Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
California
Central Valley
North Coast
Environment & Forest Defense
Government & Elections
Labor & Workers
Court Ruling Favors Corporate Agribusiness over Salmon and Fishermen
“I was extremely disappointed by Wanger’s ruling,” said Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA), one of the plaintiffs in the case. “It’s as if fish and fishing jobs and communities don’t count.”
Court Ruling Favors Corporate Agribusiness over Salmon and Fishermen
by Dan Bacher
Federal Judge Oliver Wanger issued a ruling this morning challenging the federal biological opinion protecting Sacramento River chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, green sturgeon and southern resident killer whales.
Wanger ruled that the Delta Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District have, “by a preponderance of evidence, shown legal and equitable grounds for injunctive relief.”
Environmental, fishing and tribal groups said the ruling was bad news for collapsing populations of salmon and other species and the coastal and inland communities that depend on healthy fisheries, while agribusiness advocates celebrated the ruling as a victory of "farmers over fish."
“We are disappointed by today's ruling, which is bad news for anyone who cares about California's wild salmon,” said Doug Obegi, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) attorney, on his blog (http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dobegi/court_decision_puts_california.html). “However, we will continue to urge the Court to uphold these protections, as they are critical to protecting California’s wild salmon, the fishing and Tribal communities that depend on them and the health of the Bay-Delta estuary, which supplies drinking water to millions of Californians.”
Obegi said that Judge Wanger found on a preliminary basis that the federal agencies had not strictly adhered to all of the necessary procedures in the biological opinion that protects salmon, steelhead, sturgeon and orcas from the impacts of the State Water Project (SWP) and the federal Central Valley Project (CVP).
“The Court declined to issue the injunction waiving the protections of the biological opinion, finding that no alternative measure had been offered that would adequately protect the species, and has ordered a hearing tomorrow to discuss how to proceed,” said Obegi. “The Court recognized that pumping restrictions are necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of wild California salmon and steelhead."
In its ruling, the Court found that unrestricted pumping, as some of the plaintiffs had proposed, could cause “irreparable harm” to California's wild salmon and steelhead, as well as the fishing and tribal communities that depend on healthy salmon runs, according to Obegi.
Wanger recently concluded "the economic pain and hardship has been no less to the fishing industry that relies on salmon than has been the economic consequence to the Central Valley agricultural community.”
In April, the court also recognized the significant harm to Winnemem Wintu Tribe and its spiritual and cultural foundations, finding that these interests are irreparable and protected, and that there are extreme hardships on all sides.
“However, out of the numerous actions and requirements in the nearly 800 page biological opinion, the Court concluded that specific numeric flow restrictions in two of the biological opinion's protective measures were not adequately explained by the agency,” Obegi noted. "The Court found that it could not conclude if these measures 'are adequately protective, too protective, or not protective enough.'"
The Court ordered a hearing tomorrow - and possibly additional hearings in the future - to determine if "some other level of pumping levels would be safe for the species,” said Obegi.
Attorneys from the Pacific Legal Foundation, a right wing property rights group, applauded Federal Judge Oliver Wanger’s issuance of a preliminary injunction against a federal regulatory action that the organization claims has “contributed to devastating water cutbacks for farms and communities in Central and Southern California.”
PLF has been representing some San Joaquin Valley growers that the organization contends "have been hard-hit by the federally imposed water cutbacks." The case is Stewart & Jasper v. Salazar.
“Judge Wanger recognized that federal regulators had not taken account of how water cutoffs could damage the human environment, and they did not use the best available science,” said PLF attorney Brandon Middleton.
“This is a powerful, excellent ruling,” said Middleton. “The judge is telling the feds that they can’t ignore the harsh human and environmental impacts of cutting off water to farms, workers, businesses, and communities. The judge is also saying the feds can’t get away with using slippery science to justify environmental restrictions that rob communities of their lifeblood – water.”
Members of commercial and recreational fishing groups are appalled that the judge favored corporate agribusiness and junior water rights holders over fish and fishermen in his ruling.
“I was extremely disappointed by Wanger’s ruling,” said Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Federation of Fishermen's’ Associations (PCFFA), one of the plaintiffs in the case. “It’s as if fish and fishing jobs and communities don’t count.”
However, Glen Spain, the Northwest Director of the PCFFA, noted what the Judge is actually going to do about his ruling - whether to remand back to the agencies to fix it but leave the BiOp intact, cancel those measures entirely, or mix and match, putting the flows under his specific direction in the interim - remains to be seen after the additional hearing tomorrow on just that issue of relief.
“Also, this ruling affects only a small subset of all the biological opinion, albeit some of the most important ones for maintaining Delta flows,” said Spain, “so this setback is not the end of the struggle to restore collapsing salmon populations by any means.”
Earthjustice Attorneys Erin Tovin and Mike Sherwood, who received legal assistance from NRDC attorneys, are the lead attorneys in this case.
To read a copy of the decision, go to: http://www.scribd.com/doc/31556079/Salmon-Findings-of-Fact-Judge-Oliver-Wanger
by Dan Bacher
Federal Judge Oliver Wanger issued a ruling this morning challenging the federal biological opinion protecting Sacramento River chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, green sturgeon and southern resident killer whales.
Wanger ruled that the Delta Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District have, “by a preponderance of evidence, shown legal and equitable grounds for injunctive relief.”
Environmental, fishing and tribal groups said the ruling was bad news for collapsing populations of salmon and other species and the coastal and inland communities that depend on healthy fisheries, while agribusiness advocates celebrated the ruling as a victory of "farmers over fish."
“We are disappointed by today's ruling, which is bad news for anyone who cares about California's wild salmon,” said Doug Obegi, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) attorney, on his blog (http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dobegi/court_decision_puts_california.html). “However, we will continue to urge the Court to uphold these protections, as they are critical to protecting California’s wild salmon, the fishing and Tribal communities that depend on them and the health of the Bay-Delta estuary, which supplies drinking water to millions of Californians.”
Obegi said that Judge Wanger found on a preliminary basis that the federal agencies had not strictly adhered to all of the necessary procedures in the biological opinion that protects salmon, steelhead, sturgeon and orcas from the impacts of the State Water Project (SWP) and the federal Central Valley Project (CVP).
“The Court declined to issue the injunction waiving the protections of the biological opinion, finding that no alternative measure had been offered that would adequately protect the species, and has ordered a hearing tomorrow to discuss how to proceed,” said Obegi. “The Court recognized that pumping restrictions are necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of wild California salmon and steelhead."
In its ruling, the Court found that unrestricted pumping, as some of the plaintiffs had proposed, could cause “irreparable harm” to California's wild salmon and steelhead, as well as the fishing and tribal communities that depend on healthy salmon runs, according to Obegi.
Wanger recently concluded "the economic pain and hardship has been no less to the fishing industry that relies on salmon than has been the economic consequence to the Central Valley agricultural community.”
In April, the court also recognized the significant harm to Winnemem Wintu Tribe and its spiritual and cultural foundations, finding that these interests are irreparable and protected, and that there are extreme hardships on all sides.
“However, out of the numerous actions and requirements in the nearly 800 page biological opinion, the Court concluded that specific numeric flow restrictions in two of the biological opinion's protective measures were not adequately explained by the agency,” Obegi noted. "The Court found that it could not conclude if these measures 'are adequately protective, too protective, or not protective enough.'"
The Court ordered a hearing tomorrow - and possibly additional hearings in the future - to determine if "some other level of pumping levels would be safe for the species,” said Obegi.
Attorneys from the Pacific Legal Foundation, a right wing property rights group, applauded Federal Judge Oliver Wanger’s issuance of a preliminary injunction against a federal regulatory action that the organization claims has “contributed to devastating water cutbacks for farms and communities in Central and Southern California.”
PLF has been representing some San Joaquin Valley growers that the organization contends "have been hard-hit by the federally imposed water cutbacks." The case is Stewart & Jasper v. Salazar.
“Judge Wanger recognized that federal regulators had not taken account of how water cutoffs could damage the human environment, and they did not use the best available science,” said PLF attorney Brandon Middleton.
“This is a powerful, excellent ruling,” said Middleton. “The judge is telling the feds that they can’t ignore the harsh human and environmental impacts of cutting off water to farms, workers, businesses, and communities. The judge is also saying the feds can’t get away with using slippery science to justify environmental restrictions that rob communities of their lifeblood – water.”
Members of commercial and recreational fishing groups are appalled that the judge favored corporate agribusiness and junior water rights holders over fish and fishermen in his ruling.
“I was extremely disappointed by Wanger’s ruling,” said Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Federation of Fishermen's’ Associations (PCFFA), one of the plaintiffs in the case. “It’s as if fish and fishing jobs and communities don’t count.”
However, Glen Spain, the Northwest Director of the PCFFA, noted what the Judge is actually going to do about his ruling - whether to remand back to the agencies to fix it but leave the BiOp intact, cancel those measures entirely, or mix and match, putting the flows under his specific direction in the interim - remains to be seen after the additional hearing tomorrow on just that issue of relief.
“Also, this ruling affects only a small subset of all the biological opinion, albeit some of the most important ones for maintaining Delta flows,” said Spain, “so this setback is not the end of the struggle to restore collapsing salmon populations by any means.”
Earthjustice Attorneys Erin Tovin and Mike Sherwood, who received legal assistance from NRDC attorneys, are the lead attorneys in this case.
To read a copy of the decision, go to: http://www.scribd.com/doc/31556079/Salmon-Findings-of-Fact-Judge-Oliver-Wanger
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
As of May 2009 there were 1,317 threatened and endangered species listed in the U.S. Critical habitat has been designated for only 523 species. The Critical Habitat process has been weighed down with extra complicated procedures designed to bring the process to a snails pace at best. Inorder to designated critical habitat for a threatened or endangered species there has to be: an economic analysis, studies for exclusions of land for national security purposes, a study to determine if the designation fits into the Administrative Procedures Act, a regulatory planning review. Other requirements include determinations to see if the critical habitat designation would effect energy supply (EO 13211), and fits into the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Civil Justice Reform regs, EO 13132 (Federalism examination order) and lastly the Paper Work Reduction Act. The Paper Work Reduction Act is the puch line I guess.
The administrations since Jimmy Carter have done their best to destroy the ESA process for the benefit of the corporate rich class. They are also destroying the middle class bit by bit.
The middle class voters should never vote for a democrat or a republican again if they want to preserve what's left of North America. Otherwise the cockroaches will have their victory party celebration dancing on the mass graves of the human race.
The administrations since Jimmy Carter have done their best to destroy the ESA process for the benefit of the corporate rich class. They are also destroying the middle class bit by bit.
The middle class voters should never vote for a democrat or a republican again if they want to preserve what's left of North America. Otherwise the cockroaches will have their victory party celebration dancing on the mass graves of the human race.
One of the problems with this debate is that other options for Westlands crops are never included. The current Westlands crops are very water intensive, so even in good yeras they will be taking more than their share from the river ecosystem. Certainly salmon, sturgeon and the like have less option to change their needs for fresh water than human beings can change their choices of crops!!
Federal Bill will continue California’s Water Rip Off
January 25, 2010
by Jane Nielson
"California’s major water projects were built largely by the Federal Government to supply water for small farmers. Instead, those projects have been captured by huge corporate farmers, who pay very low prices for the water. In 2009 the very rich corporate farmers in California’s Central Valley, still subsidized by taxpayers have proposed another Federal water bill (SB 1759) that will continue degrading farmland at taxpayer expense.
National, state and local officials, including Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, Congressman George Miller, Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger, and many state legislators are already campaigning for passage of the bill.
All these elected officials, along with national and state media — prominently including Fox News, 60 Minutes, and the Sacramento Bee — have repeatedly made the false claim that San Joaquin Valley agribusiness in the San Joaquin Valley’s Westlands Water District is suffering from a man made drought, and that cuts to its taxpayer-subsidized water supplies will prevent those growers from “feeding the nation.”
US Department of Agriculture statistics demonstrate to the contrary that agricultural production from Westlands Water District is far from significant, and may actually be negative when the level of taxpayer subsidies to those farmers is subtracted from their net profits. In fact, USDA statistics show that Westlands’ contribution to the nation’s food supply (and food exports) is only about a quarter of a percent in gross income. The true net value may be only $30 million to $40 million, once government subsides are taken out.
We, the U.S. taxpayers, paid for the projects that supply Westlands farmers with water, and for the drains that made it possible for them to continue farming in an area that traps highly polluted irrigation water in the soils. Those drains created Kesterson Reservoir, an ostensible wildlife refuge receiving poisoned agricultural water. Taxpayers eventually had to pay to fill in Kesterson’s collection ponds to stop the deforming of bird chicks and outright wildlife kills due to the high concentration of selenium in the drain water.
Recent tests of alternative drainwater disposal projects have shown that all have the same potential to poison and kill wildlife as did Kesterson. This also means that Westlands drain waters should never reach the San Joaquin River.
It’s time to get real about the level of taxpayer subsidies that allow Westlands agribusiness to thrive, when those farms continue to create environmental havoc, which taxpayers then have to pay to clean up. Why should taxpayers continue supporting agriculture that has to be bailed out of its self-made problems?
It’s time to wean Westlands farmers off the public purse, and make them prove that they can prosper in a free market.
Westland demands for taxpayer support — and the environmental destruction — both come from irrigating the land. It’s high time to cut out the irrigation and take Westlands Water District lands out of production.
How the proposed bill will privatize water supplies from the state’s large water projects, built with taxpayer dollars, while further undermining natural food chains."
article found here;
http://theamericanwestatrisk.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/water-bond-will-continue-california%E2%80%99s-water-rip-off/
More corporate piggies feeding at the public trough! In the end we the people will be left with selenium contaminated lands in Westlands resulting from over irrigation, rivers no longer capable of supporting native salmon, sturgeon and smelt!!
While Westlands growers will be laughing all the way to the bank at taxpayer expense!!
Am in agreement with above comments that state not to vote for either Democrat or Republican, as BOTH parties are beholden to the special interests of Westlands agribusiness corporations!!
Lack of real political options (ie., both parties are hopelessly corrupted by corporate influences) is what leads people to take action outside of the legal system, these legal options do not seem to be getting us anywhere. It is sad that the last resort to save the salmon and other riparian fishes would be to sabotage the canal and pumping infrastructures stealing water from the salmon's rivers for the sole benefit of corporate plunderers in Westlands districts..
Maybe sabotage of canals would provide encouragement for Westlands growers to switch to drought tolerant cash crops;
tepary beans
jojoba
nopales cactus
Final message to Westlands growers;
Ignore these realistic and logical options for converting to drought tolerant crops at your own risk!! We who created this comment message are beings guided by logic, and our pure form of logic dictates that we will save the salmon, sturgeon and smelt from extinction no matter what it takes!! Following these acts of sabotage to water conveyance infrastructure we'll take "our lumps" as Obama would say and we'll do our time, about ready for "three hots and a cot" anyway!!
Growing drought tolerant crops would solve both problems of freshwater shortages for fish in rivers and loss of growing land in Westlands. Add to the benefits the lack of need for irrigation water means less selenium buildup in Westlands soils!! So what's the fucking hold-up already?? Westlands growers need to quit being so stupid and make the switch to drought tolerant crops NOW, or they will soon find themselves getting ZERO drops of water due to a coming permanant disruption of water conveyance structures!!
Once again, we present to the public the simple logic of the tepary bean;
"Grown during the blistering hot summer of the Sonoran Desert, tepary beans are one of the most heat and drought resistant crops in the world. The same adaptations that allow them to thrive in harsh desert conditions make them incredibly healthy. They are extremely high in protein and very low on the glycemic index (29). As a result, they help regulate blood sugar levels and are particularly good for diabetics and others concerned about he impacts of simple carbohydrates on their health."
more tepary text found here;
http://www.tocaonline.org/www.tocaonline.org/Oodham_Foods/Entries/2010/4/1_Learn_about_Oodham_Foods__Bawi_(Tepary_Beans).html
Federal Bill will continue California’s Water Rip Off
January 25, 2010
by Jane Nielson
"California’s major water projects were built largely by the Federal Government to supply water for small farmers. Instead, those projects have been captured by huge corporate farmers, who pay very low prices for the water. In 2009 the very rich corporate farmers in California’s Central Valley, still subsidized by taxpayers have proposed another Federal water bill (SB 1759) that will continue degrading farmland at taxpayer expense.
National, state and local officials, including Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, Congressman George Miller, Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger, and many state legislators are already campaigning for passage of the bill.
All these elected officials, along with national and state media — prominently including Fox News, 60 Minutes, and the Sacramento Bee — have repeatedly made the false claim that San Joaquin Valley agribusiness in the San Joaquin Valley’s Westlands Water District is suffering from a man made drought, and that cuts to its taxpayer-subsidized water supplies will prevent those growers from “feeding the nation.”
US Department of Agriculture statistics demonstrate to the contrary that agricultural production from Westlands Water District is far from significant, and may actually be negative when the level of taxpayer subsidies to those farmers is subtracted from their net profits. In fact, USDA statistics show that Westlands’ contribution to the nation’s food supply (and food exports) is only about a quarter of a percent in gross income. The true net value may be only $30 million to $40 million, once government subsides are taken out.
We, the U.S. taxpayers, paid for the projects that supply Westlands farmers with water, and for the drains that made it possible for them to continue farming in an area that traps highly polluted irrigation water in the soils. Those drains created Kesterson Reservoir, an ostensible wildlife refuge receiving poisoned agricultural water. Taxpayers eventually had to pay to fill in Kesterson’s collection ponds to stop the deforming of bird chicks and outright wildlife kills due to the high concentration of selenium in the drain water.
Recent tests of alternative drainwater disposal projects have shown that all have the same potential to poison and kill wildlife as did Kesterson. This also means that Westlands drain waters should never reach the San Joaquin River.
It’s time to get real about the level of taxpayer subsidies that allow Westlands agribusiness to thrive, when those farms continue to create environmental havoc, which taxpayers then have to pay to clean up. Why should taxpayers continue supporting agriculture that has to be bailed out of its self-made problems?
It’s time to wean Westlands farmers off the public purse, and make them prove that they can prosper in a free market.
Westland demands for taxpayer support — and the environmental destruction — both come from irrigating the land. It’s high time to cut out the irrigation and take Westlands Water District lands out of production.
How the proposed bill will privatize water supplies from the state’s large water projects, built with taxpayer dollars, while further undermining natural food chains."
article found here;
http://theamericanwestatrisk.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/water-bond-will-continue-california%E2%80%99s-water-rip-off/
More corporate piggies feeding at the public trough! In the end we the people will be left with selenium contaminated lands in Westlands resulting from over irrigation, rivers no longer capable of supporting native salmon, sturgeon and smelt!!
While Westlands growers will be laughing all the way to the bank at taxpayer expense!!
Am in agreement with above comments that state not to vote for either Democrat or Republican, as BOTH parties are beholden to the special interests of Westlands agribusiness corporations!!
Lack of real political options (ie., both parties are hopelessly corrupted by corporate influences) is what leads people to take action outside of the legal system, these legal options do not seem to be getting us anywhere. It is sad that the last resort to save the salmon and other riparian fishes would be to sabotage the canal and pumping infrastructures stealing water from the salmon's rivers for the sole benefit of corporate plunderers in Westlands districts..
Maybe sabotage of canals would provide encouragement for Westlands growers to switch to drought tolerant cash crops;
tepary beans
jojoba
nopales cactus
Final message to Westlands growers;
Ignore these realistic and logical options for converting to drought tolerant crops at your own risk!! We who created this comment message are beings guided by logic, and our pure form of logic dictates that we will save the salmon, sturgeon and smelt from extinction no matter what it takes!! Following these acts of sabotage to water conveyance infrastructure we'll take "our lumps" as Obama would say and we'll do our time, about ready for "three hots and a cot" anyway!!
Growing drought tolerant crops would solve both problems of freshwater shortages for fish in rivers and loss of growing land in Westlands. Add to the benefits the lack of need for irrigation water means less selenium buildup in Westlands soils!! So what's the fucking hold-up already?? Westlands growers need to quit being so stupid and make the switch to drought tolerant crops NOW, or they will soon find themselves getting ZERO drops of water due to a coming permanant disruption of water conveyance structures!!
Once again, we present to the public the simple logic of the tepary bean;
"Grown during the blistering hot summer of the Sonoran Desert, tepary beans are one of the most heat and drought resistant crops in the world. The same adaptations that allow them to thrive in harsh desert conditions make them incredibly healthy. They are extremely high in protein and very low on the glycemic index (29). As a result, they help regulate blood sugar levels and are particularly good for diabetics and others concerned about he impacts of simple carbohydrates on their health."
more tepary text found here;
http://www.tocaonline.org/www.tocaonline.org/Oodham_Foods/Entries/2010/4/1_Learn_about_Oodham_Foods__Bawi_(Tepary_Beans).html
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network