The federal government on February 9 approved a landmark California proposal banning the discharge of more than 22 million gallons of treated vessel sewage to shorelines and shallow marine waters in California every year, drawing praise from environmental and shipping industry groups alike.
U.S. EPA's Pacific Southwest Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld signed a rule that will finalize EPA's decision and approve a state proposal to ban all sewage discharges from large cruise ships and most other large ocean-going ships to state marine waters along California's 1,624 mile coast from Mexico to Oregon and surrounding major islands.
The action established a new federal regulation banning even treated sewage from being discharged in California's marine waters.
"This is an important step to protect California's coastline," said Governor Jerry Brown. "I want to commend the shipping industry, environmental groups and U.S. EPA for working with California to craft a common sense approach to keeping our coastal waters clean."
"By approving California's 'No Discharge Zone,' EPA will prohibit more than 20 million gallons of vessel sewage from entering the state's coastal waters," said Jared Blumenfeld. "Not only will this rule help protect important marine species, it also benefits the fishing industry, marine habitats and the millions of residents and tourists who visit California beaches each year."
This action strengthens protection of California's coastal waters from the adverse effects of sewage discharges from a growing number of large vessels, according to an announcement from the the U.S. EPA.
"Several dozen cruise ships make multiple California port calls each year while nearly 2,000 cargo ships made over 9,000 California port calls in 2010 alone," the EPA stated. "EPA estimates that the rule will prohibit the discharge of over 22 million of the 25 million gallons of treated vessel sewage generated by large vessels in California marine waters each year, which could greatly reduce the contribution of pollutants still found in treated vessel sewage."
Senator Joe Simitian authored Clean Coast Act
State Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) authored Senate Bill 771, the Clean Coast Act that prohibits all commercial ships from dumping hazardous waste, sewage sludge, oily bilge water, "gray water" from sinks and showers, and sewage in state waters. Simitian's SB 771 also required California to petition the federal government for a 'No Discharge Zone' to enforce the bill's anti-dumping provisions.
"This is a great day for the California coast, which is far too precious a resource to be used as a dumping ground," said Simitian. "This 'No Discharge Zone' - the largest in the nation - protects our coastal economy, our environment and our public health."
"California's coastal waters will no longer serve as a sewage pond for big ships," said Cal/EPA Secretary Matthew Rodriquez. "For too long, pollution from these vessels has endangered our marine environment, jeopardized public health and threatened the coastal communities that rely on recreation and tourism dollars. I commend U.S. EPA for helping us ensure that our coastline remains pristine."
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has already implemented similar vessel sewage discharge bans in the four California marine sanctuaries that it oversees. Recreational and commercial uses of California's coastal waters are equally important. Seventy-seven percent of the State's population lives on or near the coast and annually, over 150 million visitor-days are spent at California beaches.
California ranks first in the nation as a travel destination and its beaches are the leading destination for tourists. California's commercial and recreational fishing industry also relies upon clean water to help preserve and restore coastal fisheries.
Under the Clean Water Act, states may request EPA to establish vessel sewage no-discharge zones if necessary to protect and restore water quality. In 2006, following passage of three state statutes designed to reduce the effects of vessel discharges to its waters, the State of California asked EPA to establish the sewage discharge ban.
After releasing the proposed rule in 2010, EPA considered some 2,000 comment letters from members of the public, environmental groups, and the shipping industry before finalizing the regulation.
"California's economic health is tied to the health of our oceans and beaches," said Charles Hoppin, Chair of the State Water Resources Control Board. "Pollution from cargo and cruise ships directly threatens public health, marine life and our economy. This led to our request to declare the whole coastline a no discharge zone so that we could provide equal water pollution protection along our precious coastline."
Today's prohibition is unprecedented in geographical scope. In contrast to prior no-discharge zones under the Clean Water Act, which apply in very small areas, the new ban applies to all coastal waters out to 3 miles from the coastline and all bays and estuaries subject to tidal influence. Other California no discharge zones for ten bays and marinas remain in effect for all vessels.
Shipping industry and environmental groups praise ban
Both the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association and environmental organizations such as Friends of the Earth applauded the ban.
Consistent with the State's request, the prohibition applies to all passenger ships larger than 300 tons and to all other oceangoing vessels larger than 300 tons with sewage holding tank capacity.
"The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association shares the concern for protection of California's marine environment. Our member companies are dedicated to the facilitation of trade while also minimizing any associated environmental impacts," said John Berge, Vice President of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association.
"Big ships make for big pollution but unfortunately, responsible disposal of sewage from ships hasn't always been a given in California," said Marcie Keever, oceans and vessels project director at Friends of the Earth. "The actions taken by the U.S. EPA, the State of California, and the thousands of Californians who supported the Clean Coast Act mean that cruise lines and the shipping industry can no longer use California's valuable coastal and bay waters as their toilet."
In addition to the discharge prohibition, other vessel sewage discharges will continue to be regulated under existing Clean Water Act requirements, which generally require sewage to be treated by approved marine sanitation devices prior to discharge. The State is also continuing to implement and strengthen other efforts to address sewage discharges from smaller vessels, including recreational boats, to state waters.
"California's coastal waters are home to a wide variety of unique, nationally important marine environments that support rich biological communities and a wide range of recreational and commercial activities," the EPA stated. "Four national marine sanctuaries, a national monument, portions of six national parks and recreation areas, and more than 200 other marine reserves and protected areas have been established to protect California's unique marine resources."
Greater effort needed to fully protect ocean and Delta from pollution and water diversions
I laud Senator Joe Simitian for sponsoring the legislation banning sewage discharge from cruise ships - and for the Brown and Obama administrations for implementing the "No Discharge Zone" to clean up the state's ocean waters.
However, while this is a good first step, much more action is urgently needed to protect California's marine waters and the San Francisco-Bay Delta Estuary, the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Americas. California's controversial Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative creates so-called "marine protected areas" that fail to protect the ocean from oil spills and drilling, pollution, corporate aquaculture, wind and wave energy projects, military testing and all other uses of the ocean other than fishing and gathering.
The questionable "marine protected areas" that went into effect in Southern California waters on January 1, 2001 were created under the "visionary leadership" of Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association and chair of the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force for the South Coast. Now that fishermen have been kicked off large areas of the South Coast, Reheis-Boyd has been relentlessly lobbying for new oil drilling off the California coast, the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline and the evisceration of environmental laws.
The failure of the MLPA Initiative to comprehensively protect California waters occurs at a time when the military is planning to expand its training exercises in West Coast waters. A broad coalition of conservation and tribal organizations on January 26 sued the Obama administration for failing to protect thousands of whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, and sea lions from U.S. Navy warfare training exercises along the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington.
Earthjustice, representing the InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, Friends of the San Juans, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and People For Puget Sound, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service's approval of the Navy's training activities in its Northwest Training Range Complex.
"These training exercises will harm dozens of protected species of marine mammals-southern resident killer whales, blue whales, humpback whales, dolphins, and porpoises-through the use of high-intensity mid-frequency sonar," said Steve Mashuda, an Earthjustice attorney representing the groups. "The Fisheries Service fell down on the job and failed to require the Navy to take reasonable and effective actions to protect them." (http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/01/30/groups-sue-over-navy-sonar-impacts-on-marine-mammals-94811)
One of the reasons why this and similar lawsuits are so necessary is because the "marine protected areas" created under the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative - in reality "no fishing zones" that are falsely portrayed by MLPA advocates as "Yosemites of the Sea" and "underwater parks" - fail to protect the ocean from military testing and all other human impacts on the ocean than fishing.
Ironically, the same Brown and Obama administrations that announced the welcome ban on sewage discharge from larger cruise ships on February 9 are fast-tracking the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build the peripheral canal to export more California Delta water to southern California and corporate agribusiness on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley.
Delta advocates believe the construction of the peripheral canal will lead to the extinction of Sacramento River chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail, green sturgeon, southern resident killer whales and other imperiled species.
So while state and federal officials tout the creation of the New "No Discharge Zone" off the California coast, they are proceeding forward with a canal plan that will kill many more fish and other species that the MLPA Initiative's "marine protected areas" or the "No Discharge Zone" would ever "save."
More Information:
To view the electronic media kit for the U.S. EPA announcement including photos and a copy of the final rule please visit: http://www.epa.gov/region9/med...
Media Contacts:
U.S. EPA Media Contact: Mary Simms, simms.mary [at] epa.gov, 415-947-4270
Cal/EPA Deborah Hoffman, Director of Communications 916-324-9670 dhoffman [at] calepa.ca.gov Cal/EPA Lindsay VanLaningham, Deputy Director of Communications, 916- 324-9670, LindsayV [at] calepa.ca.gov
State Water Resources Control Board - George Kostyrko, Director of Public Affairs 916- 341-7365 gkostyrko [at] waterboards.ca.gov
Sen. Simitian's office, Lisa Gardiner, lisa.gardiner [at] sen.ca.gov, 916-651-4011
Marcie Keever, Friends of the Earth, Oceans & Vessels Project Director, 415.544.0790 x223, mkeever [at] foe.org
In a move celebrated by anglers and conservationists, the California Fish and Game Commission in Sacramento on Thursday, February 2 took final action to reject the Department of Fish and Game's controversial proposed changes to striped bass regulations.
In a unanimous 4-0 decision, Commissioners voted not to pursue a proposal that would have liberalized sport fishing regulations related to anadromous striped bass, including increasing bag limits and decreasing size limits. Hundreds of anglers from an array of fishing groups attended the meeting and dozens spoke in opposition to what they described as the striped bass "eradication" proposal.
"This is a great victory for northern California, its water, ecosystem and species," said Victor Gonella, President of the Board of the Golden Gate Salmon Association (GGSA).
The GGSA opposed the DFG plan - and submitted an alternate proposal to the DFG plan focusing on reducing the pumping of Delta water and identifying and eliminating "hot spots" where striped bass and other predators congregate to prey on juvenile salmon.
Commission President Jim Kellogg made the motion after speaking passionately about his eyewitness experience with the results of export pumping when he worked from 1966 to 1969 on installing the first pumping station on the South Delta for the State Water Project.
"I was there when Governor Reagan was there to cut the ribbon on the completion of 7 pumps, including 4 big ones and 3 small ones," said Kellogg. When the small pumps were turned on, he witnessed large numbers of fish going into the canal.
"There is more to this than striped bass predation - it's about water pumping and saltwater intrusion in the Delta," he noted. "And invasive species are just as big an issue, not just fish species but plants also."
Kellogg, like many anglers in the room, noted that the striped bass and listed salmon and Delta smelt had coexisted for 130 years. He also declared that striped bass are a "native species" in California, since they have been here for so long.
"Nobody's got an answer on how this is done, or who declares it, so I'm going to declare the striped bass a native species of the state of California," he said.
Commissioner Dan Richards seconded the motion to reject the striper eradication proposal - and then the 4 Commissioners, including Jack Baylis and Michael Sutton, voted for the motion. The anglers in the room gave a standing ovation to the Commission after their vote.
A panel of three representatives of the Allied Fishing Groups, including John Beuttler, Dave Hurley and Mike McKenzie, voiced their "complete opposition" to the DFG's proposed changes to the striped bass sport fishing regulations for a number of reasons. The Allied Fishing Groups include 40 organizations and businesses, such as the Black Bass Action Commitee, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Dan Blanton's StriperFest, Delta Fly Fishers, California Striped Bass Association and Recreational Fishing Alliance.
"Adopting this proposal would be a violation of the Department's and the Commission's fiduciary obligations to hold the public's fish and wildlife resources in trust and manage them at sustainable population levels in accord with the Commission's policies and statutory responsibilities including your striped bass management policy," said Beuttler.
"Since the striped bass fishery has declined from some 3 to 4 million adult fish in the 1960's to 650,000 today, its collapse has paralleled that of several runs of listed salmonids that utilize the Bay-Delta estuary. It's clear all of these fisheries are not being managed on a sustainable basis," stated Beuttler.
The proposal introduced by the DFG arose out of a settlement agreement resulting from a 2008 lawsuit. In that lawsuit, the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta, an agribusiness Astroturf group consisting of San Joaquin Valley water districts, claimed that striped bass are "harming" native species, including endangered Central Valley chinook salmon and steelhead and Delta smelt.
Representatives from the Coalition, Department of Fish and Game and NOAA Fisheries spoke in favor of the proposal.
"We believe a yes vote is justified," said DFG Director Chuck Bonham. "Striped bass predation is not the only factor or even the most significant factor in the decline of salmon and other listed species - but any angler who fishes for stripers sees how they predate on salmon."
Bonham emphasized that striped bass predation is a "controllable" factor in reducing salmon and Delta smelt mortality. "This controllable factor is addressable by you through this proposal," said Bonham.
Michael Boccadoro of the Dolphin Group, a spokesman for the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta, vowed further litigation if the Commission didn't approve the striper eradication proposal.
"If the proposal is rejected, it only gets kicked backed into the federal courts," said Boccadoro.
Three executives of Stewart Resnick's Paramount Farms in Kern County founded the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta. Resnick is the politically connected Beverly Hills billionaire who has made tens of millions of dollars annually from buying and reselling water back to the public for a big profit.
The Coalition claimed that the striped bass, an East Coast fish introduced to the Sacramento over 130 years ago, should not be protected because the fish prey on protected chinook salmon and Delta smelt. Anglers accused the Coalition of trying to blame striped bass "predation" for the decline of salmon and smelt in order to divert attention from record exports out of the Delta in recent years that resulted in the 2008-2009 Central Valley fall salmon collapse, in addition to the collapse of Delta smelt, longsfin smelt, threadfin shad, young striped bass and other species.
The coalition's backers want to divert more Delta water to San Joaquin Valley growers and southern California. While supporters of Central Valley and Delta fish restoration scored a victory against the water contractors Thursday, this is one battle in a war by corporate agribusiness and southern California water agencies to take more water from the Delta.
The same water contractors advocating for the striped bass eradication proposal are collaborating with the Brown and Obama adminstrations to build the peripheral canal, a project that would result in the extinction of Central Valley steelhead, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, Sacramento River chinook salmon, Sacramento splittail, green sturgeon and other imperiled fish species.
"This is a victory for any fisherman in Northern California, and a clear defeat of the agricorporations' thinly-veiled greedy water grab," said Jim Cox, President of the California Striped Bass Association, West Delta Chapter. "Had these changes been enacted, the striped bass would have been potentially fished to extinction, with no clear benefit to the salmon and delta smelt this was supposed to be protecting.
"The biological end of the DFG was forced to compile these regulation changes by the legal end of the Department to settle a lawsuit. Hoorah to the integrity of the Fish and Game Commission to see through this 'fishery management by lawsuit' and defend the autonomy of the regulation process. Particular credit goes to outgoing Commission President Jim Kellogg who, as his last piece of business in his two year term as President, declared striped bass a native species," Cox concluded.
Kellogg, a Davis appointee, is still on the Commission, but is up for re-appointment right now. "I will continue to be a voice for hunters and fishermen," Kellogg emphasized.
On January 30, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in San Diego denied a motion by the Fish and Game Commission to dismiss the Coastside Fishing Club's appeal of an unfavorable court ruling regarding the imposition of so-called "marine protected areas" on the North Central Coast of California.
After three legal victories in a row, the Club, United Anglers of Southern California, Coastside Fishing Club and Robert C. Fletcher in October suffered the first setback in their legal campaign targeting ocean fishing closures imposed under the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative. The controversial initiative is privately funded by the shadowy Resources Legacy Fund Foundation.
Ronald S. Prager, San Diego Superior Court judge, rejected arguments that the Commission exceeded its authority when it approved new "marine protected areas" on the North Central Coast from Pigeon Point in San Mateo County to Alder Point in Mendocino County that went in effect on May 1, 2010.
On December 15, 2011, the Club filed a Notice of Appeal, appealing the trial court's denial of Coastside's claims that the Fish and Game Commission "lacked statutory authority and failed to follow required procedures" in adopting the North Central Coast marine protected areas (MPAs) and MPA regulations.
"We just received good news from the court of appeal - it denied the Commission's motion," according to a statement from Coastside. "Coastside's appeal may therefore go forward and be heard on the merits."
"This is definitely a win for us," said Robert C. Fletcher, the former president of the Sportfishing Association of California, "since the Attorney General's Office, representing the Commission, has repeatedly tried to block our appeal."
"If the court finds merit to Coastside's arguments, they will vacate the Commission's adoption of the North Coast MLPA regulations and force them to go back to the drawing board. This will have implications not only for the North Central Coast, but for the South Coast as well," said Fletcher.
All of the remaining claims brought by United Anglers and Fletcher, including the South Coast regulatory authority and CEQA claims, as well as the Coastal Act claims, are still pending in the trial court. A trial date has not yet been set.
On January 9, 2012, the Commission filed a motion in the Court of Appeal to dismiss Coastside's appeal, arguing that Coastside must wait to appeal until all of the remaining claims still pending in the trial court have been resolved.
Grassroots environmental leaders fighting the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative applauded the Appeal Court's decision.
"The corrupt and illegal MLPA Initiative process will be exposed and overturned eventually," said John Lewallen, North Coast environmental leader and co-founder of the Ocean Protection Coalition and North Coast Seaweed Rebellion. "The brave fishermen and fisherwomen of Coastside Fishing Club are protecting ocean access and government by the people, now under assault by private corporate interests."
The initiative, overseen by a big oil lobbyist, marina developer, coastal real estate executive, agribusiness hack and other corporate operatives with many conflicts of interest, is a process that directly parallels the equally corrupt and corporate-controlled Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build a peripheral canal.
The MLPA Initiative creates so-called "marine protected areas," supported by Safeway Stores, Walmart and the Western States Petroleum Association, that fail to protect the ocean from oil spills and drilling, pollution, military testing, corporate aquaculture, wave and wind energy projects and all other human impacts on the ocean than fishing and gathering.
In an overt conflict of interest, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the president of the Western States Petroleum Association, chaired the "august body" that designed the "marine protected areas" that went into effect on the Southern California Coast on January 1. Reheis-Boyd, a big oil industry lobbyist advocating for new offshore drilling off the California coast, the Keystone XL pipeline and the gutting of environmental laws, chaired the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force for the South Coast, as well as "serving" on the North Central Coast and North Coast Task Forces.
While MLPA advocates have claimed that the initiative is "open, transparent and inclusive," it is instructive that MLPA and state officials refused to appoint any tribal scientists to the MLPA Science Advisory Team (SAT). This was in spite of the fact that the Yurok Tribe alone has a Natural Resources Department with over 70 staff members, including scientists. The MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force also didn't include any tribal representatives until 2010 when one was finally appointed to the panel.
Hundreds of anglers, conservationists and supporters of Delta fish restoration will be attending the Fish and Game Commission meeting in Sacramento on Thursday, February 2 at 8:30 a.m. to oppose the Department of Fish and Game's striped bass eradication proposal. The meeting will held at the Resources Building in the First Floor Auditorium, 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento.
The eradication proposal, the "request for the authorization to publish notice of the Commission intent to amend the striped bass regulations," is number 9 on the agenda. There will be two special presentations, the first by the Department of Fish and Game and the second by the Allied Fishing Groups.
"Fishing regulations are supposed to be based on the best available science," said John Beuttler, spokesman for the Allied Fishing Groups. "These regulations are not based on the best available science."
Members of the California Striped Bass Association, Coastside Fishing Club, Water for Fish, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Golden Gate Salmon Association, Federation of Fly Fishers and other groups will be there in force to oppose the adoption of the DFG proposal.
The DFG proposal would raise the daily bag limit for striped bass from two to six fish, raise the possession limit from two to 12 fish and lower the minimum size from 18 to 12 inches in order to reduce alleged "predation" of Central Valley salmon and Delta smelt by stripers.
It would also establish a "hot spot" for striped bass fishing at Clifton Court Forebay and specified adjacent waterways at which the daily bag limit will be 20 fish, the possession limit will be 40 fish and there will be no size limit. Anglers fishing at the hot spot would be required to fill out a report card and deposit it in an iron ranger or similar receptacle.
The Allied Fishing Groups, in a letter to the Commission on January 17, voiced their "complete opposition" to the DFG's proposed changes to the striped bass sport fishing regulations for a number of reasons.
"Adopting this proposal would be a violation of the Department's and the Commission's fiduciary obligations to hold the public's fish and wildlife resources in trust and manage them at sustainable population levels in accord with the Commission's policies and statutory responsibilities including your striped bass management policy (See Fish and Game Code sections: 703, 711.7, 1017, 1301, 1600, 1700, 1802, 2761, 2780, 7050, 7070, 7072)," the letter stated.
"Since the striped bass fishery has declined from some 3 to 4 million adult fish in the 1960's to 650,000 today, its collapse has paralleled that of several runs of listed salmonids that utilize the Bay-Delta estuary. It's clear all of these fisheries are not being managed on a sustainable basis," the groups said.
The Golden Gate Salmon Association (GGSA) has sponsored an alternate proposal for the Commission to "dedicate a much greater percentage of unimpaired runoff in the winter and spring to Delta inflows and outflows, and generally restore more natural flow patterns throughout the year, in order to provide habitat conditions that promote much greater survival of native species populations and reduce the effects of predation."
The proposal also advises the Commission to "aggressively remove hot spots where striped bass and other predators can congregate and easily attack juvenile native fish." (http://goldengatesalmonassociation.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Striper-Proposal-GGSA-Final.pdf)
The DFG striped bass eradication proposal is the result of a court settlement of a lawsuit between the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta, an agribusiness "Astroturf" group representing San Joaquin Valley corporate growers. This group is housed in Stewart Resnick's headquarters for Paramount Farms in Kern County. Resnick is the politically connected Beverly Hills billionaire and largest tree fruit grower in the world who has made tens of millions of dollars annually from buying and reselling water back to the state for a big profit.
The Coalition claims that the striped bass, an East Coast fish introduced to the Sacramento over 120 years ago, should not be protected because the fish supposedly prey on protected chinook salmon and Delta smelt. The Coalition is trying to blame striped bass "predation" for the decline of salmon and smelt in order to divert attention from record exports out of the Delta in recent years that resulted in the 2008-2009 Central Valley fall salmon collapse, in addition to the collapse of Delta smelt, longsfin smelt, threadfin shad, young striped bass and other species. The coalition's backers want to divert more Delta water to San Joaquin Valley growers and southern California.
Agency staff "salvaged" over 11 million fish, including a record 9 million imperiled Sacramento splittail, in the state and federal pumps in 2011. Scientists estimate that the actual amount of fish lost in the pumps is 5 to 10 times the "salvage" numbers.
Last year was also a record one for water exports from the Delta. The total water exported was 6,633,000 acre-feet in 2011 - 163,000 acre-feet more than the previous record of 6,470,000 acre-feet set in 2005, according to DWR data. (http://blogs.alternet.org/danbacher/2011/12/30/states-first-snow-survey-follows-record-water-export-year)
It is noteworthy that Resnick sits on the Board of Conservation International, a corporate environmental NGO, with Walmart Chairman Rob Walton. Walton's Walton Family Foundation dumped $36 million into ocean privatization efforts through "catch shares" programs and the creation of so-called "marine protected areas" in 2010 in an attempt to kick sustainable recreational and commercial fishermen off the water.
Resnick and Walton's Conservation International received the top amount, $18,640,917, of the five NGOs receiving Walmart money to promote ocean "conservation" programs including marine protected areas similar to those imposed by the privately funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative in California. (http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/30/the-worst-of-the-one-percent).
San Francisco - A broad coalition of conservation groups and American Indian Tribes on January 26 sued the Obama administration for failing to protect thousands of whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, and sea lions from U.S. Navy warfare training exercises along the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington.
Earthjustice, representing the InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, Friends of the San Juans, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and People For Puget Sound, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service's approval of the Navy's training activities in its Northwest Training Range Complex.
The lawsuit calls on the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to mitigate anticipated harm to marine mammals and biologically critical areas within the training range that stretches from Northern California to the Canadian border, according to a statement from Earthjustice.
"These training exercises will harm dozens of protected species of marine mammals-Southern Resident killer whales, blue whales, humpback whales, dolphins, and porpoises-through the use of high-intensity mid-frequency sonar," said Steve Mashuda, an Earthjustice attorney representing the groups. "The Fisheries Service fell down on the job and failed to require the Navy to take reasonable and effective actions to protect them."
The groups said the Navy uses a vast area of the West Coast for training activities, including anti-submarine warfare exercises involving tracking aircraft and sonar; surface-to-air gunnery and missile exercises; air-to-surface bombing exercises; sink exercises; and extensive testing for several new weapons systems.
Tribes say exercises will hurt traditional cultural lifeways, whales
"Since the beginning of time, the Sinkyone Council's member Tribes have gathered, harvested and fished for traditional cultural marine resources in this area, and they continue to carry out these subsistence ways of life, and their ceremonial activities along this Tribal ancestral coastline," said Priscilla Hunter, chairwoman and co-founder of the InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council. "Our traditional cultural lifeways, and our relatives such as the whales and many other species, will be negatively and permanently impacted by the Navy's activities."
"Both NMFS and the Navy have failed in their obligations to conduct government-to-government consultation with the Sinkyone Council and its member Tribes regarding project impacts," Hunter emphasized.
Founded in 1986, the InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council, a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization, is a California Indian peoples' environmental consortium working to re-establish local Indian stewardship within the Sinkyone region of Northern California through land conservation, habitat restoration, and traditional resource management.
The member tribes of the Council are: the Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians; Redwood Valley Band of Pomo Indians; Sherwood Valley Band of Pomo Indians; Hopland Band of Pomo Indians; Potter Valley Band of Pomo Indians; Pinoleville Band of Pomo Indians; Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians; Robinson Rancheria; the Cahto Tribe and the Round Valley Indian Tribes.
In late 2010, NMFS gave the Navy a permit for five years of expanded naval activity that the groups said will harm or "take" marine mammals and other sealife. The permit allows the Navy to conduct increased training exercises that can harm marine mammals and disrupt their migration, nursing, breeding, or feeding, primarily as a result of harassment through exposure to the use of sonar.
High intensity sonar results in marine mammal strandings
Navy's mid-frequency sonar has been implicated in mass strandings of marine mammals in, among other places, the Bahamas, Greece, the Canary Islands, and Spain, according to the conservation groups and Tribes.
In 2004, during war games near Hawai'i, the Navy's sonar was implicated in a mass beaching of up to 200 melon-headed whales in Hanalei Bay.
In 2003, the USS Shoup, operating in Washington's Haro Strait, exposed a group of endangered Southern Resident killer whales to mid-frequency sonar, causing the animals to stop feeding and attempt to flee the sound.
"In 2003, NMFS learned firsthand the harmful impacts of Navy sonar in Washington waters when active sonar blasts distressed members of J pod, one of our resident pods of endangered orcas," said Kyle Loring, Staff Attorney for Friends of the San Juans. "Given this history, it is particularly distressing that NMFS approved the Navy's use of deafening noises in areas where whales and dolphins use their acute hearing to feed, navigate, and raise their young, even in designated sanctuaries and marine reserves."
"Whales and other marine mammals don't stand a chance against the Navy," summed up Miyoko Sakashita, Oceans Director at the Center for Biological Diversity.
The Navy's mitigation plan for sonar use relies primarily on visual detection of whales or other marine mammals by so-called " watch-standers" with binoculars on the decks of ships. If mammals are seen in the vicinity of an exercise, the Navy is to cease sonar use.
"Visual detection can miss anywhere from 25-95% of the marine mammals in an area," said Heather Trim, Director of Policy for People For Puget Sound. "It's particularly unreliable in rough seas or in bad weather. We learn more every day about where whales and other mammals are most likely to be found-we want NMFS to put that knowledge to use to ensure that the Navy's training avoids those areas when marine mammals are most likely there."
The litigation is not intended to halt the Navy's exercises, but asks the Court to require NMFS to reassess the permits using the latest science and to order the Navy to stay out of biologically critical areas at least at certain times of the year.
A US Navy spokesman declined to comment on the lawsuit, while a National Marine Fisheries Service spokesperson said the agency has not yet received any information on the suit.
Killer whales threatened by both Navy training and water exports
Marcie Keever of Friends of the Earth pointed out the dramatic impact that the Navy exercises could have upon endangered southern resident killer whales (orcas).
"It has become increasingly clear from recent research that the endangered Southern Resident killer whale community uses coastal waters within the Navy's training range to find salmon during the fall and winter months," said Keever. "NMFS has failed in its duty to assure that the Navy is not pushing the whales closer to extinction."
The killer whales face a double threat now: Navy sonar testing and increased water exports from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. A NOAA Fisheries biological opinion released on June 4, 2009 found that water pumping operations in the Central Valley by the federal Bureau of Reclamation jeopardize the continued existence of imperiled Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta smelt, green sturgeon and southern resident killer whales, which rely on chinook salmon runs for food.
MLPA Initiative fails to protect ocean from military exercises
In my opinion, one of reasons why this and similar lawsuits are so necessary is because California's Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative creates so-called "marine protected areas" that fail to protect the ocean from military testing, as well as pollution, corporate aquaculture, wave and wind energy projects and all other human impacts on the ocean other than fishing and gathering.
The initiative is a privately funded process, overseen by a big oil lobbyist, marina developer, coastal real estate executive, agribusiness hack and other corporate operatives with many conflicts of interest, that is supported by the Western States Petroleum Association, Safeway Stores and the Walton Family Foundation. The MLPA process parallels the equally corrupt and corporate-controlled Bay Delta Conservation Plan to build the peripheral canal to export northern California water to southern California.
In an egregious conflict of interest, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the president of the Western States Petroleum Association, chaired the "august body" that designed the so-called "marine protected areas," falsely touted as "underwater parks" and "Yosemites of the Sea" by MLPA Initiative advocates, that went into effect on the Southern California Coast on January 1.
Reheis-Boyd, a big oil industry lobbyist who relentlessly pushes for new offshore drilling off the California coast, the Keystone XL pipeline and the gutting of environmental laws, chaired the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force for the South Coast, as well as "serving" on the North Central Coast and North Coast MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Forces.
You would think that a simple bill requiring the labeling of Frankenfish would pass easily through the California Legislature.
Unfortunately, that wasn't the case, since Assemblymembers apparently beholden to the bioegineering and biotechnology industry on January 19 voted against a bill, AB 88, that would have required that all genetically engineered (GE) fish sold in California contain clear and prominent labeling.
The legislation, authored by Assemblymember Jared Huffman (D-6), failed in the Assembly Appropriations Committee by a vote of 9-7. Assemblymembers Harkey, Calderon, Hall, Nielson, Norby, Solorio, Wagner, Campos and Donnelly voted no on the bill, while Fuentes, Bradford, Chesbro, Gatto, Hill, Ammiano and Mitchell voted yes.
Assemblymember Blumenfield, who voted for the bill last May, was out of the room during the vote.
"It's shameful that nine members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee chose to keep consumers in the dark as to whether salmon sold in California is genetically engineered or not, should GE Salmon be approved by the FDA," said Marie Logan of Food and Water Watch. "We will continue to fight for labeling of all genetically engineered foods and continue to urge the FDA to not approve GE salmon, so that this potentially risky product never reaches grocery store shelves. Food & Water Watch will continue working to support national legislation that would stop the approval of GE salmon by the FDA."
The legislation, AB 88, was stalled in Appropriations last year, and was held-over for reintroduction this session by Assemblymember Huffman. This bill is modeled after similar legislation passed in the state of Alaska in 2005 that requires labeling of all genetically modified seafood.
"While we are disappointed that AB 88 failed today, we are encouraged by the level of support the bill received in a tough Committee," according to a statement from the Center for Food Safety (CFS). "The bill's failure in Committee came despite clear consumer demand for labeling of GE fish."
As Huffman told TakePart, "If we had put this bill before the people of California, it would have passed overwhelmingly."
Consumer, environmental and fishing groups oppose the approval of genetically engineered salmon and other fish by the federal Food and Drug Administration because of its potential human health impacts and the danger presented to struggling West Coast salmon populations if the GE fish escape from aquaculture facilities. They supported the legislation as a way of safeguarding human health in California if efforts to stop the approval of Frankenfish at the federal level fail.
BIOCOM, an organization representing the biotechnology and life sciences industry, opposed the Legislation by claiming that the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) "closely regulates" the use of bioengineering and biotechnology in foods and is currently reviewing the approval of consumption of genetically engineered salmon. BIOCOM argued that it should be left to the FDA to determine whether or not labeling should be required on these products.
The Frankenfish issue is not going to go away as long as AquaBounty's salmon is on the table for FDA consideration and while other biotech corporations push for the approval of GE animals. The Obama administration, the same administration that is pushing for the privatization of ocean public trust resources through "catch shares" program and the construction of a peripheral canal that will destroy Central Valley salmon and California Delta fish populations, has also put the GE salmon approval process on the fast-track.
On December 19, a coalition of 11 food safety, environmental, consumer and fisheries organizations sent a letter to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) calling for a halt to its approval of a genetically engineered (GE) salmon after learning that the company's - AquaBounty Technologies, Inc. - research site was contaminated with a new strain of Infectious Salmon Anaemia (ISA), the deadly fish flu that is devastating fish stocks around the world.
"This new information calls into question the reliability of AquaBounty's data and the validity of its claims that their fish are safe for the environment" said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. "The FDA must respond appropriately and conduct their own environmental impact statement that looks at a broad range of environmental risks from these genetically engineered salmon, including the risk of spreading diseases such as ISA and antibiotic use for other diseases."
The coalition included the Center for Food Safety, Friends of the Earth, Food & Water Watch, Center for Environmental Health, Alliance for Natural Health USA, Gloucester Fishermen's Wives Association, Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development Association, PCC Natural Markets, Organic Consumers Association, Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance and Mangrove Action Project.
Legislation advocating a ban on GE salmon, S. 230, and mandatory labeling, S. 229, is making its through the U.S. Senate.
Legislation advocating a ban on GE salmon, H.R. 521, and mandatory labeling, H.R. 520, is also proceeding through the U.S. House of Representatives.
For more information on GE fish, visit CFS's campaign website, http://www.ge-fish.org, or Food and Water Watch's website,http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/genetically-engineered-foods/stop-frankenfish.
On November 2nd, 2010, California voters passed Proposition 20 allowing a commission composed of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 4 Independents to redraw my state's congressional districts. Previously, the state legislature drew the maps. In the House of Representatives, the representatives represent voters in districts the legislature draws. In recent years though, states such as Washington and California have chosen commissions to draw districts without political influence. In California, the commission traveled around the state to hear public comments from citizens like me and talk to groups such as MALDEF. On June 10th, 2011, the California Redistricting Commission released their first set of maps for California after hearing public comments from meetings such as this one on May 20th that I attended. The guidelines set for the commission were to draw districts that follow the VRA, stick to county boundaries as much as possible and preserve communities of interest. They approved the final maps in mid August. Also, this is the first election year where all California Congressional elections will have a top two primary where all candidates run in the June primary and the top two vote getters advance to the general election on November 6th.
I posted an earlier analysis of California's new congressional districts here: http://racesandredistricting.b... but this version is different because it analyzed the 1st draft of California's redistricting maps. This new version here analyzes California's Congressional districts after the Commission approved the final maps. Instead of focusing on communities of interest, this analysis will mostly focus on the congressional races themselves and which party is likely to win them. Overall, the Commission's new Congressional map produces 28 Safe Democratic seats, four Likely Democratic seats, five Lean Democratic seats, two Tossup seats, two Lean Republican seats and 12 Safe Republican seats. This totals to 37 seats expected to vote Democratic with 14 seats expected to vote Republican for Congress, suggesting Democrats could win 3-5 seats under California's new map.
Picking up on a diary from 2006 about tracking competitive districts, I continued the tracking for the 2008 and 2010 elections. With the new district data, I can start the "Outlook" series for 2012.
In 2008 I tried a "Partisan Factor" (PF), inspired by a comment in the aforementioned diary, in which I averaged the margins in registration, 2002-Gov., 2004-Pres., 2004-Sen., and 2006-Sen. In 2010 I used just the registration and the 2008 presidential numbers. For 2012 I will try a new "Partisan Factor" using the registration margin, 2008-Pres., 2010-Sen., and 2010-Gov, with different weights.
Also, for the 2008 and 2010 races, the numbers represent the difference between the parties given their share of the 2-party vote. For example, in CA-03, Obama won 56.3-43.7, Fiorina won 51-49, and Brown won 53.8-46.2.
Yesterday, shortly after I posted my latest entry on the ProPublica redistricting story scandal, ProPublica posted a response to critics. Unfortunately, the response continues to evade the key questions and criticisms made of their article, particularly their lack of knowledge of California politics and their strange assumption that somehow it's wrong if Democrats wind up benefiting from the new lines.
Q: If California Democrats actually succeeded in manipulating the redistricting commission, then why did some Democratic incumbents lose?
A: Our story did not assert that every Democrat got what they wanted from the Commission. Indeed, we noted that Democrats faced a particularly difficult challenge getting what they wanted in densely populated, ethnically diverse Southern California.
Still, fewer Democrats might have lost than it seems.
Some have argued, for instance, that the high-profile retirement of Rep. Lynn Woolsey, in Northern California, was a result of redistricting.
But as it turns out, Woolsey announced her retirement before the lines were completed, and has said redistricting had nothing to do with her decision.
This is a non-sequitur answer. One of the key reasons for the commission was voter anger that incumbents were essentially "drawing their own lines." It should be noted I didn't share that reasoning, and I in fact opposed this commission. But the commission was given loud and clear direction by voters to ignore incumbency and that is precisely what they did.
Q: What about Reps. Berman and Sherman getting drawn [4] into a district together?
A: As many have noted, Democratic U.S. Reps. Brad Sherman and Howard Berman were drawn into the same district [5], and as were Reps. Janice Hahn and Laura Richardson.
Several people -- including members of the redistricting commission [6] -- have pointed to the Berman-Sherman face-off, in particular, as evidence that the commission was not manipulated by Democrats.
But even in that case, there appears to be evidence of an effort to influence the process.
According to FEC records, on May 23, Sherman's PAC paid $15,000, to an entity it called "PMPA" in their disclosures. The address of PMPA is the home of redistricting consultant Paul Mitchell's mother in Glendale. One of Paul Mitchell's firms is called Paul Mitchell Public Affairs, or PMPA. It's not clear what the work was for. Mitchell didn't respond to our request about his work about Sherman.
In the end, Sherman appears to have come out ahead. The so-called Berman-Sherman district was 60 percent from Sherman's old district, and 16 percent from Berman's district.
Sherman's office did not return our requests for comment.
As for Berman, he told ProPublica he didn't try to influence the commission: "I'm not unfamiliar with the redistricting process. I wasn't caught flat-footed. I just chose not to do what many on both sides of the aisle did: try to sway the commission to do something that was good for one member. The whole process was supposed to draw lines without consideration to incumbents. I respected that process."
So people tried to influence the commission. Big fucking deal. That in and of itself is not a news story. What ProPublica asserted - and has so far been entirely unable to prove - is that these efforts to influence actually succeeded in swaying the commission's decisions. But commissioners themselves - whom ProPublica did not deign to interview - have consistently denied that their decisions were affected by this lobbying.
Q: Didn't Republicans and others try to influence the commission too?
A: Yes, they did. In fact, our reporting began with one such attempt. But we also found that Republicans were far less organized or effective than Democrats.
For instance, Howard "Buck" McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, tried to enlist his allies to urge the commission to draw him a friendly district. Last April, McKeon emailed a local trade group with defense industry tries encouraging them to "advocate to the Redistricting Commission" for McKeon's ideal district. (Read the email [7].) McKeon didn't return our requests for comment.
The group, the Antelope Valley Board of Trade, did not testify in favor of his district. McKeon ended up getting part of what he wanted but not all of it.
Again, ProPublica asserts that Democratic influencing efforts "succeeded" without having any evidence to defend this claim. The fact that anyone was trying to influence anything is itself unremarkable.
Q: California is a blue state. In a fair process, shouldn't the Democrats [4] "win" [8] redistricting?
A: There haven't yet been elections based on the newly redistricted lines. So any projections about how Democrats and Republicans will fare are just that, projections.
We interviewed multiple experts who said that Democrats could be expected to gain a seat or two via redistricting. The previous district lines had actually been the result of a bi-partisan backroom gerrymander that created a few Republican seats. A fair redistricting process might have eliminated those safe seats.
But after the districts were drawn, internal Democratic Party analyses projected a gain of six or seven seats.
More importantly, the way lines are drawn doesn't just affect the balance of power between Democrats and Republicans. Particular lines can also protect particular politicians.
Rep. Judy Chu's Southern California district, for example, would likely remain safely Democratic in any redrawing. But, as our story shows, a group with ties to Rep. Chu successfully intervened in the commission process at the last minute to tweak lines that will likely make it easier for Chu herself to defeat any Democratic challenger.
That's particularly relevant because California is moving to a new "open primary" system where the politicians who get the largest number of votes go on to face each other in a second round -- regardless of party affiliation.
This is a response to my criticism on Thursday - or at least it's intended as a response. Note that ProPublica does not actually deal with the substance of my question.
Democrats have a 44-30 registration advantage over Republicans. And many voters registered as "Decline to State" actually vote consistently for Democrats. Remember also that Republicans got swept in the 2010 elections and dating back to 1998 have had trouble winning more than one or two statewide seats. Their last US Senator was elected in 1986. They last had a majority in the state legislature in 1970.
In short, given the fact that California voters have consistently favored Democrats for the last few decades, any outcome that did not result in increasing opportunities for Democrats to win seats would not have been an accurate reflection of political reality.
As to Judy Chu, ProPublica asserts that organizing efforts were done on her behalf. In fact, organizing was done to ensure Asian-Americans had a majority district. The redistricting commissioners were subject to both state and federal Voting Rights Act rules. And Asian-Americans have faced historic discrimination in California. So it makes sense that there will be at least one Asian-American district in the state. And many Asian-American voting rights advocates were actually disappointed in the work of the commission. The district benefits an Asian-American candidate and it won't necessarily be Judy Chu.
Q: The Commission was never meant [9] to be non-partisan.
A: We'll let readers judge for themselves. The voter referendum creating the commission called for "nonpartisan rules designed to ensure fair representation."
Here is the language voters saw in the ballot box [10]:
The People of the State of California hereby make the following findings and declare their purpose in enacting this act is as follows:
(a) Under current law, California legislators draw their own political districts. Allowing politicians to draw their own districts is a serious conflict of interest that harms voters. That is why 99 percent of incumbent politicians were reelected in the districts they had drawn for themselves in the recent elections.
(b) Politicians draw districts that serve their interests, not those of our communities. For example, cities such as Long Beach, San Jose and Fresno are divided into multiple oddly shaped districts to protect incumbent legislators. Voters in many communities have no political voice because they have been split into as many as four different districts to protect incumbent legislators. We need reform to keep our communities together so everyone has representation.
(c) This reform will make the redistricting process open so it cannot be controlled by the party in power. It will give us an equal number of Democrats and Republicans on the commission, and will ensure full participation of independent voters-whose voices are completely shut out of the current process. In addition, this reform requires support from Democrats, Republicans, and independents for approval of new redistricting plans.
(d) The independent Citizens Redistricting Commission will draw districts based on strict, nonpartisan rules designed to ensure fair representation. The reform takes redistricting out of the partisan battles of the Legislature and guarantees redistricting will be debated in the open with public meetings, and all minutes will be posted publicly on the Internet. Every aspect of this process will be open to scrutiny by the public and the press.
(e) In the current process, politicians are choosing their voters instead of voters having a real choice. This reform will put the voters back in charge.
ProPublica is imparting their own meaning to this question. The commission was in fact never meant to be non-partisan because it had partisan representation written into the proposition that created it. In fact, one reason I opposed the commission is that it gave an unfair advantage to Republicans, giving them the same number of seats as Democrats even though they had many fewer valid registrations.
Further, the commission did act in a non-partisan way by refusing to review party registration when drawing up boundaries, a fact ProPublica criticized them for doing. So it seems ProPublica wants to have it both ways here - criticizing the commission for being "partisan" while also criticizing them for ignoring partisanship.
Why do you say the commission limited opportunities for public input? Didn't it have dozens of hearings?
The public hearing transcripts clearly show that a lot of testimony was received by the commission. But the commission cancelled a second round of draft maps and the hearings they said they would do with them. Many groups criticized this move [11] as limiting citizen input.
Instead of releasing a promised second round of draft maps, the commission chose to release daily 'visualizations,' which were drawn at meetings in Sacramento. While the general public could comment via email, transcripts show individuals in attendance joined what became impromptu hearings at the beginning of each meeting. Transcripts show that these in-person comments and map submissions were influential. But they were only an option for those with the resources both to anticipate which districts would be discussed on a particular day, and appear in person in Sacramento.
Here is the commission's statement [12] on our article.
Of course, commissioners were not sequestered either. They were well aware of all efforts to influence them - and in fact took steps to minimize that influence. Cancelling the hearings was in fact an effort to do just that. Once again ProPublica wants to have it both ways in their criticisms.
Ultimately this "response" does not really address the key questions. So I'll state them again:
1. Does ProPublica have any hard evidence establishing a causal link between efforts to influence the commissioners and the commissioners' decisions as reflected in the final maps? By "hard evidence" I do not mean circumstantial or correlative evidence, but something that actually proves, beyond doubt, that commissioners made their decisions based on the influence they were given?
2. Does ProPublica acknowledge that for at least 13 years California voters have made their preferences for Democrats extremely clear, and that under no logical argument can a case be made that Republicans "deserved" more favorable seats?
3. Can ProPublica explain why they did not bother to interview any commissioners for their article?
5. Following up on #4, can ProPublica confirm or deny that their article was written with the intent to question California redistricting because it is projected to favor Democrats, and all dissenting voices were excluded from the article in order to produce that conclusion?
6. Did ProPublica write this article in an attempt to placate the right and/or Republicans after they published a series of articles criticizing pro-GOP redistricting?
7. Does ProPublica have any detailed knowledge of California political trends?
8. Does ProPublica have any detailed knowledge of California demographic trends?
Feel free to add other questions in the comments.
From what I can tell, ProPublica is just another one of these supposedly "independent" news sites that actually gets stories fundamentally wrong because they are interested in making everyone look bad and finding "evidence" of wrongdoing even if no such evidence exists. Rather than tell their readers the truth - that Republicans were doomed to lose out in any fair redistricting process and that they are now whining about it to anyone who will listen - they are misleading their readers by concocting a story in an effort to score cheap journalistic points.
One of the primary reasons blogging exists is because for media outlets like ProPublica, telling the truth is no longer valued.
The scandal surrounding the ProPublica article on California redistricting is intensifying today as more damning revelations emerge about the flawed way the article was assembled. Over at Calbuzz Jerry Roberts and Phil Trounstine break an important part of the story - that the article's authors interviewed a Public Policy Institute of California expert who explained why the final district lines were sensible, but that this never made it into the article:
All you really need to know about their over-reaching piece is this: the reporters studiously ignored documented research and statistical evidence they were provided that conflicted or undercut their conclusion - that projected Democratic gains in the state's House delegation are the result of a secret and nefarious partisan manipulation of the political naïfs on the commission.
In the course of their reporting, Calbuzz has learned, Pierce interviewed Eric McGhee of the Public Policy Institute of California, one of the state's top non-partisan reapportionment experts, who explained to her that the gains forecast for Democrats represent a logical and expected result given a) demographic changes in the last decade and b) the criteria the commission was charged with using.
McGhee even emailed Pierce an advance copy of a 45-page analysis of the commission plan he co-authored with Vladimir Kogan of UC San Diego, which is scheduled to be published in the California Journal of Politics and Policy in a few months. Among its conclusions: given the gerrymandered districts used for the last decade, "it seems unlikely that it is possible to draw any plan that increases competition among congressional seats without also advantaging the Democrats."
But when the ProPublica report published Wednesday - claiming that Democratic operatives had "managed to replicate the results of the smoke-filled rooms of old" (yes, they actually wrote that) - there was no mention of the detailed and comprehensive McGhee-Kogan research, nor even a reference to the facts, background and context on which it is based.
"If there was a credible argument on the other side," of ProPublica's conclusion, McGhee told us, "I don't understand why they didn't include it."
That's pretty damning. Nowhere in the ProPublica article was this analysis ever mentioned or hinted at. One would assume that if the authors were interested in serious journalism, they would have included this perspective in some form.
Instead they were pursuing a "Democrats are bad too!" story intended to balance out their reporting on genuine ways Republicans monkeyed around with redistricting in other states. Like Politifact, ProPublica put their desire to placate Republicans ahead of getting the story right.
"As a commission, we ran a very transparent process, so some of the allegations made in the story are easily disproved by a look at our website and the criteria we used," said Connie Galambos-Malloy, one of four "decline to state" voters on the 14-member commission. "If the voters investigate, it's clear that most of the allegations are dead wrong."...
Galambos-Malloy said the commission "wasn't contacted before the story" for comment prior to the piece's publication - a move she calls regrettable.
"I wasn't reached out to," she said. "And the story just doesn't match the process we went through."
Rob Wilcox, the media spokesman for the commission, confirmed in an email today: "Three Commissioners were interviewed in general about the Commission's process in early November." But "ProPublica did not contact the Commission for comment on the specifics of their investigation following those initial conversations," he said.
That's pretty shoddy journalism from ProPublica, and casts further doubt not only on the conclusions reached in their story but also their basic credibility as a news outlet.
One of the authors of the story, Olga Pierce, took to Twitter to respond to David Atkins' post at Hullabaloo. Pierce dodged the substantive issues raised by Atkins and by others who have questioned her article to make what was essentially a non sequitur:
@DavidOAtkins I greatly respect your opinion, but we didn't say anything in our story about the California state democratic party.
So? If she was hinting at the DCCC, it still doesn't make any difference. The criticisms we're making weren't about the California Democratic Party or about Democrats more broadly. No, we are challenging her "correlation equals causation" reasoning that ignored the evidence showing why the new district lines were a reasonable outcome and how there's no evidence to indicate any of the organizing efforts actually impacted the final maps.
Indeed, if the DCCC was trying to influence the outcome (and there's nothing wrong with doing so) they did not exactly succeed. Howard Berman and Brad Sherman are drawn into a district together, as were Jim Costa and Dennis Cardoza (who chose to retire, costing Democrats a representative in the crucial Central Valley). So too were Janice Hahn and Laura Richardson. Lois Capps' seat became much less safe and she will face a stiff challenge from Abel Maldonado next year.
Neither Pierce nor ProPublica have yet seen fit to offer any other responses to the mounting criticism their article is facing. Instead they appear content to let their reputations erode in the hopes that at least they made California Republicans happy.
Finally, I got an email from Dave Meyer of the Rose Institute who was upset at my post yesterday. In that post I quoted California Democratic Party chair John Burton who called the Rose Institute "Republican funded." Meyer said "the Rose Institute takes non-partisanship extremely seriously. We receive no support or funding of any kind from any political party." Of course, that wasn't exactly what Burton charged - he was saying Republican donors back the Rose Institute and claimed Rose has "Republican ties," which wasn't the same as Meyer's denial. Additionally, the Rose Institute lost the contract to advise the redistricting commission earlier this year in part due to failure to disclose information, including their donors, that the commission required.
Still, I've included Meyer's comments above so you can decide who's right and who's not. That's more than can be said for ProPublica and Olga Pierce.
ProPublica's argument is basically this: California Democrats organized to try and influence the Citizens Redistricting Commission to produce outcomes favorable to Democrats. Ultimately, the Commission produced outcomes favorable to Democrats. Therefore, California Democrats successfully manipulated the commission to produce that result:
As part of a national look at redistricting, ProPublica reconstructed the Democrats' stealth success in California, drawing on internal memos, emails, interviews with participants and map analysis. What emerges is a portrait of skilled political professionals armed with modern mapping software and detailed voter information who managed to replicate the results of the smoked-filled rooms of old.
The losers in this once-a-decade reshaping of the electoral map, experts say, were the state's voters. The intent of the citizens' commission was to directly link a lawmaker's political fate to the will of his or her constituents. But as ProPublica's review makes clear, Democratic incumbents are once again insulated from the will of the electorate.
This is, as Burton and I both said, complete bullshit.
First, ProPublica seemed to not notice that pretty much everybody in California organized to try and influence the commission. That includes Republicans, Democrats, unions, businesses, progressives, teabaggers, MALDEF, Asian American voting rights activists, white supremacists, and so on. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. That's how democracy works, and the commission was mandated to take public testimony.
Second, ProPublica did not bother to actually to look at California's demographics or voter choices. They claim that the new maps did not reflect the will of the people. One reason they say this is that supposedly population growth benefited Republicans:
"Very little of this is due to demographic shifts," said Professor Doug Johnson at the Rose Institute in Los Angeles. Republican areas actually had higher growth than Democratic ones. "By the numbers, Republicans should have held at least the same number of seats, but they lost."
We'll come back to the Rose Institute in a moment. But this claim itself is absurd on its face. Most of that population growth came from Latinos - who, as anyone familiar with California politics knows, have little love for Republicans. The reason is obvious: the California GOP is a white man's party that despises Latinos. So why on earth should Republicans benefit from Latino population growth?
In fact, the notion floated by the Rose Institute that certain parties have a claim on districts is exactly what the commission was intended to challenge.
Of course, the core assumption that California Republicans deserved any new seats is challenged by their collapse in the November 2010 elections. While Republicans across the country were having a banner night, California Republicans lost every single statewide election (including losing the governor's race by 13 points despite outspending the Democrats nearly 10 to 1). They also failed to pick up a single seat in either the legislature or Congress, losing one Assembly seat. California voters made explicitly clear in November 2010 that they do not like Republicans. That doesn't appear to have actually influenced the commission's deliberations, but it does mean the claim that Republicans had any reasonable expectation of gains is ridiculous.
And as it turns out, the Rose Institute is not a neutral observer, even though they were treated as one by ProPublica. John Burton and the CDP pointed out in their press release about the article that the Rose Institute is Republican-funded and had a score to settle with the commission:
Sadly, Pro Publica chose to recycle talking points from the Republican-funded Rose Institute without checking with the Democratic Party. The Rose Institute, which was knocked out of the redistricting process earlier this year because of its explicit ties to the Republican Party, tried to make these charges at beginning of the Commission's deliberations where they were clearly rejected. If the Rose Institute and the Republican Party believed the Democratic Party controlled the independent Commission, one would think they would have challenged all three redistricting plans in court, instead of just one.
Ouch. If I followed ProPublica's method of analysis, I would conclude that they were collaborating with the Rose Institute to produce an article smearing the commission - which is essentially the charge they've leveled at Democrats and the commission.
Instead I'll continue pointing out other absurdities in their article. They claim that the fact that Jerry McNerney and Judy Chu got favorable districts proves Dems gamed the system. But tell that to Dennis Cardoza, drawn into a Valley district with Jim Costa. Tell that to Howard Berman and Brad Sherman, drawn into a battle-to-the-death in west LA. Tell that to Janice Hahn, backed by the party establishment only to be drawn into a south bay district with Laura Richardson.
Even Bob Mulholland managed to say something useful about this, pointing out that the way the commission was set up made it impervious to bias:
Democratic Party campaign advisor Bob Mulholland, in an email, said it would have been "easier to influence North Korea" than the redistricting commission, which was made up of three Republicans, three Democrats and two decline to state voters chosen through a lengthy vetting and lottery process.
ProPublica also took issue with the fact that the commission ignored voter registration when drawing the lines. But wasn't that part of the entire point of the commission?
John Myers has an interesting take on the report that is half right and half wrong in its conclusions. First, what he got right:
Finally, an observation about a mindset that seems to exist not only with ProPublica's national reporting team but others who have watched or participated in the redistricting commission's work. And that is that California voters created a "nonpartisan process" for drawing political districts. However, neither Prop 11 nor Prop 20 ever specifically promised a "nonpartisan" commission -- that is, one made up of members and opinions with no formal political allegiances. Instead, what the two initiatives promised was a commission "independent" from elected officials and the tendency to gerrymander.
That's a key distinction. 75% of California voters have chosen to identify with a political party. Most of the remainder have chosen to identify with no party at all, choosing "Decline to State" as their option - though as we know, most of these DTS voters wind up voting Democratic anyway. In any case, with 3 out of 4 Californians openly embracing a partisan identity, it makes sense that they did NOT want a "nonpartisan" commission since the electorate itself is willingly partisan.
No, the primary selling point of the commission was that elected officials could not control it. The ads and arguments for it played on public distrust of politicians, not of political parties.
Myers should know that, which is why his final paragraph is so odd:
And yet time and again through the process, some observers criticized Democrats on the panel for acting like -- well, Democrats -- and Republicans for acting like -- well, Republicans. (The criticisms were much more numerous, it should be noted, against the commission's Dems.) Four other members of the commission were unaffiliated with either party, but often had to make decisions that favored one partisan mindset or the other. If the public truly expected an apolitical redistricting process, then they were set up for disappointment from the very start.
But they did NOT expect an "apolitical" redistricting process. Voters are not idiots. They know there is no such thing as "apolitical." They liked the commission because it was designed to limit the influence of elected officials, and it quite clearly did so. Finally, given that Californians have so strongly endorsed Democrats on Election Day, it is hard to believe that the outcome of the commission was anything close to a disappointment.
ProPublica's article relies on flimsy evidence and assumptions that fly in the face of common sense. Anyone who knows anything about California politics could easily see the flaws here.
Democrats didn't get favorable maps because they organized for it. They got favorable maps because California favors Democrats and has clearly rejected the Republicans. The California GOP is a dying party, increasingly being left behind as state politics realigns toward a system where progressives and corporate-friendly politicians are the two dominant forces, with Republicans on the fringe.
ProPublica knew nothing about California's demography or politics, and produced a ridiculous article either out of gullibility or conspiracy. In the end it doesn't matter which one it was. Their article should be laughed out of the room and ProPublica shouldn't be taken seriously again, at least not until they retract that article.
California Governor Jerry Brown and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on December 19 reaffirmed their "strong mutual resolve" to moving forward with the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build a peripheral canal, in spite of strong opposition by Delta advocates.
They also "reinforced their joint commitment to effective action to achieve the dual goals of a healthy San Francisco Bay Delta ecosystem and a reliable water supply for California," the same dual goals that doomed the CalFed program to failure.
Brown and Salazar announced several minor changes that they claimed will "ensure a fair, open and transparent process" and "a full opportunity for input by all interested parties" in the development of a plan to address the future of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Americas. These changes included revisions to the draft BDCP Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that they contend are "responsive to the comments received by a wide range of water stakeholders in recent weeks.
"It is clear that our Delta ecosystem needs repair and restoration," said Governor Brown. "We shouldn't wait for a natural disaster to force our hand. This agreement takes us in the right direction to protect California's water supply."
"Successfully developing a science-based Bay Delta Conservation Plan holds the promise of breaking from the unsustainable status quo and being a game-changer for California," said Secretary Salazar. "That is why the Obama administration is joining with Governor Brown and recommitting funding and technical assistance to support what could become the largest restoration project in history." (http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Governor-Brown-and-Secretary-Salazar-Reaffirm-Commitment-to-Bay-Delta-Conservation-Plan.cfm)
However, Congressman Jerry McNerney (D-Pleasanton) wasn't impressed with the Brown and Obama administration claims that they were going to "ensure a fair, open and transparent process" under the BDCP.
"I am disappointed and upset that the Department of the Interior has decided to move forward with this Memorandum of Agreement," said McNerney. "Despite a few changes, the MOA remains deeply flawed and is an affront to the people of the Delta communities."
"From its inception, the Bay Delta Plan has been crafted by, and for, water exporters from Southern California. They have used their economic power to influence the state and federal governments, and the Delta communities will suffer as a result," said McNerney.
"Make no mistake, the Delta communities and I will never accept a Bay Delta Plan that includes a peripheral canal that was conceived without our input. I will continue to stand with the families, farmers, and small business owners of the San Joaquin Delta whose livelihoods would be destroyed by a peripheral canal," emphasized McNerney.
Incredibly, Brown and Salazar issued their statement claiming that they would ensure "a fair, open and transparent process" just days after I revealed that an employee of the Westlands Water District is currently working "on loan" for the Department of Water Resources (DWR) on the Bay Delta Conservation Plan!
Documents obtained by this reporter under the California Public Records Act reveal that Susan Ramos, Deputy General Manager of the Westlands Water District, was hired in an inter-jurisdictional personal exchange agreement between the Department of Water Resources and Westlands Water District from November 15, 2009 through December 31, 2010. (http://blogs.alternet.org/danbacher/2011/12/14/westlands-official-working-for-dwr-on-delta-plan)
The contract was extended to run through December 31, 2011 and again to continue through December 31, 2012. The maximum amount to be paid in the agreement for the entire period is listed as $652,180.54.
Ramos "will serve as a liaison between all relevant parties surrounding the Delta Habitat Conservation and Conveyance Program (DHCCP) and provide technical and strategic assistance to DWR, in cooperation with all appropriate Federal and State Water Contractors, on a variety of matters based on her experience working with the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, federal contractors and others," according to the agreement (Contract 4600008672).
The justification for contracting out Ramos, rather than employing a current state employee in the position, was provided in the contract signed by Richard Sanchez, the Chief of the DWR's Division of Engineering, on September 14, 2011.
"Ms. Ramos possesses specialized knowledge and has experience working with the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and federal contractors. The technical and strategic assistance that will be provided by the Contractor cannot be performed satisfactorily by State civil service employees," the contract stated.
If Brown and Salazar are so committed to ensuring "a fair, open and transparent" BDCP process, why did it require a California Public Records Act Request to find out that Westlands' Deputy Manager was surreptitiously inserted into the Department of Water Resources to guide writing the permit that would give more of the public's water to Westlands?
The news of Ramos' service on loan from Westlands followed the disturbing disclosure that the California Department of Water Resources hired Laura King Moon, the Assistant General Manager of the State Water Contractors, to assist in the completion of the controversial Bay Delta Conservation Plan. (http://blogs.alternet.org/danbacher/2011/10/25/state-hires-water-contractor-rep-to-help-oversee-bay-delta-plan/)
Delta residents, fishermen, Indian Tribes, conservationists, family farmers and environmental justice advocates are opposed to the peripheral canal because it would result in the export of more northern California water to corporate agribusiness and southern California. The canal's construction would likely lead to the extinction of Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail, green sturgeon and other imperiled species.
This piece was cross-posted in the Huffington Post. It was also co-authored by Joshua Pechthalt and Anthony Thigpenn.
When we think of California, we imagine the state that allowed the three of us to be who we are, a state that gave us the California Dream. For years now, that dream has been quickly slipping away and now it's in danger of being lost forever.
California is not in crisis; crises are sudden and acute. California is in a chronic, grinding decline and it's providing a window into America's tomorrow. Here we have the richest and poorest, the most diverse population, high technology centers which lead the globe. And yet, here with 38 million people - 20% of the United States - we cannot find a path to leave the bounty that invigorated us for the next generation.
The answer will not come from Sacramento, just as on the national level it cannot come from Washington. It needs to come from all of us. It's simple: government has a central role in providing the basics of civilization and that costs money.
The first step is admitting that we need more money to pay for our present, much less our future. That's why it's time for the 1%, those who benefited the most from our state's past investments, to invest in our state's future. Our state needs perhaps $20 billion a year in new revenue to assure that kids grow up to lead. That will take time, but for now, we see a clear path to $6 billion or so a year that would at the very least restore a large portion of the most recent cuts to education, healthcare, safety and transportation. All it takes is the 1% chipping in and paying more income tax.
Warren Buffett said it best: "If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper middle class should even probably be cut further. But I think that people at the high end - people like myself - should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it."
It's been a brutal decade for most Californians. Our schools, universities, hospitals, roads, and bridges - which used to be the envy of the nation - are in tatters. The unemployment rate hovers around 12%, and Sacramento continues to talk only about what to cut next, perpetuating the downward spiral.
Students are rightfully disgusted as they take to the streets and create their own Occupy encampments to protest the relentless inflation of tuition at California's legendary colleges and universities. Working families who dream of providing their children with a higher education watch in horror as costs continue to skyrocket.
A couple of weeks from now, we face a massive $2 billion in additional cuts that will be "triggered" based on a summer budget deal passed on a wishful premise that the economy will get better before it gets worse. On the front lines once again will be children, the elderly, and disabled. The axe will fall on everything from public schools (where California already ranks 47th in per pupil spending) to in-home health care.
A Washington Post-Bloomberg News Poll from last month shows that 68% of all Americans support raising taxes on households with incomes of $250,000 per year and higher. Gov. Brown could also take his cue from the patron saint of fiscally conservative Republicans, former California governor Ronald Reagan, who raised taxes as governor and president numerous times, knowing it was for the good of our state and country.
Should every child in California have access to an excellent, rigorous, free education through college and beyond? Should they have healthcare to assure that their minds are sharp and their bodies fit? Should they know that at any point after high school, whether they choose college or another path, they can find a good job? Should they be the sail that lifts our economy to new heights in energy and technology solutions of tomorrow?
Yes.
We believe in our state. We believe in our country. We are patriots of the first order who know that true love of state or country manifests not in slogans, but in deeds that offer a brighter future to the next generation than to ours.
The time has come to say yes to our dreams. The time has come for the 1% to join the fray and help rebuild our state and our country. Let them come forth and pledge with us to invest in tomorrow, starting today.
Joshua Pechthalt is the president of the California Federation of Teachers, representing over 100,000 teachers and education workers. Anthony Thigpenn is president and founder of California Calls, a statewide alliance of 26 community-based organizations who have built a base of 328,000 supporters of a progressive, economic agenda. Rick Jacobs is the founder and chair of the Courage Campaign, a California-based online progressive organizing network of more than 750,000 members around the country.
The future of broadband is going to depend on the ability of the infrastructure to meet the needs of users. This, in large part, demands the more efficient use of spectrum... spectrum though is in something of a crunch at the moment. Meaning - there's just not enough of it.
With this in mind, we read the newest study recently from Ericsson on mobile traffic.
Released late last week, this study provides some good background and support for the state of spectrum these days, especially in urban areas, and the need for continuing innovation to make more efficient use of spectrum. It also includes forecasts for the growth of data traffic through 2016 as well as some really great graphics. It's a worthwhile and important read for anyone interested in broadband.
I attended a forum for the Congressional Candidates for California's 2nd Congressional District on October 21st in the Marin Academy High School. The California Redistricting Commission redrew the map of California's districts so Marin County (where Marin Academy is) is in the same district as Mendocino, Humboldt, Del Norte, Trinity and parts of Sonoma County including Petaluma. I testified in front of the California Redistricting Commission twice and my analysis of those meetings is here:
http://racesandredistricting.b... and
http://racesandredistricting.b... The new district that the Commission created spans from Sausalito to Crescent City. It represents all of Marin, Mendocino, Humboldt, Trinity and Del Norte Counties. It also represents western Sonoma County, Petaluma and all of Sonoma County including and north of Windsor. The district now has a mix of affulent voters in the Marin County area with a mix of working class and extremely liberal and environmental voters in the northern part of the district. The district is heavily white and heavily Democratic.
This post though focuses on the congressional candidates for the new seat now that Lynn Woolsey (D), the current representative in Marin plans to retire. Although California has a top two primary system where all candidates run in a jungle primary and the top two vote getters face each other in a runoff, all five candidates at the forum were Democrats and many of the candidates stated, "We agree on most of the issues." The candidates were Susan Adams (D), the President of the Marin County Board of Supervisors, Jared Huffman (D), the California State Assembly member from the 6th district representing Marin and southern Sonoma Counties, Norman Solomon (D), a progressive activist from Inverness in West Marin, Stacy Lawson (D), an entrepreneur from San Rafael and Tiffany Renee (D), a Petaluma city councilmember. Already, I noticed that none of these candidates live in the North Coast areas recently added to the district. This could create an opening for a North Coast candidate such as Wesley Chesbro (D) who is the State Assembly member there but all five Marin candidates have campaigned heavily in the North Coast which should increase their visibility there. The candidates discussed their outreach to the North Coast frequently during the forum because the North Coast has issues critical to them as a rural area that do not affect Marin which is a more suburban county. The candidates began the forum with their opening statements.
The fun never stops with infographics... this one is particularly interesting for those of us obsessed with politics - whether it's local, state or national, voters are using the Internet to learn about candidates and issues. We're beginning to see a solid link between voters clicking "Like" and filling out their ballots. Data release yesterday by local news aggregation site Topix makes a compelling case for new media as a medium for engaging, persuading and then - closing the deal.
Last Wednesday, I baked a pie for my local Democratic club meeting. I named this one the Occu-Pie Apple Pie, because all good pies should have names.
A new face showed up at the meeting to tell us about a MoveOn rally on Friday afternoon. She liked my pie, the rally sounded interesting, and I decided to go.
But first, a little about Ventura County. It has the beach city of Ventura; the working-class Latino city of Oxnard; and the purple-to-red East County, home of the Reagan Library, and that's all you really need to know about East County politics, isn't it? While others howled about Occupy Wall Street police brutality arrests, I tweeted: "Videotape of police brutality does not, in and of itself, swing America to your side. Love, Rodney King country."
Friends of the Eel River (FOER) on October 14 issued a call for local residents to watch for and report sightings of Chinook salmon migrating up the Eel River and its tributaries in northern California. The non-profit advocacy organization will use "fish-watcher" reports to build a more detailed picture of salmon spawning and migration patterns on the river, according to a statement from the group.
The call to report fish sightings comes a time when the campaign by Indian Tribes, environmentalists and fishermen to restore salmon and steelhead populations on the river is building momentum. On September 10, the Wiyot Tribe and Friends of the Eel River were joined by Native American Indian tribes from throughout Northern California in a prayer ceremony focused on returning the Eel River and the fisheries it supports to a healthy, sustainable state.
"The fall salmon run up the Eel has begun, but low water levels upstream have led to concern about potential fish kills if this threatened species are left stranded by insufficient flows," according to Scott Greacen, Friends of the Eel River. "This information could also help federal and state fisheries agencies decide whether to release additional water from the Potter Valley Project to augment flows in the mainstem Eel in the next few weeks, if the area doesn't get more rain soon."
The group is asking the public to call or e-mail their main office to report sightings. Reports should note the date and time, specific location, and the number and condition of the fish sighted when calling in reports. If possible, observers should take note of whether salmon were bright silver or dark, strong or struggling, and whether there is any evidence of or potential for stranding. Friends of the Eel River can be reached at (415) 332-9810 or by e-mail at foer [at] eelriver.org.
The Eel River is California's third largest watershed, third largest salmon producing river, and second largest steelhead producing river. The vast majority of Eel River water is diverted into the Russian River through the dams and diversion tunnel that comprise PG&E's Potter Valley Project.
This highly controlled river system is vulnerable to insufficient flows unless the river system either experiences high levels of rainfall or water is released into the river under the direction of California's Department of Fish and Game (DFG).
"Salmon runs on the Eel River are an important part of our local heritage and our economy," said Nadananda, Executive Director of Friends of the Eel River. "Local residents helping to track and count these fish will assist greatly in our work to preserve these fish and improve river conditions on the Eel."
The Eel River is proving to be a rare bright spot in efforts to recover endangered Coho and Chinook salmon, in part because the migratory fish returning to this watershed are wild and not of hatchery origin. The fall run of salmon in 2010 was the largest seen in 77 years due to increased flows to the Eel River mandated by FERC and advocated for by Friends of the Eel River. Friends of the Eel is greatly concerned that this recovery will lose ground if DFG does not release sufficient water to support consistent water flows on the river during these important weeks.
For more information, contact: Scott Greacen, Friends of the Eel River (707) 502-4555, foer@eelriver.org.
Tribes join together to restore Eel River
Native American Indian tribes from throughout Northern California joined the Wiyot Tribe and Friends of the Eel River in a historic prayer ceremony focused on returning the Eel River and the fisheries it supports to a healthy, sustainable state on September 10. This event follows several similar ceremonies held since 2009 that have taken place in different parts of the nearly 3,600-square mile Eel River watershed.
"Rivers need water to survive," said Nadananda, Executive Director of the Friends of the Eel River. "The cost of diverting so much water out of the Eel River is simply too high. Salmon and steelhead are on the brink of extinction here. While increases in water flows over the past five years have made it possible for Chinook salmon populations to begin to make a comeback, significantly more water will need to be returned to the river if we are going to save these fish."
In 2004, dam owner PG&E increased flows on the Eel River from 5 cubic feet/second to 20-25 cubic feet/second under the orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The 2010 fall run of Chinook Salmon on the Eel River was the largest recorded in 77 years, with more than 2,300 adult fish migrating upriver to spawn. Last year's salmon run also benefitted from an unusually heavy rain season.
This event marks the first time that so many different tribes came together in call for healing on the river. Salmon are a sacred fish and traditional source of food for the Round Valley Tribes and other Native American Indians who were once the only human inhabitants of this remote watershed.
The prayer ceremony was attended by members of the Bear River, Cahto, Grindstone, Sherwood Rancheria, Round Valley, Pomo, Hoopa, Yurok, and Karuk Tribes, several of which performed tribal prayer dances at the mouth of the river on the Wiyot's Table Bluff Reservation.
"This day, Wiyot Day, is a way to show respect for our elders and for where we come from - for many of us, the Eel River is a big part of that," Wiyot Tribal Chairman Ted Hernandez told the Eureka Times-Standard. (http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_18872049)
"The tribes native to this area once thrived on the abundant salmon runs on the Eel River," said Ernie Merrifield, former Round Valley Tribal Council Member and current Friends of the Eel River board member. "We must rely on all of our resources - spiritual, scientific, and legal - to restore this river and these fisheries to health. If we work together, we may have a chance to reverse the damage caused by a century of water deprivation."
Last year's record salmon run, the largest number of fish counted at the Van Arsdale Fisheries Station on the Eel River below Cape Horn Dam since the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) began keeping records, arrived just a few months after members of the Round Valley Indian Tribes of Covelo conducted dances and ceremonies to bring back the salmon.
In July of 2010, the Feather Dancers of the Tribes joined Friends of the Eel River at a swimming hole in the Hearst area, a few miles downstream of the PG&E Potter Valley diversion (PVP) to the Russian River. (http://blogs.alternet.org/danbacher/2010/12/21/largest-salmon-run-on-eel-river-in-77-years-arrives-after-tribal-ceremonies).
"Water and salmon hold sacred value among the Tribes of the Round Valley, and both have been bankrupted," said Merrifield. "Like a person, if you block the free flow of blood in your veins you will die, just as PG&E's dams are killing the Eel River."
FOER will continue its efforts to improve river conditions in the coming year. The group will present information to the State Water Resources Board next year as Sonoma County renegotiates flows between the Russian and Eel Rivers. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, the current flow regimes on both rivers are damaging endangered salmon and steelhead habitat due to insufficient water in the Eel and too much water in the Russian.
FOER is also a party to an ongoing lawsuit aimed at preventing an environmentally damaging quarry and freight railroad from reopening within the sensitive Eel River watershed.
About Friends of the Eel River (http://www.eelriver.org)
Friends of the Eel River (FOER) is an environmental advocacy organization with more than 2,200 members. The organization strives to restore the Eel River and its tributaries to a wild and natural state of abundance. FOER works with scientists, fisheries experts, sport fishing alliances, river recreationalists, and concerned citizens to advocate for an increase in flows to the river that would enable native salmon and steelhead to once again thrive in the watershed.
I'm on a mission to restore the American Dream - and I know that to do that, we're going to have shake things up in Washington. It's time we fundamentally change our priorities; and that starts by putting pressure on our leaders to act on creating good jobs and stop protecting unnecessary tax breaks for the wealthiest one percent.
