Petition to save Klamath River salmon

[East Bay Ed]

I'm sick of this state giving water to big agri business/corps at cheap prices, especially at the expense of our natural resources. If you feel the same way please sign the following petition to save the salmon of the Klamath River.

http://www.fishwithjd.com/2013/08/15...ish+with+JD%29

[JasonB]

Done! Thanks for passing that along Ed.
JB

[Darian]

Read the full story as reported in the Eureka Times-Standard:

http://www.times-standard.com/news/ci_23858701

Interesting. Petitioning for/granting of a TRO is a first step; almost automatic. The hearing for injunctive relief is more formal and must happen quickly to be effective. Of course, timing is everything in this situation. Looking at this from the judges perspective, if, as the tribal authorities assert it's already too late, a few days won't make a lot of difference.

According to the article, the plaintiffs are seeking to stop the releases on the basis of not having enough water for existing/potential crops. Amazing!! Don't all farmers all have crop insurance. Since all of the reservoirs are currently being drawn down (check out release data) where's all of that water going??? Two weeks ago, I drove to/from L.A. there were row crops and orchards on the west side of I-5, where I've never seen them before. There's got to be more to this than the reported cause of action....

[troutless]

Read the full story as reported in the Eureka Times-Standard:

http://www.times-standard.com/news/ci_23858701
[..]

According to the article, the plaintiffs are seeking to stop the releases on the basis of not having enough water for existing/potential crops.

Thanks for the link Darian.

Maybe I'm confused, but, the way I read the article, the issue they are pushing is with water supplies for *next year's* crops. Quote:

"Farmers in the Westlands Water District, the nation's largest federal irrigation district, and others on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley say they desperately need the Trinity water to help deal with severe water shortages next year. The farmers have received just 20 percent of their water deliveries this year, leading them to fallow thousands of acres of land and rely on groundwater.

And next year, unless a very wet winter restores nearly empty reservoirs, the farmers predict they might get little or no water -- and the lack of Trinity River water would further reduce their deliveries. "

Am I really understanding this correctly? Their position is, "let's kill the salmon now -- just in case"?

Amazing!!

My reaction is unprintable on this board.

[Fubar]

I'm sick of this state giving water to big agri business/corps at cheap prices, especially at the expense of our natural resources. If you feel the same way please sign the following petition to save the salmon of the Klamath River.

I'm sick of the greater San Francisco bay area getting water from O'Shaughnessy Dam at cheap prices, especially at the expense of our natural resources.

[Darian]

I read that to be adding support to the position that we/they need water in storage now for delivery this/next year. Crops/orchards in the San Joaquin need water year around, now. If the current dry year is bad and storage is already low, just imagine what next year will be like (....from plaintiff/water contractors perspective). Of course, acreage under cultivation and in the form of orchards has, if my eyesight hasn't deceived me, expanded even in a dry year and that complicates things even more.

I found a link to the lawsuit and took a quick read of the causes of action. Very summarized version: It seems that the settlement back in the early '90's between growers, tribal interests and growers established specific levels of flows released into the Trinity River during years that range from wet years to extremely dry for each category. This year was designated a "dry" year and the total allocation to the Trinity is, according to the plaintiffs, 453,000 ACF (taken from a table included in the document). The plaintiffs allege, among other causes, that release of the additional water violates terms of the settlement and that Burec violated specific sections of the CVIPA/NEPA, etc. When the Tribes up there signed on to the settlement, they agreed to the flow rates reflected in the table mentioned. If everything the plaintiffs allege is factual, they could have a good case.

On the other hand, we've only seen one side of the suit so far. I imagine the defendants will have a response or another settlement in mind. At any rate, this will happen quickly if the plaintiffs have anything to say about it.

Here's a link to the information:

http://www.c-win.org/wfbfm_send/340

May have to do some rummaging around to find everything on this....

ps. The suit points out that the last time a "kill" occurred was in 2002 and that there's no indication that another will occur this year. Unless the judge is willing to concede that unforeseen events can occur that make allowance for exceptions to agreed upon release schedules acceptable, this is going to be a tough case.

[cyama]

Who's side are you on Darian??? Apparently you do need to get out there and do some research. The Bureau of Reclamation has been setting the amount of water released on the Trinity in the last several years. This is from the ROD of 2000 and the original agreement of the CVP that the fish and resources would come first.. You apparently want all this water to go to the Water Bank in Kern County. Westlands has said they want to "store" the water for next year. What will happen is that Paramount Farms will use all the water and at the same time charge all the small farms exorbitant prices for whatever is left over. If you don't know Paramount Farms uses all this water to grow Pistachios and Citrus on over 100,000 acres of desert. They own over 50% of the water bank, are on all the water boards in central and southern CA and should be brought to justice as a monopoly that has ruined small farmers and fisheries all over CA.

[Darian]

cyama,.... Great, emotional rant; that's about what it was worth. Unfortunately, you missed the point of the post. You need to read the post again. Stop jumping to conclusions. From what I wrote, you're only able to determine what my observations are about the written document/plaintiffs position. We haven't seen the defendants response yet. Nothing about whether I support the release of water in the Trinity or whether I've read the later ROD could be seen in what I wrote.

If you read the last sentence (I know you didn't or if you did you didn't understand what the words conveyed), you'd realize that I'm waiting to see what the defendants response is and, I give the defendants credit for enough intelligence to include reference to the ROD an a bunch of other info to back up their position.

A federal judge, not you or me, will make the final decision on this.

[mikel]

Two weeks ago, I drove to/from L.A. there were row crops and orchards on the west side of I-5, where I've never seen them before. There's got to be more to this than the reported cause of action....

If you venture west off of 5 you'll be even more confused as they continue to plant Pistachios in the desert for export to Asia...

[Darian]

Confused is an accurate description of how I felt when looking around down there. It's like there wasn't a dry year at all....

What makes me even more confused is that the signage along I-5 has taken on a new direction. Now they try to point out that water contractors/growers contracted and paid, in advance, for water deliveries. I know they contract for specific ACF deliveries. However, I believe that they only pay for ACF delivered. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If I am wrong on this description, it says that water contractors/growers agreed to the terms of the contract which must recognize that guaranteed 100% delivery for years in advance is not possible; given weather unpredictability. Not very prudent but....