Another battle in the continuing war over water, of which California has too little because it has not followed through on the original plans creating a larger dam at Shasta (it was engineered to hold three times as much water as it now does and could still add the extra 200 feet in height to accomplish that) and building the Auburn Dam, which was first part of state water planning in the 1920’s (see our report on Auburn Dam at our website, www.arpps.org (news page).
An excerpt.
DWR sued by fishing alliance
Fish: DWR working on new plan
By Matt Weiser - Bee Staff WriterPublished 12:00 am PDT Thursday, October 5, 2006
A coalition of fishing groups on Wednesday sued the state Department of Water Resources, alleging the agency never obtained the proper legal authority to kill fish while exporting north-state water to Southern California.
Each year, thousands of fish die in pumps near Tracy in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Screens keep thousands more out of the pumps, but the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance claims DWR never obtained a permit that would set pumping rules and impose measures to restore the fish.
The so-called "take permit" is required under the California Endangered Species Act, or CESA, and would be issued by the state Department of Fish and Game. Fish species cited in the lawsuit are the endangered winter-run chinook salmon, and the Delta smelt and spring-run chinook, both threatened.
For the past 18 months, the finger-sized smelt has endured an unprecedented population crash. A team of scientists has not found the cause, but pumping operations are one suspect.
"Here we are with a downward spiral of Delta fisheries, in the midst of virtually an ecosystem collapse in parts of the estuary, and DWR has not complied with the full requirements of CESA," said Bill Jennings, executive director of the alliance. "It's amazing."
If upheld in court, the lawsuit could result in reductions in the amount of water exported or radical changes in the pumping routine to protect fish.
Jerry Johns, DWR deputy director, said he hasn't read the lawsuit and couldn't comment on it.
But he explained that DWR believes it has authority to kill fish during water exports under other agreements. A key component, he said, is a change in the state Endangered Species Act, authorized by the Legislature in 1997, which allows such prior agreements to serve as compliance under the act.
