My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUB00022
CWCB
>
Publications
>
Backfile
>
PUB00022
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2011 11:10:44 AM
Creation date
9/30/2006 10:04:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Publications
Year
2000
Title
Layperson's Guide to California Water
CWCB Section
Interstate & Federal
Author
California Water Education Foundation
Description
Layperson's Guide to California Water
Publications - Doc Type
Other
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />the California Endangered Species Act in 1970, and <br />Congress followed suit in 1973 by passing the federal <br />ESA. That same year, the California Environmental <br />Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental <br />Policy Act (NEPAl were passed. requiring iead public <br />agencies are required to prepare and submit for <br />public review environmental impact statements or <br />reports (EIS and EiR). <br /> <br />In 1972, the sfate Legislature moved to preserve the <br />north coast's free-flowing rivers from development <br />by passing the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. <br />preserving about a quarter of the <br />state's undeveloped water in its <br />natural state. The act prohibits <br />construction of dams or diversion <br />facilities, except to serve local <br />needs, on portions or entire rivers <br />around the state. <br /> <br /> <br />AbOl'C, sorting salmoll at a <br />SlaTe j1sh hatchery. <br />Chinook salmoll numbers <br />Iw\'e declined in recent <br />years. Righi. all angler <br />casts his line on fhe <br />Smith Riper. <br /> <br />The 1972 CWA is one of the <br />nation's most sweeping environ- <br />ment laws. Af the time of its <br />passage, polluted rivers caught fire <br />and lakes were declared dead <br />because of industrial and untreated <br />discharges. In addition to water <br />quality standards, the CWA section <br />404 regulates the filling or dredg- <br />ing of wetland areas. Early federai <br />practices encouraged the reclama- <br />tion of wetlands through draining <br />and diking or filling, which <br />eliminated the vast majority ot wet- <br />lands. More than 90 percent ot the <br />Central Valley wetlands were <br />destroyed. With passage of the <br />CWA, other environmental laws <br />and court decisions, the govern. <br /> <br />ment began protecting wetlands. which filter pollut- <br />ants, absorb flood waters, recharge groundwater and <br />shelter fish and wildlife. <br /> <br />There has been some backlash against environ. <br />mental laws by critics who claim the laws put <br />environmental preservation above people. In 1997, <br />two U.S. Supreme Court cases curtailed the reach <br />of environmental protection. In Bennett v. Spear, the <br />court significantly expanded the class of individuals <br />and entities who can sue under the federal ESA to <br />include those claiming economic injuries arising from <br />ESA-based actions. Prior to Bennett. only those <br />seeking to protect an ESA-Iisted species could bring <br />an ESA claim. Private property interests scored <br />another victory in Suiturn v. Tahoe Regional Planning <br />Agency. The Supreme Court held that a Tahoe land- <br />owner who was prohibited from developing her <br />property, which is a wetland. could go to trial and <br />seek compensation for alleged economic loss <br />caused by the land use restriction. In lieu of <br />development rights, Suitum was given transferable <br />development rights by the regionai land use agency. <br />Unlike the high Court. the two lower courts that heard <br />Suitum's case held she must try and sell before <br />litigating their worth. <br /> <br />In contrast. a widely used tool that allowed develop- <br />ment of property that couid affect a listed species <br />was invalidated by a state appellate court. The <br />Department of Fish and Game (DFG) issued what <br />are known as "incidental take permits" for more than <br />160 public and private projects under the state ESA. <br />The state court ruled, however. that DFG lacked the <br />authority to allow the incidental "take" - the killing or <br />harming - of those listed species. <br /> <br />Because the ESA has been such a volatile issue, <br />there has been a push to develop biodiversity <br />planning and habitat management in <br />place of a single species approach since <br />the mid-1990s. interior allows landown- <br />ers who have listed species on their prop- <br />erty and agree to a habitat conservation <br />plan to avoid additional ESA require- <br />ments to further protect a threatened or <br />endangered species. In southern Califor- <br />nia, a state initiated plan was developed <br />to protect the gnatcatcher, a threatened <br />song bird that lives in coastal sage scrub <br />located in prime real estate. The state's <br />Natural Communities Conservation Plan <br />allows development of the coastal sage <br />region on condition that parcels of sage. <br />which provides critical habitat to the gnat- <br />catcher, will be preserved. <br /> <br /> <br />20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.