Governor’s Veto of Key Water Bill Muddies Waters on Delta, Endangered Species
It would take a genius to figure out what’s going on in the Byzantine world of state water policy regarding the California Delta and endangered species. The complex issue got even more complicated in mid-October when Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed Senate Bill 1 (SB1), which the California legislature had passed in September by a 48 to 22 vote in the Assembly and by 26 to 14 in the Senate.
At issue are two policies: first, how much Northern California water is to be left in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta to protect endangered species, and second, how much is to be pumped south to support agricultural interests in Central California. The first policy is designed to protect the Delta smelt, Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, green sturgeon, and other species. The second policy is to support crops of farms in Central and Southern California.
The day after SB-1 was approved in the Assembly, the governor said he would veto it. SB-1 was designed to block a rollback of state environmental regulations by the Trump administration. The governor said SB-1 was unnecessary, because the state has other methods of keeping the Trump administration from overturning the state’s environmental laws. The governor was true to his word, and as expected, the veto drew harsh criticism from the environmental community, which has worked as a partner with the governor on many conservation issues.
In a notice to the press before the veto, Newsom defended his environmental record: “I have spent 52 years of my life being an environmental leader and champion, and I’ll take a back seat to no one in terms of my advocacy.” In his veto message, Newsom said California is a “leader in the fight for resource, environmental, and work protections.” He reminded those at a press briefing that California has challenged the Trump other ways, such as in the courts and through administrative actions. In his veto statement, he held out an olive branch to environmentalists: “While I disagree about the efficacy and necessity of Senate Bill 1, I look forward to working with the legislature in our shared fight against the weakening of California’s environmental and worker protections.”
SB-1 affirmed the protection that as of January 2017 California has gotten under the federal Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Occupational Safety and Health Act, and Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act. According to a legislative committee analysis, SB-1 authorized five state resource agencies to adopt regulations that could not be weakened by action of the Trump administration. The bill directed the state Fish and Game Commission and Department of Fish and Wildlife to take action protecting any “biological opinion, incidental take permit, or incidental take statement when authorizing the take of any species listed as endangered or threatened under California Law.”
The Trump administration has said it is preparing a set of proposals to deliver more water to farmers in the Central Valley and Southern California. Environmentalists suspect that policy will have a devastating effect on threatened and endangered fish. They expect the worst, so lobbied for passage of SB-1 as a backstop for any future federal action to weaken protections for wildlife.
The bill has split the state’s powerful lobbying factions. Over 75 environmental groups supported SB-1 before the Assembly Natural Resources Committee, including Audubon California and the American Sportfishing Association. Some 135 groups representing farming interests, chambers of commerce, and Central Valley counties and water agencies, including the influential Westlands Water District, opposed the measure.
Following the veto, representatives of environmental groups unloaded on the governor in news reports — some more politely than others. “Newsom capitulated to Trump’s cronies and corporate interests and threw endangered species and Californians under the bus,” said Kassie Siegel, director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity. Audubon California executive director Sara Rose said the governor’s veto represented a “missed opportunity to protect the state’s residents, habitats, and imperiled wildlife.”
It’s sure that SB-1’s issues will resurface when the legislative reconvenes on January 6, 2020.
Report: Toxic Sierra Streams Are a Legacy of Gold Mining
It’s no secret that the Gold Rush devastated parts of the Sierra Nevada range. A major research report published in 2008 shows how the impact of that historic period still haunts rivers today. Mining’s Toxic Legacy: An Initiative to Address Mining Toxins in the Sierra Nevada, published by the Sierra Fund, a nonprofit conservation group in Nevada City, not only documents the impact of the Gold Rush on rivers, but also recommends how to restore the damaged areas. The fund’s staff worked with state, federal, tribal, academic, health, and environmental groups as part of the research, which the report says was “the first comprehensive evaluation” of what happened during the Gold Rush.
“The Gold Rush changed California demographics as indigenous people were dislocated and mining towns appeared and disappeared across the Sierra Nevada Mountains,” says the report. “A less recognized consequence of the California Gold Rush was the massive environmental destruction that took place, which still plagues the Sierra today.” The report is important because the headwaters of the Sierra streams provide more than 60 percent of California’s drinking water and essential water for fish.
In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, “mining practices commonly included extensive use of mercury, millions of gallons of which still contaminate the landscape,” the report says. “Abandoned mines have left behind toxic pits and acid mine drainage. Naturally occurring minerals, including arsenic and asbestos, were disturbed, crushed, and distributed throughout the region as gravel for road construction.” The report adds that 93 tons of gold were taken from the Sierra in 1853 alone.
The report quotes a 2006 article by Rebecca Solnit in Orion magazine about the impact: “everything in the region and much downstream was ravaged. Wildlife was decimated. Trees were cut down to burn for domestic and industrial purposes and to build the huge mining infrastructure that was firmly in place by the 1870s But most of all, all streams were devastated. The myriad waterways of the Sierra Nevada were turned into so much plumbing, to be detoured, dammed, redirected into sluices high above the landscape, filled with debris and toxins. Water as an industrial agent was paramount, and water as a source of life for f ish, riparian creatures, downstream drinkers, farmers, and future generations was ignored.”
What is to be done about correcting the problems in rivers, lakes, and reservoirs caused by gold mining? The report cites the following obstacles to resolving legacy mining issues.
“Lack of appropriate health hazard screening: The presence of mercury, arsenic, and other mining toxins in the region has been established, and the potential health risks from exposure to each agent are understood to some degree. No evidence exists, however, showing what impact, if any, this exposure is having on humans in the region.
“Poor methods of community and tribal engagement: Sierra residents do not know the environmental dangers to which they may be exposed on a daily basis. As a result, the community remains uninvolved in cleaning up mining toxins. . . . “
Underfunded and inadequate government programs: A patchwork of government agencies and regulations on the local, state, and federal levels relate to mining toxin problems on both public and private property. The government is the largest landowner in the Sierra Nevada, and many of the lands affected are owned by public agencies. However, the state and federal governments have not established a clear plan for assessing and addressing the many problems associated with gold mining on public land.”
The report’s Gold Ribbon Panel of tribal leaders, watershed scientists, medical professionals, and community members identified four recommendations for dealing with the mining aftermath problem.
“1. Increase Collaboration and Research. Improving collaboration among key government, academic, and medical institutions to stimulate the implementation of this initiative is crucial. State and federal governments should form a Mining Toxins Working Group including researchers at the University of California and California State University, government researchers, tribal and community leaders, and others to ensure effective information exchange on these issues. . . .
“2. Improve Outreach and Education on Human Health. Public awareness of the potential human health hazards associated with mining toxins needs to be increased dramatically. Educational and outreach campaigns should be aimed at people working with families and children, in health care, and those who may be exposed to these materials at work, at home, or through recreational activities. . . .
“3. Improve Environmental Education in the Health Community. There needs to be a much better understanding of what, if any, epidemiological impact this exposure is having on the residents of the Gold Country. . . Community monitoring of mining toxins using high quality scientific tools needs to be supported. The public needs access to all testing data in order to effectively participate in decisions about mine cleanups.
“4. Reform and Fund Government Programs. The complexity of the mining toxin problem requires evaluation of scientific information and policy solutions among a number of local, state, and federal agencies. The Sierra Nevada Conservancy can facilitate this important task. Improved methods for engaging the public and local tribes in assessment and remediation are critical. State and federal agencies need to coordinate the development of plans for public land cleanup carefully, as they own a majority of the lands in the region with abandoned mines. Local governments need to develop general plan policies and strategies for managing land use impacts of mining toxins. Solutions to the obstacles to cleanup on private lands must be developed and funding mechanisms for these identified. Legal mechanisms need to be explored to look for ways for downstream urban users to help pay for cleanup upstream in the Gold Country.”
The complete 86-page report is available from the Sierra Fund at http://www.sierrafund.org/wp-content/uploads/ MININGS_TOXIC_LEGACY_2010printing_4web.pdf. The fund sponsored a well-attended “Reclaiming the Sierra” conference in mid-October in Grass Valley.
New Executive Director at Fish and Game Commission
The California Fish and Game Commission found its new executive director in its own staff. Melissa Miller-Henson has worked for the commission for the last seven years as program manager, deputy executive director, and, over the last year, acting executive director. “We’re very pleased that Ms. Miller-Henson is willing to serve this historic Commission in a new capacity,” said commission president Eric Sklar. “She has a passion for the work of the commission and brings a forward-thinking, innovative, and collaborative approach to the job. She has demonstrated skill in working with di-
verse groups of stakeholders to address complex issues that she will continue to apply to the benefit of the state.”
Prior to working for the commission, Ms. Miller-Henson directed the California Fish and Wildlife Strategic Vision Project, managed the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative, and served under five secretaries of the California Natural Resources Agency. “We look forward to Ms. Miller-Henson’s continuing guidance at the dais,” said California Department of Fish and Wildlife director Charlton H. Bonham. “She has the trust of many stakeholders and understands the commission’s vast authorities. She brings expertise in collaborative problem-solving and has a strong vision for the future of the commission.”
TU Opposes New River-Damaging Federal Rule
Trout Unlimited has ramped up a campaign to rally its advocacy troops to oppose a new federal rule that it says will “roll back protection for millions of miles of streams that provide drinking water for one in three Americans and critical water and habitat for fish and wildlife populations.” In an alert to its activists, TU urged “strong opposition” to a final rule by the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers that repeals the 2015 Clean Water Rule, making way for a replacement that will “eliminate protections for millions of stream miles and many wetlands, critical components to functioning watersheds.”
The replacement rule is expected to be introduced soon and adopted by federal agencies by the end of 2019. “The final rule, in combination with the replacement rule later this year, could tear the soul of out of the Clean Water Act’s protection of small streams and wetlands,” said Chris Wood, TU’s president and chief executive officer. “Clean water is not a political issue. It is a basic right of every American,” said Wood. “To be effective, the Clean Water Act must be able to control pollution at its source — upstream in the headwaters and wetlands that provide water that flows downstream to communities, lakes, rivers and bays.”
This advocacy endeavor is in direct response to the Trump administration’s effort to repeal and replace the rule. “When the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972, it protected virtually all of America’s waters — every type of stream, wetland, river, lake, or bay. A 2001 Supreme Court decision first questioned if all wetlands and streams should in fact be protected, and the issue has become ever more politicized since then,” according to Wood. “In 2015, under President Obama, the EPA finalized a rule” — the Clean Water Rule — “clarifying that the Clean Water Act protects all of our nation’s streams and millions of acres of wetlands. Early in 2017, President Trump directed the EPA first to repeal and then to replace the Clean Water Rule. The administration’s efforts to rescind the 2015 rule have been partially blocked.” Wood adds: “This is not the final chapter to the story.” To learn more about this effort, See “The Future of Clean Water Is in Our Hands” at https://standup.tu.org/stand-up-for-clean-water.
Fanny Krieger Wins Award
Fanny Krieger, a pioneer in the flyfishing world, has won another honor, this time Fly Fishing International’s Education Award. “Her lifelong dedication to fly fishing and her long-standing efforts to promote f ly fishing and educate f ly fishers, especially women and children, represent a continuous, prominent effort promoting comprehensive fly fishing education,” said the award about the 90-yearold Krieger, who lives in San Francisco.
Krieger founded the Golden West Women Fly Fishers and the International Women Fly Fishers. She also produced the International Fly Fishing Festival for Women. Some 1,776 women have attended that festival, and many went on to mentor fly fishers in various parts of the world, while others became guides and casting instructors. In 1994, she was inducted into the Federation of Fly Fishers Northern California Council Hall of Fame, and in 2011 she won a Kudos Award from Fly Rod and Reel magazine.
Agencies Are on the Alert for DogKilling River, Lake Toxin
Most dogs love water. As it turns out, according to state water officials, some water bodies don’t like dogs. In fact, they are killing them. According to Beverly Anderson-Abbs, an environmental scientist for the State Water Resources Control Board, an algae toxin called Anatoxin-A can kill a dog within 20 to 30 minutes of exposure. “It’s showing up all over the place,” Anderson-Abbs says in a report in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune. The toxin is more commonly known as blue-green algae. Some scientists say that the toxin levels have been made worse by the drought. Anatoxin has been found in at least two rivers and five lakes, including Lake Shasta and Lake Elsinore. Nonlethal levels have also been found in Lake Oroville and the Russian River.
