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

 

 

The Brown administration has been pushing forward with the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, a process which is supposed to plan for the impacts of climate change on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and ensure a more reliable water supply for Southern California. Sierra Club California continues to be concerned that the centerpiece of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan is a giant 9,000-cubic-foot-per-second tunnel under the Delta, capable of diverting almost 2/3 of the average flow of the Sacramento River.

Such a large facility makes little sense. To save native fish species, we need to reduce exports from the Delta. If climate change reduces the amount of water available for export, Brown’s plan might not even do much to increase reliability of water supplies for Southern California.

Permanent water scarcity

This past year saw record droughts in the Great Plains and Southwest, extending into the central Sierra Nevada, which saw 60% of normal precipitation. Runoff was down in the San Joaquin River watershed, and farmers using water from Friant Dam for irrigation received half their normal water allocation.

Many scientists link the extent and severity of these droughts to climate change. Global climate models have projected an increase in the frequency and severity of droughts in North America, particularly in the mid-continent and Southwest. The central Sierra Nevada and inland Southern California are on the edge of the drought area. Several models project that drying has started in the central Sierra and will extend to the northern Sierra by the end of the century.

More frequent and severe droughts in the Sierra Nevada would greatly impact not only the Sierran forests but also California’s major rivers and the Delta, already under severe stress from water diversions.

Although the northern Sierra had normal rainfall last year, there were high levels of diversions from the Sacramento River, and high levels of exports of water south from the Delta. As a result, populations of Delta smelt and longfin smelt, which had rebounded during the wet year of 2011, returned to the critically low levels seen during 2000 – 2010.

Over the past decade the Delta ecosystem has entered a “regime change”, characterized by a crash in populations of native species, toxic algal blooms, and expansion of many non-native species. Most scientists believe that the only way to save the estuary is to restore more natural flows, but large wholesale water agencies in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California, dependent on water exported from the Delta, resist such changes. Climate change will likely make these conflicts worse.

The Sierra Club continues to advocate for increasing reliability of water supplies by reducing reliance on the Delta, increasing conservation, and developing alternative local water supplies, including stormwater capture and water recycling.

WhatYouCanDo

From March 14 to April 22 the California Natural Resources Agency is releasing new draft documents of the revised Bay Delta Conservation Plan, with monthly public meetings. The Club’s California/Nevada Water Committee is reviewing the revised plan and preparing a formal comment letter. To get involved with this important effort, please contact committee chair Eric Parfrey at (209)462-7079 or parfrey@sbcglobal.net.

Deirdre Des Jardins, California water research, Sierra Club California/Nevada Water Committee

To get involved with the Bay Chapter Water Committee, see article.

Monday, March 18, 7 pm, Sierra Club Bay Chapter Office, 2530 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley.

The Sierra Club Bay Chapter Water Committee will hear Peter Drekmeier, the Bay Area program director for the Tuolumne River Trust, give a presentation on the state’s Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan Draft for the San Joaquin and Southern Delta.

All are welcome you don’t need to be a member to attend.

The period for comments on the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan has been extended by only two weeks, to March 29th. This plan will determine flows in the Delta and the San Joaquin and its tributaries, the Merced, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne Rivers, for years to come.

Peter will present the current state of the plan and the differences environmentalists have with it. Those who wish to provide comments on this plan will benefit from Peter’s presentation.

For more information contact Water Committee co-chair Charlotte Allen at c.allen@comcast.net.

For more than two million Californians, access to clean drinking water is a daily struggle. This year, a number of legislators are taking the lead to address this growing problem.

According to a study conducted by the California Water Resources Control Board, 680 communities in California rely on contaminated water sources, and roughly a third do not have necessary filtering systems in place to make sure that the water that comes out of their faucet is safe to drink. Communities with the dirtiest water are usually located where a lot of animal waste is generated and with major agricultural activities.

Although there are earmarked funds available to help communities that are disproportionately affected, there are many barriers preventing timely distribution of the funds. The barriers range from complicated and long application processes, lack of guidance for community members on available grants and qualifications, and lack of information about the extent of the problem and appropriate solutions.

Assemblymembers Luis Alejo and Henry Perea have introduced good bills that will help extend funding programs, find other revenue to sustain current funding sources, and fill information gaps that are crucial to finding sound solutions to clean up California’s water. The number of legislators who are joining forces to contain this problem is growing, and Sierra Club California is delighted to see such efforts.

As these proposals go through their natural courses to become laws, we will need your help to make sure good measures are passed. We often call on our activists and members to weigh in on these issues by contacting their state legislators via e-mail, a good old-fashioned letter in the mail, or a phone call. Please make sure to join our activist list for these opportunities by clicking here.

Annie Pham, policy advocate, Sierra Club California

reprinted from the web site of Sierra Club California