Salmon Groups Oppose Nunes 'Welfare for the Greedy' Bill

Salmon Groups Oppose Nunes 'Welfare for the Greedy' Bill

May 30, 2011
Honorable Tom McClintock
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power
U.S. House of Representatives
428 Cannon Bldg.
Washington DC 20515

Re: Opposition to H.R. 1837 The San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act.

Dear Chairman McClintock:
This letter will provide the comments of the California salmon fishing industry and the hundreds
of thousands of businesses and individuals that care about the future of the California Central
Valley salmon populations.

We strongly oppose H.R. 1837. This bill is a radical attempt to place the water demands of some
of California’s most junior water rights holders ahead of all other California interests in a blatant
water grab. It is intended to significantly enrich a small group of land owners and their water
agency(s) by allowing them to purchase the maximum amount of below market, taxpayer subsidized,
government-developed water -- no matter what the water year or other needs for
water may exist – in order to irrigate some highly problematic or marginal lands, or to profit by
reselling that water at market rates. This is not welfare for the needy; this is welfare for the
greedy.

Mr. Nunes bill would block necessary protections for the Bay-Delta – the most important estuary
on the West Coast of the Americas – along with its fisheries, including the West Coast’s second
largest salmon runs. It would preempt state water laws, overturn state water rights and undermine
efforts to find solutions to the problems facing the Bay-Delta Estuary. There are no words strong
enough to describe the complete devastation this bill would bring to the California Central
Valley salmon runs and those who depend on them for their livelihoods, recreation and food
sources. The bill might better be titled “The Salmon Extinction Bill of 2011”.

No industry has suffered more than the salmon industry over the political maneuvering of these
people and the contributors behind them. The problem started in year 2000 when agricultural
export pumping from the San Francisco Bay Delta first reached over 6 million acre feet of water
annually. This resulted in significantly altered San Francisco Bay Delta flows destroying
millions of baby salmon smolts as they attempted to migrate through the Delta.

Massive water movements from the upstream reservoirs like Shasta, Oroville and Folsom
were required to feed the Delta pumps. These movements destroyed much of the upriver salmon habitat.
As flows were cycled up and down to meet pumping requirements, salmon eggs were left high and dry. In
addition, water temperatures in the spawning areas were frequently lethal at salmon spawning
time. The result was the beginning of one of the largest salmon population crashes in history.
In 2004 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) scientists recognized the problem and
prepared a “jeopardy” declaration to stop the carnage. Unfortunately politics trumped science
that year and the agency, under considerable political pressure, wrongly issued a “no jeopardy”
opinion that was subsequently overturned in 2008. A Federal District Judge in the Eastern
District of California found the increased pumping operations were in serious violation of the
Endangered Species Act and a new biological opinion was ordered. The Federal Court decision,
however, was too late to prevent the carnage that occurred between the time pumping had
increased and the order came mandating protections be put in place for fish and the estuary
during pumping operations.

In June 2009 the new biological opinion was put in place by NMFS which curtailed some water
exports and implemented other safeguards to avoid salmon extinctions. Since that time the
junior water rights holders have filed 13 lawsuits and have introduced six bills in Congress in an
attempt to overturn the salmon protections – protections essential for maintaining California’s
salmon fishery, and the infrastructure of fishing communities along the coast, including Oregon.

The salmon damage has been severe. There are four separate runs of Central Valley Chinook
salmon and they have all crashed due to past policies. The Winter Run was declared endangered
in the early 1990s when only 191 fish returned to spawn. With extensive recovery efforts, the
run reached 16,926 fish in 2006 only to crash again 91% to only 1,555 fish in 2010. Between
2005 and 2010 the ESA threatened Spring Run dropped 85% and the late fall run dropped 50%.
The most serious drop was the Fall Run which declined 97% from 1,490,468 fish in 2002 to
39,500 in 2009. The Fall Run has no ESA protections and has suffered the most from the Delta
exports and the lethal upriver habitat conditions.

Because of the Fall Run crash, the commercial and recreational ocean salmon fishing seasons
were halted completely in 2008 and 2009. In 2010 there was only a token season. The seasons
were stopped by the federal government to avoid a complete loss of the fishery. The impact on
the salmon industry and its associated businesses was devastating. Unemployment was 100%
and tens of thousands of jobs were lost. The economic cost of the shutdown was estimated at
$1.4 billion annually.

The State of California, the Federal Government along with the salmon industry and others are
now working closely together to restore the Delta environment and bring the salmon back. There
are early signs that this program is starting to work. We believe this is the right answer. H.R
1837 is the wrong answer and would bring all of this activity to a halt.

• The California State Water Resources Control Board determined that additional fresh
water flows are needed through the San Francisco Bay Delta to recover the Delta and
restore the fisheries. H.R 1837 would add no flows and would take away the 800,000
acre feet of water reserved by Congress for salmon recovery.

• Water fees currently provide in excess of $50 million annually for a Restoration fund that
is used by the fishery agencies in part for salmon recovery. H.R. 1837 reallocates these
funds to purchase additional water supplies.

• The 2009 biological opinion does not recover salmon but it keeps them from going
extinct. This opinion curtailed springtime pumping when baby salmon are attempting to
migrate through the Delta. H.R. 1837 takes away the water used to implement the
biological opinion.

• H.R 1837 renders the Endangered Species Act moot by declaring that the state and
federal water projects have already fully complied with the ESA.

• H.R. 1837 rewrites California law and takes the water away from existing users and
environmental needs by requiring 40 year renewals of all existing state and federal water
contracts.

In short, every current and future water and habitat condition that salmon need to survive and
recover is removed by H.R. 1837. The bill is unquestionably a path to extinction for salmon and
many other aquatic species. We know of no reputable scientist who would say anything
different. Following are some scientific references.

• Dr. Peter B. Moyle of the U.C. Davis Watershed Science Center is one of the leading
scientists in the state on the needs of fish in estuaries, rivers and tributaries. In 2008 he
completed a two year study of the 31 remaining native salmonid species in California.
His conclusions were that unless water conditions are improved substantially that two
thirds of these species including salmon would be extinct within a few decades. Dr
Moyle said, “The fish don’t lie. The story they tell is that California’s environment is
unraveling. Their demise is symptomatic of a much larger water crisis that, unless
addressed, will severely impact every Californian in the years to come.”

• In 2010 the California Water Quality Control Board completed its study of the amount of
fresh water that must flow through the San Francisco Bay Delta to recover salmon and
other aquatic species. The study concluded that up to double the amount of water that is
currently allowed to flow through was needed. This study was reviewed and supported
by fifteen of the top independent scientists in the state. The California Department of
Fish and Game conducted a similar study with the same conclusions.

• The National Academy of Science reviewed the scientific basis of the 2009 biological
opinion. The NAS supported the basic conclusions of the water modifications of the
opinion.

The salmon industry and its supporters are requesting a rejection of all the provisions of H.R.
1837. Congress has never approved a provision that would lead to the extinction of a wildlife
species, leastwise one with the economic importance of salmon. This is not the time to start.
H.R. 1837 is not about reliability, but enriching the junior water rights holders on the west side
of the San Joaquin River at the expense of farmers in other parts of the Central Valley, the
California and Oregon salmon fisheries, and California and Federal taxpayers. Instead of this
bill, we strongly support the activity that is currently underway by the State and federal
administrations to find the best water solutions for all of California. Water is clearly a crisis in
the state and should not be subject to a non scientific political power play of any special interest
group.

It is particularly concerning that a major industry like the salmon industry should be put out of
business to satisfy the political whims of a small portion of California’s agricultural sector.

• The salmon industry is a major piece of the California economy. It directly and indirectly
impacts tens of thousands of good-paying jobs. It is also the economic engine of
hundreds of small communities from Morro Bay to Crescent City – not to mention
Oregon coastal communities which historically relied on Central Valley salmon for as
much as 50 percent of their ocean harvest. There are over 2,000 separate businesses
directly involved in the industry. These include commercial boats, fish processors,
marinas, equipment manufacturers, charter boats, guides and 1,000 retail businesses.
These retailers range from small mom and pop stores to giants like Wal-Mart and West
Marine.

• The salmon industry is a food producer. With recovery of the fresh water side of the
salmon life cycle, the industry is capable of producing more that fifteen million pounds of
fresh salmon annually. The economic impact of this production is over $5 billion
annually.

• Salmon production is a non-polluting activity. There are no pesticide runoffs and no
poison runoffs such as the selenium contamination associated with the marginal west-side
San Joaquin Valley irrigated lands.

• Approximately 500,000 recreational anglers fish for salmon in California annually when
the seasons are open. It is a healthy family outdoor activity enjoyed by all ages.

• Salmon is the seafood of choice by millions of people. It is continually ranked as one of
the top choices in restaurants. It is also the best source of omega 3 proteins which have
significant heart benefits. The California Chinook salmon is one of the most desired
salmon species in the country. It is unmatched in taste and texture.

Finally, we resent the name calling that has been going on referring to those of us who are
concerned for our jobs, livelihoods and life style as “radical environmentalists.” The salmon
fishing community encompasses individuals from all segments of our society – we are
conservatives, liberals and moderates, we are Republicans, Democrats and independents. The
name calling that has been going on is boorish, childish and reflects a basic lack of decency. We
want to engage with all in serious discussions on how to ensure we have sustainable farm and
fish food production, on how to make our water supplies more dependable and how we can
preserve for future generations of Californians the natural wonders of this state – its rivers and
estuary, fish and wildlife. This is no time for radicalism, but for all of us to work together, in
earnestness and good faith, to resolve the problems we are confronted with - without name
calling, partisan rancor or demagoguery – to protect the jobs in the fields and at sea, to preserve
California’s natural and cultural heritage. HR 1837, unfortunately, is not part of such a
discussion; it is, instead, a one-sided and short-sighted measure that should be roundly rejected
now.

We appreciate your hearing our views.

Sincerely,

Zeke Grader, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations
Darrell Ticehurst, Coastside Fishing Club
Roger Thomas, Golden Gate Fishermen’s Assn.
Dick Pool, Water4Fish
Ken Elie, Outdoor Pro Shop
Mark Rockwell, Nor Cal Fed of Fly Fishers
Bill Jennings, California Sportfishing Alliance
Mike Hudson, Small Boat Commercial Salmon Fishermen’s Assn
Liz Hamilton, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Alliance Oregon & Washington
Larry Collins, SF Crab Boat Owners Association
Mark Mlcoch, Norcal Guides Association
Roger Neufeldt, Rapala USA
Paul Johnson, Monterey Fish Market
Dan Bacher, The Fish Sniffer
Bruce Tokars, Salmon Water Now
Mike Lum, Fred Hall Shows, Long Beach
Michael Scaglione, Pacific Catch Fish Grill
Craig Hanson, Radio Host "Outdoors"
Woody Wood, Jeff Robles Tackle Sales

Copies to:.
Hon. Edmund G Brown Jr.
Hon. Diane Feinstein
Hon. Barbara Boxer
Hon. Ron Wyden
Hon. Jeff Markley
Hon. George Miller
Hon. John Garamendi
Hon. Jackie Speier
Hon. Grace Napolitano
Hon. Doris Matsui
Hon. Dan Lundgren
Hon. Mike Thompson
Hon. Doc Hastings
Hon. Edward Markey
Hon. Wally Herger
Hon. Jerry McNerney
Hon. Sam Farr
Hon. Jim Costa
Hon. Anna Eshoo
Hon. Lynn Woolsey
Hon. Peter DeFazio
Hon. Lois Capps
Hon. David Wu
Hon. Greg Walden
Hon. Earl Blumenauer
Hon. Fran Pavley, California Senate
Hon. Wesley Chesbro, California Assembly
Hon. Jared Huffman, California Assembly
Hon. Ken Salazar, Sec of Interior
Hon. Gary Locke, Sec of Commerce
Hon. John Laird, CA Resources Secretary
Mr. David Hayes Deputy Interior Secretary
Mr. Michael Connor, USBR Commissioner
Dr. Jane Lebchenco, Administrator of NOAA
Mr. Eric Schwaab, Director NMFS
Mr. Rodney McInnis, Regional Director NMFS
Mr. Ren Lohoefener Regional Director NMFS
Mr. Don Glazer, Regional Director USBR
Mr. John McCamman, Acting Director CDFG
Mr. David Nawi, Senor CA Advisor DOI
Dr. Don McIsaac, Executive Director PFMC