California Flyway
Elite Refuge Member
If folks want to understand an unsustainable magnitude of a water use problem, get in a car turn off the sound and look out the windows when you drive from Sacramento south on Interstate 5 through the desert.
State Water Resources Control Board - meeting Monday register and dial in and give your opinion
- Thread starter JWR
- Start date
Speckslayer
Elite Refuge Member
I see that you are only concerned with facts that support your view, you ignore all other viewpoints, and are not willing to have an honest discussion!
Here's a few points for more open minded people:
1. California population 1920 was 3.4 million and now its 39 million. They use a lot more water, eat more food, require more flood control, and add more pollutants to the water.
2. Almond acres have jumped for many years and are certainly part of the problem but much of the growth has replaced other crops like alfalfa/rice that use the same water as almonds.
3. Westlands gets much less water than when salmon populations were much better. They have averaged the following water supply:
1990's = 65%
2000's = 61%
Last 10 years = 31%
4. Salmon numbers are down everywhere. There are no dams on the Yukon River in AK and no diversions for almonds or any other crops but salmon numbers are down there too. Why?
You can criticize Tom Birmingham but the truth is that nothing meaningful has been done to increase water storage or make major water conservation efforts including significant funding to protect and preserve water.
Sites reservoir has been identified and funds for starting has been in existence for several years but nothing done. You think there wasn't enough water going down the Sacramento River to flood it.
While residential water use is less than 10% of CA water use, it is critical for survival to the residents. In the valley, landscape watering with potable water is a big drain on wells and other sources. New homes are having irrigated landscape curtailed but existing homes just piddly programs and will not pay for artificial turf as say it increases global warming. If the vast majority of lawns were replaced with drought tolerant gardens or artificial turf which is way better than 20 years ago, it would make most of the residential water supply significantly more sustainable. But again the environmentalists won't let artificial turf be approved as takes oil to make. On the Ag side, drip and modern irrigation use 20% or more less water, create a program to promote and help farmers convert to better irrigation, provide a bank or guarantee loans so more farmers can do this instead of spending the surplus the last few years on strictly social issues.
Sites reservoir has been identified and funds for starting has been in existence for several years but nothing done. You think there wasn't enough water going down the Sacramento River to flood it.
While residential water use is less than 10% of CA water use, it is critical for survival to the residents. In the valley, landscape watering with potable water is a big drain on wells and other sources. New homes are having irrigated landscape curtailed but existing homes just piddly programs and will not pay for artificial turf as say it increases global warming. If the vast majority of lawns were replaced with drought tolerant gardens or artificial turf which is way better than 20 years ago, it would make most of the residential water supply significantly more sustainable. But again the environmentalists won't let artificial turf be approved as takes oil to make. On the Ag side, drip and modern irrigation use 20% or more less water, create a program to promote and help farmers convert to better irrigation, provide a bank or guarantee loans so more farmers can do this instead of spending the surplus the last few years on strictly social issues.
Very good point- Look at the Neekas River in B.C. last year. What happened? 65,000 spawning salmon dead before spawning. No Ag there, No damns, very little human interaction besides "climate change". The fish started their journey on a rain event with a high tide and started upstream to eventually run out of water. Eventually low levels of oxygen and high levels of ammonia from the first dead fish caused a mass die off. Even in "perfect" conditions fish die as seen here.
I hope you come back to answer 2 pretty basic questions. Although I figured I wouldn't get a response. Actually, I got exactly what I thought I would. Dodge everything and talk about almonds.
The problem with what I see when people like you talk about the decline of the salmon, is you bring a twig to a gun fight. You come on here and start a thread by copying some talking points. Points that state you want more environmentalist, Tribes and Delta users in the equation. When presented with facts, you, and others bring opinions and the same talking points that do nothing to move forward to address the issue.
You and California Flyway can't answer basic questions to the issue or refuse to: instead you throw out the same talking points about almonds in the desert. We get it! I felt like my questions were pretty easy for you to respond to and not malicious towards you at all. I'm willing to bet we agree on more points than you think.
I'm neither Pro Ag or Pro Fish and Wildlife. I'm trying to balance both and have a rational discussion. I point you to the Klamath Basin when tribes and environmentalist get involved. What do we have to show for it? The 2nd lowest salmon runs since 1997? Tule and Lower Klamath refuge Dry? Thousands of Ag acres fallowed?
I have been following this issue for a long time and get both sides, its complex- but when you bring nothing to the table and can't discuss simple points it's time to move on because frankly, you can't prove any point whatsoever. Just giving us your opinion on how you feel about AG. That's a hard sell in litigation
I guess a simple question wasn't so simple to answer.
California Flyway
Elite Refuge Member
Pretty busy at the moment.
I have spent a great deal of time on this forum speaking in detail on water and habitat issues facing salmon and a myriad of other species. Probably hundreds of pages, and definitely more than any other member. Saying I am not providing enough answers fast enough certainly is not accurate, but nice try. It will probably be faster for me to review my pasts posts on these very subjects and post at least a dozen pages of answers if you want.
One bottom line is that more water has been promised in the State and Federal water projects than exist exists. It s the so called ''paper water".
Maybe there will be answers given in the State Water Resources meeting.
I expect for them to continue to kick the can down the road like the 14 year delay in updating the Bay Delta Plan, and promoting vague voluntary programs that failed in the past while Salmon fishermen and fishing dependent families and communities from Southern California to Cape Falcon Oregon get mandatory ZERO harvest.
I have spent a great deal of time on this forum speaking in detail on water and habitat issues facing salmon and a myriad of other species. Probably hundreds of pages, and definitely more than any other member. Saying I am not providing enough answers fast enough certainly is not accurate, but nice try. It will probably be faster for me to review my pasts posts on these very subjects and post at least a dozen pages of answers if you want.
One bottom line is that more water has been promised in the State and Federal water projects than exist exists. It s the so called ''paper water".
Maybe there will be answers given in the State Water Resources meeting.
I expect for them to continue to kick the can down the road like the 14 year delay in updating the Bay Delta Plan, and promoting vague voluntary programs that failed in the past while Salmon fishermen and fishing dependent families and communities from Southern California to Cape Falcon Oregon get mandatory ZERO harvest.
Last edited:
While I did mention you in my post, the majority of my last post was directed to the OP. I asked 2 questions, mostly about the 2022 water year. If you would like to respond to the questions, I would like to hear your stance as well.
I have read a lot of your responses over the years and have a decent understanding of your views on the topic.
I have read a lot of your responses over the years and have a decent understanding of your views on the topic.
Last edited:
Speckslayer
Elite Refuge Member
Maybe it's time to stop commercial salmon fishing forever and leave them for all the people like they did with waterfowl and the game species.
Sorry for the slow response. Don't take the delay to mean I concede to your argument. I run a small business that keeps me pretty busy making payroll.
First let me clarify my intent. The title to the post was "State Water Resources Control Board - meeting Monday register and dial in and give your opinion". Many folks were upset about the salmon closure. This is an opportunity many may not have known about so I'm passing it along. I beleive if you don't vote you can't bitch. So this is folks chance to give their opinion.
Yes, these are 'talking points' from the Golden State Salmon Association. An organization that has been fighting for water for salmon for many years. I'm a member and know most of the Board. I'm also a member of Coastside Fishing Club and former Board member and President, California Waterfowl, Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited and RMEF. I'm on a first name basis with the current and the former chairman of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council and the prior incarnation of the CA Fish & Game Commission. My involvment started in 2007 with the adoption of the MLPA. I couldn't tell my kids we couldn't fish and I didn't do anything about it. Been away for a while running a business and life in general.
So what? It just means I've been heavily involved in this side of the issue for over 15 years. I grew up on a wheat and sorghum farm in the midwest before emigrating to CA so have an appreciation for that side as well.
I always open my testimony to any of these groups with; "Yes, we are consumptive users of the public resource but we are not buffalo hunters. We are the single best stewards of the resource because we are the only people engaging in the sport without a profit motive." I think that comment typifies all of us. So in the end we are all on the same side; access, opportunity and maintaining the resource(s).
Lots of comments to respond too. I'll take the easiest one first (why not ;-)
Speckslayer - "Are you willing to discuss the problems with your biologists who have preconceived outcomes and continually change their models until it fits what they want and call it "Science"?" Yes, as a guy with a math degree I was able to use the data and model from the Department's Dr. Ian Taniguchi to prove just the opposite of what he was espousing to the Commission for an ablone closure in 2008. The Commission ruled to keep it open.
I was after the Department and the PFMC in testimony earlier this month in the salmon discussions
Pudlduk - "The background says, “ The big die-offs of salmon eggs and juveniles in recent years were not caused by the drought. They were caused by the Water Board’s failure to protect salmon during the drought.”
With all due respect how was this not caused by a drought? If the water is not there, it’s not there. If the water isn’t cold enough in the reservoir after 2 years of drought you can’t make it colder. The reservoirs cold water pool was the worst I have ever seen it."
The graphic below, while it is hard to get recent comparative data, contrast an abundant water year to the previous drought. What little water was there was given in a higher percentage to ag interests. I'm not going to roll out the old trope that '80% of water goes to ag'. That's not true. However, anywhere between 30 and 60% is true depending on the year.
This is the DWR's own data. The point I want to make is that in the high water year ag received 29% of the available water or 31.3 maf. In the subsequent low water year ag received 61% of the available water which equates to 37.2 maf. That is a 20% increase in acre feet from a high water year. Hard to explain.
Nobody is getting everything they want in recent years. My belief (i'll dig up the data) is that the same things are going on as before. Regarding cold water, timed pulses from the bottom of the dams would work fine if anyone wanted to focus. Plants don't want it too cold.
"If the Bureau agreed to their standards of a Tier 4 water year, the water left Shasta at 50 degrees, left Keswick at 54-56 degrees. The flows maintained during 2022 year followed the proposed flows at roughly 4500cfs. This was coordinated with the NMFS BiOp and River Temp plan plus lots of other agencies. What should they have done different in such a horrible drought year when the Reservoir’s water temperature is warm and the water just isn’t there? What is needed to make the salmon flourish again?"
There is a timing issue here. Salmon are on a 3 year cycle on average (may go as long as 4 or 5). The escapement numbers that the model showed in decline leading to this years closure are 2019 year class fish. So we are reaping the benefit of water policy in 2019. I don't have the time to dig up what 2019 policy was at the moment if you have data I would be interested.
We are in a banner year for surface water this year but the DWR reports that 62% of groundwater wells are below normal. So the long term may still pose a problem.
I won't go into the water districts like Westlands and Kern there's already a discussion going on in this thread.
Another graphic to pick on almonds some more follows. I know these are long term investements but would you but capital equipment without an assured supply of materials? Would you buy a million dollar CNC machine if you couldnt get cutting oil or inserts? Would you buy your AgCat cropduster if you didn't have a fuel supply? I know profit per acre is good but young trees are more water dependent than mature ones and people keep planting more.
In any case this is better debated over a meal at Granzellas than online. I'll be back on the site in a couple of days. I hope to hear some of you on Monday's call making your voices heard whichever way your opinion goes.
First let me clarify my intent. The title to the post was "State Water Resources Control Board - meeting Monday register and dial in and give your opinion". Many folks were upset about the salmon closure. This is an opportunity many may not have known about so I'm passing it along. I beleive if you don't vote you can't bitch. So this is folks chance to give their opinion.
Yes, these are 'talking points' from the Golden State Salmon Association. An organization that has been fighting for water for salmon for many years. I'm a member and know most of the Board. I'm also a member of Coastside Fishing Club and former Board member and President, California Waterfowl, Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited and RMEF. I'm on a first name basis with the current and the former chairman of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council and the prior incarnation of the CA Fish & Game Commission. My involvment started in 2007 with the adoption of the MLPA. I couldn't tell my kids we couldn't fish and I didn't do anything about it. Been away for a while running a business and life in general.
So what? It just means I've been heavily involved in this side of the issue for over 15 years. I grew up on a wheat and sorghum farm in the midwest before emigrating to CA so have an appreciation for that side as well.
I always open my testimony to any of these groups with; "Yes, we are consumptive users of the public resource but we are not buffalo hunters. We are the single best stewards of the resource because we are the only people engaging in the sport without a profit motive." I think that comment typifies all of us. So in the end we are all on the same side; access, opportunity and maintaining the resource(s).
Lots of comments to respond too. I'll take the easiest one first (why not ;-)
Speckslayer - "Are you willing to discuss the problems with your biologists who have preconceived outcomes and continually change their models until it fits what they want and call it "Science"?" Yes, as a guy with a math degree I was able to use the data and model from the Department's Dr. Ian Taniguchi to prove just the opposite of what he was espousing to the Commission for an ablone closure in 2008. The Commission ruled to keep it open.
I was after the Department and the PFMC in testimony earlier this month in the salmon discussions
- Models should be adaptive and live in databases not on stone tablets.
- When there is a ‘concern’…(which despite that word being used 18 times in the reports, graphics and these discussions, it is not a defined term in your glossary of terms and acronyms.)
- Responsible adjustments should be made to models when new data or conditions are available.
Pudlduk - "The background says, “ The big die-offs of salmon eggs and juveniles in recent years were not caused by the drought. They were caused by the Water Board’s failure to protect salmon during the drought.”
With all due respect how was this not caused by a drought? If the water is not there, it’s not there. If the water isn’t cold enough in the reservoir after 2 years of drought you can’t make it colder. The reservoirs cold water pool was the worst I have ever seen it."
The graphic below, while it is hard to get recent comparative data, contrast an abundant water year to the previous drought. What little water was there was given in a higher percentage to ag interests. I'm not going to roll out the old trope that '80% of water goes to ag'. That's not true. However, anywhere between 30 and 60% is true depending on the year.
This is the DWR's own data. The point I want to make is that in the high water year ag received 29% of the available water or 31.3 maf. In the subsequent low water year ag received 61% of the available water which equates to 37.2 maf. That is a 20% increase in acre feet from a high water year. Hard to explain.
Nobody is getting everything they want in recent years. My belief (i'll dig up the data) is that the same things are going on as before. Regarding cold water, timed pulses from the bottom of the dams would work fine if anyone wanted to focus. Plants don't want it too cold.
"If the Bureau agreed to their standards of a Tier 4 water year, the water left Shasta at 50 degrees, left Keswick at 54-56 degrees. The flows maintained during 2022 year followed the proposed flows at roughly 4500cfs. This was coordinated with the NMFS BiOp and River Temp plan plus lots of other agencies. What should they have done different in such a horrible drought year when the Reservoir’s water temperature is warm and the water just isn’t there? What is needed to make the salmon flourish again?"
There is a timing issue here. Salmon are on a 3 year cycle on average (may go as long as 4 or 5). The escapement numbers that the model showed in decline leading to this years closure are 2019 year class fish. So we are reaping the benefit of water policy in 2019. I don't have the time to dig up what 2019 policy was at the moment if you have data I would be interested.
We are in a banner year for surface water this year but the DWR reports that 62% of groundwater wells are below normal. So the long term may still pose a problem.
I won't go into the water districts like Westlands and Kern there's already a discussion going on in this thread.
Another graphic to pick on almonds some more follows. I know these are long term investements but would you but capital equipment without an assured supply of materials? Would you buy a million dollar CNC machine if you couldnt get cutting oil or inserts? Would you buy your AgCat cropduster if you didn't have a fuel supply? I know profit per acre is good but young trees are more water dependent than mature ones and people keep planting more.
In any case this is better debated over a meal at Granzellas than online. I'll be back on the site in a couple of days. I hope to hear some of you on Monday's call making your voices heard whichever way your opinion goes.
California Flyway
Elite Refuge Member
JWR
A sincere thanks for your many layers of service and the above responses.
Always good to have a mathematician's perspective on various models.
Concerning eliminating Commercial Salmon fishing.
No organization over time has fought harder and supported more efforts to protect and restore Salmon than the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen Association (PCFFA). They voted a tax on their Salmon landed to fund and or promote a myriad of projects (Battle Creek being a very important current one). PCFFA's Nat Bingham and Zeke Grader where friends of mine and true giants, speaking truth to power on behalf of Salmon. Without PCFFA we would not have had nearly the Salmon we have and will have.
A sincere thanks for your many layers of service and the above responses.
Always good to have a mathematician's perspective on various models.
Concerning eliminating Commercial Salmon fishing.
No organization over time has fought harder and supported more efforts to protect and restore Salmon than the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen Association (PCFFA). They voted a tax on their Salmon landed to fund and or promote a myriad of projects (Battle Creek being a very important current one). PCFFA's Nat Bingham and Zeke Grader where friends of mine and true giants, speaking truth to power on behalf of Salmon. Without PCFFA we would not have had nearly the Salmon we have and will have.
