WSP10800 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t... In C) N o ,:::::> For Interior officials one of the main goals is to find an alternative that "balances environmental and social beneficial and adverse impacts across the Trinity River Basin n' and Central Valley." If this plan is put in place, according to the draft EIS, the CVP would still receive an average of 52 percent of the Trinity's water. While the CVI'IA directed Interior to complete and implement the flow study/EIS, the mandate for restoring the Trinity dates back morc than 40 years. In the 1955 act autho- rizing the Trinity River project, Interior was directed to take appropri~ ate action to preserve and propagate the river's fish and wildlife popula- tions. The 1984 act added further impetus by defining such actions as restoration of fish populations to pre~ dam levels. In. addition, Interior has tribal obligations on the TrinitYi the Hoopa Valley and Yurok tribes operate a salmon fishery on the river. And, the Trinity's coho salmon is listed as a threatened species. Although Interior has twice extended the public comment period on the draft EIS, officials have pledged that the final report and a record of decision will be complcred by April. The CALFED Connection There is some concern that these most recent controversies over the CVPIA could undo CALFED. Even before their Jan. 25 joinl- hearing, Costa and Machado expressed this viewpoint in a Dee. 7 letter to Babbitt. "We believe that it is il1~aclvised to undermine CALFED's efforts by implementing these federal statutes, and specifically the year 2000 opera- tions plan, in a manner thar does not balance the needs of California's environment with the realities of its economy," they wrote. "This is an~ other example of federal agencies taking discretionary actions indepen~ dent of the stakeholder process." The lmk between the CALFED Bay-Delta program and the CVPIA is inextricable. After years of study, the pending CALFED preferred January/February 2000 alternative is expected to call for creation of a new Environmental Water Account, using b2 water, and increased streamflow, based on the CVPIA's Anadromous Fish Restora- tion Plan. Implementation of both could bring water acquisition and/or new facilities. CALFED and the Bay-Delta Accord created the so-called "ops group," a multi~agency, cooperative effort to guide day-to-day water project operations. CALFED, in short, is seen as the glue to encourage coordination between a wide variety of interests. CALFED, however, is a collahora- tive effort that includes the stake~ holder community. The CVPIA is a federal law Interior is required to implement. llThe accord is not a statute. It is not a treaty. It is only an agreement between the state and federal govern~ ments," Grader told Costa and Machado at the hearing. l<lt does not override the ESA, the Clean Water Act or the CVPIA." Where b2 starts and leaves off is a matter of some dispute. Were the changes in pumping in the Delta in Deccmber brought about because of ESA, Delta water quality plan or 102 requirements? The answer is a combi~ nation of these elements; just how much was the fault of which is the matter now in dispute between federal and state officials. Despite the controversy over b2, Brandt maintains that it l<is valuable because it's forced the [Bureau and USFWSj to work together more. Biologists start to act more like water managers. And you have water managers starting to recognize that certain fish are in the system at certain times. They are starting to understand each other's perspectives." While some see 102 as possibly weakening the CALFED effort, Acting Executive Director Steve Ritchie said It could strengthen the program. "CALFED still is the one venue in which additional water management things are likely to happen that will make the system better," he said. .:. ~ . ". '. .:.,.. : .... .. :'<..::.':..:.i;., .':.,.........:....".' ~fmim l'!Im~.~ . . :- - . . : ~ . , - mmmm~ ~. !t1.~. '" n; i1I