DU not in favor of water flowing South of Delta

Discussion in 'California Flyway Forum' started by Docter Duck, Feb 23, 2010.

  1. sacbob

    sacbob Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,202
    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Location:
    Sacramento CA
    OOPS! Did Mitch and I just agree on something:eek: Maybe I should delete my post:scratch
     
  2. Hunter/Gather

    Hunter/Gather Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    4,003
    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2005
    Location:
    Humboldt CA
    Bob,

    We agree on a few things............ Randy Brown is one of them. :tu


    Speckslayer,

    I'm sure the water projections are like the pink slips teachers get when their district has a budget shortfall. If they don't notice everyone of the worst case they can get sued. Thankfully we are nowhere near where we would have been if this was another dry year.

    Things like this by the big boys can backfire and hurt everyone else in the system:

    Wigeonator,

    Didn't you say this?

     
  3. sacbob

    sacbob Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,202
    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Location:
    Sacramento CA
     
  4. WIGEONATOR

    WIGEONATOR Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    2,747
    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Location:
    Grasslands
    Sure did! I don't expect to get water during a drought, I didn't expect to get it last year, or the year before. There have been years I didn't get water. 2003= No Water, 2005 No Water, and for 5 years straight in the late 80's. As much as it sucks, I find it understandable to not get water in a drought. Even though it is rather rediculous, because the canal is full even when I get no water, and those years I didn't get water, all the other duck clubs still did. Besides the fact, that my club is so small I could flood the whole thing, and they wouldn't even know I flooded, if it wasn't for the fact they drive by and saw the water.

    When I have a problem, is when I am told that no matter how much it rains, I may never get water ever agian! The other problem I have with this whole water situation is this:

    Every evironmental website in the world says, that wetlands in the Central Valley are 5% or something of what they used to be. They are Critically endangered and need to be saved, bla, bla, bla..... Yet I have a wetland, and no one gives a rat's *** if it dries up!

    My club has never been farmed, it is as Natural as habitat gets out there; is anyone interested in saving it? Actually there is one, and thank god for CWA! Cause Ducks Unlimited didn't even want to know where it was located!
     
  5. California Flyway

    California Flyway Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    17,045
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2001
    Location:
    Gualala, California
    What is the incentive for Ag users of Central Valley Project (CVP) water to conserve when they receive it a $12 an acre foot?
    The State Water Project (SWP) charges $30 an acre foot for water in the "Environmental Water Account". Recently the states biggest Ag user bought this tax payer subsidized water for $30 then resold it for $200/acre foot.

    Remove the taxpayer subsidies (some say welfare) for this water and we would see strong conservation efforts in short order.

    As it stands the taxpayers are subsidizing waste of water and damage to the health of the delta and its fishery.

    It is not radical or extreme for fishing families with zero harvest to expect the laws of the land be enforced to protect water quality and the state's fish species that depend on that water quality.

    The history of the fishery and fishermen as viewed by some Ag and some in the agencies, and leaders, whose job it should be to protect the same might go like this:

    Once there were millions of salmon and a fleet of fishermen who provided high quality seafood to the people of California, and then they went somewhere.
     
  6. WIGEONATOR

    WIGEONATOR Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    2,747
    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Location:
    Grasslands
    In my water district, they use a tier system. The more water a farmer uses the more he has to pay for it. I forget what the break down is but Twelve Dollars an acre foot is near the bottom. In the Westlands Water District, it isn't uncommon for farmers to pay $80 an acre foot.

    I looked up the Evironmental Water Account, if they sold their water to Ag, whoose fault is that? They are supposed to be purchasing water for fish. The Salmon were in serious decline when my grandfather was fishing for them commercially 20+ years ago. The old "Fleet" isn't comming back. Salmon are on a decline world wide, do any search on salmon population.
    *******************************************************
    The population of wild salmon declined markedly in recent decades, especially north Atlantic populations which spawn in the waters of western Europe and eastern Canada, and wild salmon in the Snake and Columbia River system in northwestern United States. The decline is attributed to the following factors:

    Disease transfer from open net cage salmon farming, especially sea lice. The European Commission (2002) concluded “The reduction of wild salmonid abundance is also linked to other factors but there is more and more scientific evidence establishing a direct link between the number of lice-infested wild fish and the presence of cages in the same estuary.”[25] It is reported that wild salmon on the west coast of Canada are being driven to extinction by sea lice from nearby salmon farms.[26]

    For Atlantic salmon smolts, it takes as few as eight sea lice to kill the fish. On the Pacific Coast where the smolt are much smaller, only one or two can be critical, often resulting in death. In the Atlantic, sea lice have been a proven factor in both Norwegian and Scottish salmon declines. In the Western Atlantic there has been little research at sea, but sea lice numbers in the period post-2000 do not appear to be a significant factor in the critical decline of endangered inner Bay of Fundy salmon. The situation may have been different in the 1980s and 1990s, but we are unlikely ever to know the factual history in that regard.

    Overfishing in general but especially commercial netting in the Faroes and Greenland. Several seafood sustainability guides have recommendations on which salmon fisheries are sustainable and which have negative impacts on Salmon populations.

    Ocean and river warming which can delay spawning and accelerate transition to smolting.

    Ulcerative dermal necrosis (UDN) infections of the 1970s and 1980s which severely affected adult salmon in freshwater rivers.

    Loss of suitable freshwater habitat, especially degradation of stream pools and reduction of suitable material for the excavation of redds. Historically stream pools were, to a large extent, created by beavers (see section below). With the extirpation of the beaver, the nurturing function of these ponds was lost.

    Reduction of the retention of the nutrients brought by the returning adult salmon in stream pools. Without stream pools, dead adult salmon tend to be washed straight back down the streams and rivers.

    The construction of dams, weirs, barriers and other "flood prevention" measures, which bring severe adverse impacts to river habitat and on the accessibility of those habitats to salmon. This is particularly true in the northwest USA, where large numbers of dams have been built in many river systems, including over 400 in the Columbia River Basin.[27]

    Other environmental factors such as light intensity, water flow, or change in temperature dramatically affects salmon during their migration season. [1]
    Loss of invertebrate diversity and population density in rivers because of modern farming methods and various sources of pollution, thus reducing food availability.

    Reduction in freshwater base flow in rivers and disruption of seasonal flows, because of diversions and extractions, hydroelectric power generation, irrigation schemes, barge transportation, and slackwater reservoirs, which inhibit normal migratory processes and increase predation for salmon.[28]
    Loss of suitable low gradient stream habitats due to agricultural practices such as the removal of riparian plants, destabilization of stream banks by livestock and irrigation processes.[29][30]

    There are efforts to relieve this situation. As such, several governments and NGOs are sharing in research and habitat restoration efforts.

    In the western Atlantic, the Atlantic Salmon Federation has developed a major sonic tracking technology program to understand the high at-sea mortality since the early 1990s. Ocean arrays are deployed across the Baie des Chaleurs and between Newfoundland and Labrador at the Strait of Belle Isle. Salmon have now been tracked half way from rivers such as the Restigouche to Greenland feeding grounds. Now the first line of the Ocean Tracking Network initiative is installed by DFO and Dalhousie University of Halifax from Halifax to the edge of the continental shelf. First results include Atlantic salmon travelling from the Penobscot River in Maine, the "anchor river" for US Atlantic salmon populations.

    Results overall are showing that estuary problems exist for some rivers, but issues involving feeding grounds at sea are impacting populations as well. In 2008 returns were markedly improved for Atlantic salmon on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, but no one knows if this is a temporary improvement or sign of a trend.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmon#...ntal_pressures
     
  7. Tommyo

    Tommyo Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    2,575
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2001
    Location:
    Auburn, CA
    water users are often mandated by user policies enforced by water districts to be conservative. You are all wet if you think $12 rate is the reason for waste. Water users are typically frugal regardless of the rate.
     

Share This Page