-2 years to complete. This was finished in half the time and it shows.
https://www.kqed.org/science/1944278...say-scientists
The BOR NEPA was also rushed but I'm not sure when that process started. Either way this administration has showed they are going to attempt to subvert the law.
Why do biologists/scientists try to analyze/respond to incomplete documents?? The article points out that in at least one instance, a chapter was left out of the document delivered. Why not reject the document until all of it has been received?? Since the original biologists were replaced, anyway, what was gained by trying to respond with some analysis??
Perhaps when the Delta is evaluated in public trust doctrine within our state's constitution this pendulum of influences will cease to swing. Sadly there are parties on both sides of this issue that don't want to do this because either they will be out of water or a career.
Meanwhile the Delta declines. Mono Lake was protected under public trust doctrine and old water warriors know that the Delta is just another larger similar example.
This may be the only time reviewers get to have any influence on the document before its released to the public, complete or not. Any competent reviewer would make note of the missing documentation and respond accordingly. Those comments can be FOIA'd if necessary. If a reviewer doesn't respond, it makes it look like they are giving their approval.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darian
You nailed this one Darian. DOI knew how the scientists would respond and would obviously not get the response they were looking for. Why not replace them with someone who is more friendly to the administration? That said, this process being is lead by David Bernhardt, former lobbyist of Westlands. The blatant conflict of interest here is astounding, but then again, ethics doesn't really apply to this administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darian
Just in case you didn't see what Darian was alluding to replacing federal officials...
https://www.kqed.org/science/1944904...fornia-farmers
Keep in mind these people being replaced are career employees who have most likely served under multiple administrations . They understand the law and policy far better than most. They have most likely done their best to be apolitical and attempt to follow the direction of the executive branch. To be replaced at a whim by political hacks is an insult to anyone working for the federal government. Maybe that is why they are leaving in record numbers and grossly unqualified people are now leading agencies they have no business leading.