Bay, Water, and Watersheds

Is SF getting ahead of itself on Warriors’ proposal?

May 23, 2013 Leave a Comment

Former San Francisco Mayor Art Agnos calls this “the most beautiful spot on the waterfront”. Should this land be used for the Warriors’ sports arena or for better public access to the shoreline? Photo courtesy San Francisco Waterfront Alliance.

San Francisco has been barreling ahead on the Golden Gate Warriors’ proposal for an event center and multi-use development at Piers 30 – 32 (see April-May Yodeler, page 7). In October the city issued “Findings of Fiscal Responsibility and Feasibility” prepared by Economic and Planning Systems. This report was accepted by the Board of Supervisors. At the request of the city, Assemblymember Phil Ting has introduced AB 1273 which would declare a multi-use development to conform to the Public Trust, even though his district does not include the proposed project.

On May 1, AB 1273 passed out of the Assembly Natural Resources Committee on a 7 – 2 vote (Nancy Skinner and Mark Stone voting no) despite the opposition of Save the Bay, San Francisco Baykeeper, the San Francisco Waterfront Alliance, Sierra Club California, and the mayors of four East Bay cities (Tom Bates of Berkeley, Stephen Cassidy of San Leandro, Gayle McLaughlin of Richmond, and Jean Quan of Oakland). As the mayors’ letter stated, AB 1273 would diminish the authority of the State Lands Commission and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) in the project approval process. The bill moved to Local Government, where it passed unanimously. Next it goes to Assembly Appropriations.

This project has moved so quickly that the San Francisco Planning Department issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft Environmental Impact Report before the Planning Department had received project designs and building models. The Citizens’ Advisory Committee and its subcommittees have had to cancel meetings for lack of project information. Upcoming hearings before the San Francisco Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors Land Use Committee, and BCDC will require the plans.

BCDC is clearly prepared to do its important job here. Its comments responding to the NOP were detailed, quoting the McAteer-Petris Act and the criteria of the Port’s Special Area Plan (SAP) for allowable development: “The SAP (p. 20) characterizes the Northeastern Waterfront which includes Piers 30 – 32, as a ‘regional recreation and scenic resource.’ Generally, the SAP provides that waterfront development should provide maximum feasible public access—of which visual access is a ‘critical part’ (p. 32), preserve important Bay views and have a low scale height and bulk.”

Also threatening open spaces on the waterfront is the Port’s proposal to turn the plaza behind the Ferry Building into a parking lot. The Waterfront Land Use Plan designates this plaza as open space. Parking over water is prohibited by the Waterfront Land Use Plan, San Francisco’s General Plan, and the BCDC Special Area Plan. The plaza is over water, as is the Ferry Building itself.

WhatYouCanDo

To be alerted when it is time to speak up against this and other outrageous waterfront proposals, make sure that you are signed up to receive the Sierra Club Bay Chapter’s updates and alerts.

Or to get involved now, please contact conservation organizer Jess Dervin-Ackerman at (510)848-0800, ext. 304, or jess@sfbaysc.org.

Becky Evans, chair, Sierra Club San Francisco Group

Filed Under: Bay, Water, and Watersheds, Front Page Feature, Land Use

The Warriors Project and the Public Trust

May 23, 2013 Leave a Comment

California’s Public Trust doctrine has long been a key tool for protecting San Francisco’s shoreline. The doctrine reserves the shoreline for maritime uses, water-related activities, public access, and environmental protections (see “The best things in life deserve legal protection: the shoreline and the Public Trust” from September-October 2005, page 6). The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the State Lands Commission (SLC) were created largely to protect this public interest. In 1969 the Burton Act gave the Port of San Francisco jurisdiction over previously state-controlled tidal lands, specifically on the condition that they be administered in conformity with the Public Trust. AB 1273, however, introduced by Assemblymember Phil Ting to help ease the Warriors’ proposed project through the regulatory hoops, represents (among other mischief) a serious attack on the Public Trust doctrine, with potential consequences extending well beyond its stated purposes (see “Is SF getting ahead of itself on Warriors’ proposal?”).

When the mayor’s office and the Port endorsed conceptual plans for the Warriors’ proposal, they realized that it was not particularly waterfront-related, and was potentially in conflict with BCDC guidelines—which allow only projects with a waterfront-related and trust-compliant primary use. The Port and city then had two options. They could have set up a complex land-barter agreement like those which have already given private interests vast swaths of San Francisco’s shoreline. Or they could ask the legislature to decree Public Trust compliance by fiat.

The bill (as amended April 24) reads : “Any legislative or regulatory requirement for findings of consistency with the public trust doctrine or the Burton Act trust under the Special Area Plan, the Bay Plan, or any other applicable statute, regulation, or plan shall be deemed satisfied if the Port has made a finding that the Pier 30 – 32 development is consistent with the requirements of this act.” And what are those “requirements”? Here, the genesis of the bill becomes even more murky, the result of closed door-negotiations among the Warriors, the Port, the mayor’s office, and presumably representatives from BCDC and SLC. The bill purports to lay out minimum requirements for the project—including a deep-water-vessel berthing area, a relocated fire-boat station, and public access along the perimeter of the structure. It would also nip the 630-car pier-side garage down to 500 spaces (none of which are for trust uses). It would limit office space to 70,000 square feet (a slight restriction) and mandate at least 15 days of “Public Trust-consistent” programming a year (whatever that means).

The bill declares that if these minimal “requirements” are met, the primary purpose of the development does not have to be maritime-related, but the project would still be deemed compliant with the Public Trust. AB 1273 would thus neutralize the authority of the State Land Commission and greatly reduce the clout of BCDC over the project. While the bill’s purview is restricted to Seawall 330 and Piers 30 – 32, it establishes a dangerous precedent. If San Francisco can get its shoreline exempted from the oversight of the SLC and BCDC and the protections of the Public Trust, what’s to stop other municipalities from doing the same? Is this such a wonderful project that it deserves a blanket exemption from existing law?

Further resources

The Public Trust Doctrine and the Modern Waterfront, introduction to the Public Trust Doctrine was developed by the staff of the California State Lands Commission in 2007

The Public Trust Doctrine–San Francisco’s waterfront, the November 1999 issue of the SPUR newsletter.

Warriors on the Waterfront, the Warriors’ own web site on the project

Text of AB 1273

San Francisco Bay Plan of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission

San Francisco Waterfront Alliance web site

“Warriors Arena Would Block Beauty of Bay” by Ann Killion in San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 15, 2013

Steven Chapman, Executive Committee, Sierra Club San Francisco Group

Filed Under: Bay, Water, and Watersheds, Land Use

The perfect unacceptable use

May 23, 2013 Leave a Comment

San Francisco’s Proposition H of 1990, the Waterfront Land Use Plan, reserves the waterfront “for maritime uses, public access, and projects which aid in the preservation and restoration of the environment”. It specifically prohibits hotels, and sets straightforward criteria for defining an “unacceptable” land use:

does it need to be located on the waterfront to serve its basic function?
is it compatible with existing or planned maritime operation on surrounding parcels?
does it provide the maximum feasible public access?
does it improve the ecological balance of San Francisco Bay?
does it protect the waterfront’s architectural heritage?
does it present the best interests of the people of San Francisco?

Do these criteria sound like a description of the Warriors’ proposal?

Filed Under: Bay, Water, and Watersheds, Land Use

A long history of protecting SF’s waterfront

May 23, 2013 Leave a Comment

San Francisco has a long history of protecting its waterfront as a public asset.

The front-page lead article of the September 1

970 Yodeler is entitled “Port Commission vs. San Francisco Bay”. At issue was a massive 18.4-acre fill and platform in the water just north of the Ferry Building. This Ferry Port Plaza, which would have included a 1,200-room hotel, a 600-foot-long commercial office building, and a garage for 2,400 cars was not built, thanks to public opposition and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission.

More positively, we tore down the old Embarcadero Freeway and started on a planning process which limited height and bulk and restricted uses to appropriate maritime activities, opening up San Francisco’s shoreline for all citizens to enjoy. We even voted on legislation to protect the waterfront from inappropriate development (see “The perfect unacceptable use”).

Yet, in recent years, that consensus has been overwhelmed by a series of public-private development proposals, each eying to capitalize on the real-estate potential of the city’s remaining shoreline parcels and undeveloped piers. The Warriors’ proposal is but the latest of the breed, but true to their name, it is perhaps the most aggressive proposal yet.

Filed Under: Bay, Water, and Watersheds, Land Use

Bay wetlands gain international recognition

May 17, 2013 Leave a Comment

Aerial photo of Breuner Marsh. The East Bay Regional Park District in July approved a plan for restoring the habitat and creating public access at this wonderful Bay wetland area.

On World Wetlands Day, this February, San Francisco Bay became a “Ramsar” site. The Ramsar Convention is an international agreement for the preservation and wise use of wetlands, named for the Iranian city where a key conference was held in 1971. Credit the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture and its partners with making it happen. “This designation should be a point of pride for anyone living in the larger San Francisco Bay Area,” says Joint Venture coordinator Beth Huning. “Despite intense urban pressures, San Francisco Bay endures as one of our country’s great natural treasures.”

More than 2,000 sites in 164 nations have been recognized since the convention took effect in 1975. “Wetlands” are defined to include seasonal pools, caves, and springs, as well as large water bodies. San Francisco Bay becomes the 35th site in the United States (along with Chesapeake Bay and the Florida Everglades) and the sixth in California (following Tomales Bay, Bolinas Lagoon, the Laguna de Santa Rosa, the Grassland Ecological Area in the San Joaquin Valley, and the Tijuana River Estuary.)

Making the Bay an official Wetland of International Importance was a complex four-year process. The Bay met all nine criteria for designation, but each had to be extensively documented. The Joint Venture also needed to bring a mixture of federal, state, and local agencies and nonprofits on board. Unlike earlier, more global attempts, the focus this time was on protected lands with habitat value. The resulting patchwork quilt of parcels totals 400,000 acres, one of the largest Ramsar sites in North America. Landowners who manage their properties for conservation purposes may be able to add their lands in the future.

Ramsar has no legal force, but may draw more restoration funding to Bay projects–conferring extra points in some federal grant programs, for example. It may also inform future decisions about use of wetlands. Huning sums up: “This international designation validates not only the natural and aesthetic values of the Bay, but also the investments we have made and will need to make in order to collaboratively restore it.”

For questions, contact Beth Huning at bhuning@sfbayjv.org.

by Joe Eaton

reprinted from ESTUARY News, San Francisco Estuary Partnership, http://www.sfestuary.org/estuary-news

Filed Under: Bay, Water, and Watersheds

Governor’s tunnel vision leaves out Delta protection

May 12, 2013 Leave a Comment

Sierra Club California logo. The following is the text of a letter sent on May 6, 2013, by Sierra Club California to Gov. Jerry Brown.

Dear Governor Brown:

Sierra Club California has for more than 26 years led legislative and regulatory advocacy in California for the Sierra Club, one of the largest and oldest volunteer-driven environmental organizations in the country. The Sierra Club itself, founded in 1892 by a group that included naturalist John Muir, was launched and is headquartered in our state.

We open with this background—of which, as a student of California history, you are surely familiar—to underscore that we are not newcomers to California’s environmental issues. In particular, we are not newcomers to the long struggles in California to develop water polices that support our communities and economy while also protecting the State’s precious natural environment. The Club has been an active voice for the environmental values that make California unique, but which are too often ignored or dismissed by policymakers, even today.

In the past California has relied on supply-based engineering solutions that too often paid little regard to environmental degradation and losses. These solutions included the damming of the Tuolumne River at Hetch- Hetchy Valley in the 1920’s; the diversion of the San Joaquin River at Friant Dam shortly after World War II; and construction of the New Melones Dam in the 1970’s, among other water projects. These engineering projects from another era have helped delay development of a sustainable water policy in our current era. It is critical that the current debate about the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta system not lead us to repeat history’s mistakes.

More than seven years ago, when the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) process began, Sierra Club was concerned that the endangered-species-directed approach would not adequately take into account the total Delta environment. We worried that the planning process was directed towards the interests of the largest project water users, rather than Delta residents or Californians as a whole.

General aerial photo of Delta patterns, July 15, 2004. Photo by Paul J. Hames.

The recent administrative draft BDCP documents, and your public statements, reinforce the appearance that the BDCP process is wedded to a new, large and complex water conveyance system in the Delta. Whereas the Delta Reform Act speaks to dual goals of ecosystem restoration and reliability of Delta supplies, in the context of programs for long-term reliability statewide, the documentation released for the BDCP seems intent on maintaining or increasing high exports out of the Delta to benefit the State Water Project and Central Valley Project contractors at the expense of the environment.

The BDCP—funded by the Southern California water agencies and the western San Joaquin Valley farming corporations who draw on so much Delta water—proposes a water supply solution that improves contract deliveries despite substantial evidence that the Delta ecosystem would benefit from higher outflows. Moreover, analyses show that climate change is likely to reduce the project’s ability to reliably provide higher amounts of water. This is not the path to reliable water supplies. It is the State’s responsibility to address water supply reliability in a manner that meets the needs of all Californians in ways that are consistent with environmental protection, resource conservation, and long-term sustainability. The BDCP draft fails to accomplish this balancing.

We are sorry to see that our early skepticism and worries appear well founded. We believe the proposed 9,000 cfs twin tunnel conveyance project, requiring a series of gigantic intake structures along the Sacramento River near Hood, combined with the apparent continued use of pumping stations in the southern Delta at Tracy, will be disastrous for the environment, the cultural resources and the economy in the Delta. The twin tunnels scenario also has the added risk of seriously degrading migrating fish, such as salmon, in the Sacramento River.

You were not the governor when the BDCP process began. However, you do bear considerable responsibility for the course of the debate about the Delta’s future since you took office in 2010. The Sierra Club is disappointed with some of your recent public statements and your administration’s stance regarding the State’s water supply issues and Delta policy.

Specifically, your administration seems to be focused on, if not obsessed with, building a large water conveyance project no matter what its impacts on the ecosystem and economy in Northern California. Your seeming disregard for the proposed conveyance system’s short-term construction and long-term operational, environmental and economic impacts was most recently demonstrated in your April 22 letter urging the U.S. Department of Interior to accelerate its review of the BDCP document even before the full document has been publicly released.

We are especially concerned about your rush to judgment that a large conveyance will be beneficial even though any detailed information about how that conveyance will be operated—how much water will be taken from the Delta system and when—has not even been released or determined. Even if construction of a conveyance is the right thing to do—and we believe the current proposal isn’t, given the evidence of its impacts—how that conveyance is
operated has an enormous influence on its environmental and economic impact. How can the public be asked to even consider such a proposal without solid commitments that its use would be governed by environmentally protective requirements, and without analysis showing its feasibility under such conditions?

You and your administration are relying too heavily on an old-fashioned approach to resolving California’s water demand challenges at a time when more updated ideas and alternatives are needed. Your solution is to build something big before you leave office. Yet, building something big and old-fashioned isn’t going to ensure— especially during a time of climate disruption—that the people of California and the environment will be guaranteed the reliable and essential water supply needed at the time it is most critical.

California needs 21st-century leadership on water policy that fully considers a wide range of alternatives that address how we can reduce water loss from existing infrastructure, preserve water quality, improve conservation across the state and across sectors of the economy, and restore watersheds to help California meet its essential public health, economic, and environmental goals. We are asking you for a commitment to fiercely protect and fight for the public trust of surface and groundwater resources, which belong to all Californians.

Rather than rushing to a tunnel solution, we urge you to reconsider your position on the Delta and explore alternative plans to lead California in a bolder, more enlightened and comprehensive direction on water supply policy. Our organization stands ready to assist in developing a better path. We want a healthy, lasting environment in California for all Californians. We hope that you do, too.

Sincerely,

Kathryn Phillips

Director, Sierra Club California

Cc: Secretary John Laird
Deputy Secretary Gerald Meral
Reps. Doris Matsui, John Garamendi, Jerry McNerney, Ami Bera, George Miller
California Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee
California Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee

Filed Under: Bay, Water, and Watersheds, Front Page Feature

Inner City Outings (ICO) Rafting fundraising event at REI in San Francisco

May 3, 2013 Leave a Comment

Saturday and Sunday, May 18 - 19, 9 am – 5 pm, REI, 840 Brannan Street (at Eighth Street), San Francisco.

Come to the spring fundraiser for our Inner City Outings Rafting section. We’ll be selling baked goods and drinks, and it will be a good opportunity to learn more about ICO. It takes place during REI’s annual anniversary sale, and so you can grab some amazing deals while also supporting ICO.

Inner City Outings (ICO) is an all-volunteer outreach program of the Sierra Club that provides wilderness experiences for individuals who might not otherwise have them. ICO Rafting does strictly whitewater rafting and on-river camping. All donation-based pricing.

For more information contact Teresa Bria at (203)505-4750 or tbria@briaevents.com.

Filed Under: Bay, Water, and Watersheds, Featured Events and Activities

After a close call on seismic testing, the need for a Central Coast National Marine Sanctuary is even clearer

April 16, 2013 Leave a Comment

Sea lions. Photo courtesy U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

At the November 14, 2012, meeting of the California Coastal Commission in Santa Monica, with the final permit for Pacific Gas and Electric’s (PG&E’s) potentially devastating high-energy Central Coast offshore seismic survey hanging in the balance, the vote went the right way: the permit was denied (see “PUC tells PG&E: find safe way to test at Diablo Canyon”).

If the commission had voted the other way that day, our coastal wildlife and the coastal economy would have been in big trouble. Every commercial and recreational fisher in San Luis Obispo County would literally have been out of business the next day, when the project was scheduled to commence; ordered to tie up their boats at the dock for the next 42 days.

For 30 of those days, PG&E’s seismic vessel would have towed air guns through their prime fishing grounds, firing 250-decibel blasts every 15 seconds, 24 hours a day. The goal of all this testing was to get a better picture of the seismic hazards around the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCPP)–a worthy goal, but one that Sierra Club and our allies argued could be achieved in a manner causing less destruction to wildlife.

Once the testing was over, the local community would have been left with the aftermath, contributing to the scant body of scientific knowledge on the subject by finding out exactly what the short- and long-term impacts had been on wildlife–at the cost of significant harm to wildlife–i.e. the degree of disorientation, deafening, and/or injury or death caused to marine mammals, birds, fish, and larvae.

So how close did we come? You can now hear the idea bandied about on the Central Coast that the seismic survey never had a chance of being approved.

Here’s the reality: every other state and federal agency with any oversight role had signed off on the PG&E project. The federal Environmental Assessment and state Environmental Impact Report had been certified. By the time PG&E got to the California Coastal Commission, they had nearly every other permit they needed. The Coastal Commission was the last stop on the regulatory road, and the most likely outcome appeared to be that the Commission would issue the final permit after imposing additional permit conditions to try to somewhat mitigate the survey’s potential damage.

Because the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Surfrider, Coastal Protection Network, et al intensively educated staff and commissioners for weeks before the Santa Monica hearing, that potential staff recommendation for approval with conditions ultimately changed to a recommendation for denial. Faced with that, and the public outrage in the hearing room, the commission unanimously agreed with the staff recommendation.

However, it has not gone unnoticed that the Coastal staff’s recommendation for denial included wording that left open the possibility for future seismic testing proposals: “[I]t appears premature to conduct the currently proposed survey during the fall of 2012, as other ongoing data collection and analysis efforts by PG&E, the [Nuclear Regulatory Commission], and U.S. [Geological Survey] are likely to provide even better seismic characterization of the DCPP area in the near future and thereby potentially reduce the need, extent, or duration of the proposed survey.”

Why is it a bad idea to depend on the Coastal Commission to save you from the next bad offshore project to come down the pike, and the one after that? For two reasons: First, relying on the assumption that a similar ad hoc coalition will come together to oppose any and all such future projects is risky and not exactly a plan, nor a good use of our community’s resources. Second, members of the Coastal Commission serve at the discretion of the governor and leaders of the state legislature. In the commission’s 40-year history, there have been many Commission majorities that considered it their duty to deliver unto PG&E anything it wanted that was related to Diablo Canyon, whenever PG&E came to the commission to ask.

To truly protect our coast from damaging seismic testing—with its attendant harm to coastal and marine wildlife–we need the permanent protection of a national marine sanctuary for the Central Coast. A national marine sanctuary would need to be designated by Congress and would be the underwater equivalent of a national park. It would give local stakeholders control over many coastal management decisions, permanently protecting our waters from damaging projects like 250-decibel seismic surveys.

A highly relevant quote appeared in The San Luis Obispo Tribune’s Oct. 19, 2012, edition, about the Coastal Commission hearing on the seismic survey. The story reported on a meeting of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council and its discussion of the project:

“There is no way in the world it would happen in the sanctuary,” Advisory Council member Geoffrey Shester said at the Cambria meeting, expressing frustration and disbelief that “because it’s a couple miles away, all we get to do is weigh in on some concerns.”

Not to belabor the point: Had there been a Central Coast National Marine Sanctuary in existence in 2011 – 12, it could have weighed in at the beginning of the seismic-survey permit process with a simple statement to the effect that the proposed activity is not allowable within Sanctuary waters. Instead, local citizens and environmental groups, fighting a losing battle all the way through the regulatory process, had to attempt a Hail Mary pass at the end of it, pushing back against the momentum of multiple prior permit approvals.

In short, we got lucky this time.

Living with a marine sanctuary

A Feb. 22 meeting convened by Morro Bay Mayor Jamie Irons and Councilmember Noah Smukler brought Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Superintendent Maria Brown and her predecessor Ed Ueber to the Morro Bay Community Center, along with Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations. They spoke about their first-hand experience in managing, working and living with the Gulf of the Farallones Sanctuary (which was established in 1981 and protects 1,250 square miles of marine habitat off San Francisco) and the Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary (established in 1989 just north of the Farallones sanctuary, protecting 529 square miles of ocean between Point Reyes and Bodega Head.)

Grader said of his experience as the leader of commercial fishers involved with the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries, “I don’t think there’s a government entity that we’ve ever had a better relationship with.” The Gulf of the Farallones sanctuary, like all such sanctuaries, supports the economic growth of local coastal communities, scientific research, and the preservation of underwater treasures—and the health of the local fishing industry—for future generations (see “Wilderness–in the Ocean?”, Words of the Wild, Aug. 2011.)

The distinguished panelists related some other interesting facts.

The Sanctuary Advisory Council can be defined however a community wants to define it in its sanctuary charter. Historically, they have been eminently democratic: one stakeholder group, one seat, one vote.
The Sanctuary Advisory Council is central to the hiring decision for sanctuary superintendent.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) delegates authority for managing the sanctuary to the local superintendent.
99% of the recommendations made by the Gulf of the Farallones SAC are implemented.
Every marine sanctuary is different. Each has its own founding document, outlining which activities the sanctuary will manage. San Luis Obispo could have a sanctuary that regulates only offshore oil and gas drilling.

In other words, the establishment and management of a national marine sanctuary is based on local control and input from the community.

It is up to everyone with a stake in the environmental health of the Central Coast to grasp the reality of both recent history and the future threats coming our way and support the real bottom line: we need a permanent solution to protect our coast.

That’s why the Sierra Club is advocating for the creation of a Central Coast National Marine Sanctuary.

Andrew Christie, director, Sierra Club Santa Lucia Chapter

reprinted from Words of the Wild, April 2013 issue, newsletter of the Sierra Club’s California/Nevada Wilderness Committee

Filed Under: Bay, Water, and Watersheds, Wilderness, Forests, and Wildlife

Tell Congress to reject legislation threatening Wild Merced!

April 12, 2013 Leave a Comment

TAKE ACTION NOW

In Feb., Rep. Tom McClintock, calling the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act “outrageous red tape”, introduced H.R. 934, a bill that would remove federal protection from a segment of the wild and scenic Merced River to allow for possible reservoir expansion. A similar bill was approved by the House of Representatives last year but stalled in the U.S. Senate.

H.R. 934 directly challenges the specific purpose of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to protect our nation’s free-flowing and outstanding rivers for present and future generations. If passed by Congress, it would be first time federal protection was removed from a free-flowing river to allow for destructive water resources development.

H.R. 934 threatens public lands in the Merced River Wilderness Study Area and the Wild Merced River corridor. Expansion of the McClure Reservoir would not only drown scenic and popular public recreation lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, it would also flood habitat set aside to preserve the threatened limestone salamander, an amphibian found nowhere else on earth.

H.R. 934 could be heard by the House Public Lands Subcommittee any day now. If it passes, it could be fast-tracked with a number of other environmentally destructive bills that passed the House last year. But right now we have another chance to stop this river-destroying and precedent-setting bill in the House. Act today: send an e-mail to your representative urging them to vote “No” on H.R. 934 and reject this misguided attempt to remove federal protection from the Wild Merced and weaken the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

TAKE ACTION NOW

Background

More than 20 years ago, Congress preserved the Merced as a National Wild and Scenic River. With the introduction of H.R. 934, Congress has once again been asked to consider precedent-setting legislation that directly threatens one of California’s wildest rivers.

There are many reasons why Congress should reject H.R. 934.

Terrible precedent. If passed by Congress, H.R. 934 would be the first time that our existing policy of preserving some free-flowing and outstanding rivers through the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is reversed to allow for expanding a reservoir. California already has 1,400 major dams. One congressional proponent of the dam raise said, “We need many more projects like this.” H.R. 934 is a dangerous precedent for the Wild Merced and many other supposedly protected rivers in California and throughout the nation.
Breaking the deal. MID supported protecting the Wild Merced when Congress added the river to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System in 1992. Now MID wants to roll back federal protection to allow for an entirely speculative expansion of McClure Reservoir, despite serious questions about economic and engineering feasibility. MID could design and study the potential reservoir expansion without reversing federal protection for the Wild Merced, but has declined to do so.
Costs local jobs in recreation. The Wild Merced is the gateway to Yosemite National Park. It flows through federal public lands that provide outstanding outdoor recreational opportunities for thousands of people. The Wild Merced is a popular whitewater boating destination and the Merced River Trail provides easy access for hikers, mountain bikers, and equestrians to one of the most scenic river canyons in the Sierra Nevada foothills. Reservoir expansion would harm these river-based recreational values and adversely impact the local tourism-based economy.
Killing of threatend wildlife. The Wild Merced provides important habitat for the rare limestone salamander, a critter found nowhere else in the world. The salamander is protected by state law as a threatened species. Expanding the reservoir would not only flood part of the salamander’s habitat, but would directly violate state law.
Destruction of public lands. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages the public lands along the Wild Merced as part of the National Landscape Conservation System. The BLM is responsible for protecting the free-flowing character and outstanding values of the Wild Merced. The river also flows through the Merced River Wilderness Study Area, which is managed by the BLM to protect its primitive values. In addition, the agency protects limestone-salamander habitat along the river as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. The BLM has raised serious concerns about the legislation because the expanded reservoir would flood the Wild Merced, as well as portions of the wilderness study area and area of critical environmental concern.
Threat to public safety. MID proposes to expand McClure Reservoir by raising the spillways of New Exchequer Dam by 10 feet. The expanded reservoir, when full, would be only one foot below the crest of the dam, creating a dangerous potential for catastrophic failure of the dam under flood conditions. MID has not provided a dam-safety analysis of its proposal or submitted its proposal for review by state dam safety officials.
Little to no water yield. Reservoirs have already flooded 32 miles of the Merced River. Expanding McClure Reservoir would produce little new water and then only in a few wet years. Raising the dam would only increase MID’s annual water supply by about 2.5%. Less costly water conservation and reclamation measures would produce more water than raising the dam, without harming the Wild Merced. California already has 1,400 major dams and more than 32 miles of the Merced River have been flooded by reservoirs. We don’t need to remove federal protection from the Wild Merced to allow for entirely speculative water development.
Millions in hidden public costs. Since no feasibility or engineering studies have been conducted by MID, the public has no idea how much the proposed reservoir expansion could cost. But we do know that expanding McClure Reservoir would require raising or relocating the Highway 49 bridge. And raising the dam itself would have be done in a way that passes dam safety regulations. Both would likely prove to be prohibitively expensive. Undoubtedly, expanding McClure Reservoir would cost millions of dollars, with MID ratepayers and perhaps state and federal taxpayers footing the bill.

For the most current update about H.R. 934, visit www.friendsoftheriver.org. For more information concerning this issue, contact Ron Stork, senior policy advocate, Friends of the River at rstork@friendsoftheriver.org or (916)442-3155, ext. 220.

TAKE ACTION NOW

Friends Of The River

Filed Under: Bay, Water, and Watersheds

Desert Southwest getting drier

April 7, 2013 Leave a Comment

Las Vegas water intake at Lake Mead seen in 2009. Photo by D. Ghiglieri.

Recent scientific studies are confirming earlier research that the West and especially the Southwest are likely to see warmer temperatures and less precipitation–a combination that will seriously reduce water supplies. Global climate change will likely make the historically dry West much drier.

Westerners know they live in a beautiful yet water-short land, but they’ve been lulled to complacency by federal and state projects that have used public money to store and move surface water and pump groundwater to farms and cities throughout the western U.S.

For example, in the Colorado River Basin 10 million city dwellers and thousands of farmers irrigating millions of acres are dependent on a complex system of federal and state dams, canals, pipelines, and massive pumping stations to supply their water. But scientists are finding that the system is unlikely to be a match for climate change.

A multi-year study, “The Colorado River Basin Water Supply & Demand Study” by the Bureau of Reclamation, projects that by 2060 there will be a 3.2 million acre-foot deficit of demand over supply. By 2060, you ask? “Aren’t we already experiencing a significant deficit right now?” Yes, indeed. During the last 13 years the Colorado River system’s two largest reservoirs–Powell and Mead–have lost more than 20 million acre-feet of storage. That’s a 1.6-million-acre-foot average annual deficit. Drier-than-historical-average conditions have prevailed West-wide for much of that period. Slowly, water managers westwide are learning they are no longer able to use the past as a predictor of future precipitation.

The Bureau’s Colorado River Basin study includes options to increase supply–including hugely expensive projects like taking water from the Mississippi River system and pumping it uphill thousands of vertical feet and piping it hundreds of miles. This and other options for increasing water supply seem to be pie-in-the-sky, but have serious supporters such as the outspoken head of the water agencies for Las Vegas, Patricia Mulroy.

The myth of water abundance is a key selling point to attract people to the driest region in the country. Just published research, “Vulnerability of U.S. Water Supply to Shortage” (2012), finds that “climate change can increase water demand and decrease water supply to the extent that, barring major adaptation efforts, substantial future water shortages are likely, especially in the Southwest.” Warnings that the already dry region will become even drier are emphasized by findings that “Lakes Powell and Mead are projected to drop to zero and only occasionally thereafter add rather small amounts of storage before emptying again.” That should give folks planning a move to Las Vegas pause, because the metropolitan area is nearly completely dependent on taking 450,000 acre-feet of water annually from Lake Mead. And, regardless of the dismal outlook for water users, it is likely worse for the survival of fish and wildlife.

Even now, the serious drought of 2012 has extended into 2013.

There is a slow realization that the West has always been dry, and all uses of water must be reduced. Both municipal and agricultural users need to embrace conservation to preserve our storage capacities under drier and warmer conditions. And water needs to be left at its source to protect the fish and wildlife that have already suffered enormous loss.

Will we do it? The future of the environment of the entire West may depend on it.

Resources

Vulnerability of U.S. Water Supply to Shortage (2012)

The Colorado River Basin Water Supply & Demand Study

U.S. Drought Monitor

How Much Water Is There on, in, & Above the Earth?

Dennis Ghiglieri

Filed Under: Bay, Water, and Watersheds, Featured Events and Activities