December 1997 Issues Online June 2007 April 2007 February 2007 December 2006 October 2006 August 2006 June 2006 April 2006 February 2006 December 2005 October 2005 August 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 December 2004 October 2004 August 2004 June 2004 April 2004 February 2004 December 2003 October 2003 August 2003 June 2003 April 2003 February 2003 December 2002 October 2002 August 2002 June 2002 April 2002 February 2002 December 2001 October 2001 August 2001 June 2001 April 2001 February 2001 December 2000 October 2000 August 2000 June 2000 April 2000 February 2000 December 1999 October 1999 August 1999 June 1999 April 1999 February 1999 December 1998 October 1998 August 1998 June 1998 April 1998 February 1998 December 1997 October 1997 August 1997 June 1997 April 1997 February 1997 December 1996 October 1996 August 1996 June 1996 April 1996 February 1996 December 1995 October 1995 August 1995 June 1995 April 1995 February 1995 December 1994 October 1994 August 1994 June 1994 April 1994 February 1994 December 1993 October 1993 August 1993 Select any issue from the menu in this bar.

Revamping Vernalis

A long-awaited plan to protect salmon in the San Joaquin River while collecting new data on fish friendly flow-to-export ratios is nearing completion, according to negotiators. The San Joaquin has long been a focus of California's water wars, as farmers, environmentalists and water districts haggle over how much water to leave in the river for fish and how much to pump for agriculture and export. Heavy pumping in the past has devastated the river's once abundant salmon runs. The Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan (VAMP) grew out of a lawsuit filed by water users in 1995 against regulatory agencies over exports and spring flows at Vernalis, a monitoring station downstream of the confluence of the San Joaquin and its tributaries, the Merced, Tuolumne and Stanislaus Rivers. The San Joaquin River Group Authority claimed that the flows established to protect fish by the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord and codified by the 1995 state Water Quality Control Plan were not scientifically justified. According to the EPA's Patrick Wright, state and federal agencies agreed to work with water users on an implementation plan for Accord Flows, but insisted that the resulting plan be "equally protective of salmon and designed as an experiment to sort out the differential effect of various factors affecting fish survival."

Under the plan, flows during the mid-April to mid-May fish migration period would be set at specific levels depending on the year's water conditions. "For every condition we will have a set flow-to-export ratio so that we can compare their effects on salmon survival," says the Bay Institute's Gary Bobker. By and large, flows under the plan will be comparable to those established by existing law. The plan also calls for a fish barrier atthe head of Old River and a "ramping down" mechanism at the end of the flow period so that fish don't get stranded when flows are reduced.

Still unresolved is who will provide the water and money needed to implement the plan. Under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), water users on the San Joaquin upstream of the Friant Dam are temporarily exempt from providing water for restoration purposes; instead they make a larger contribution to the CVPIA Restoration Fund. Negotiations now are focusing on the use of the Fund to compensate water users on the river's tributaries for the water they provide - a situation that makes environmentalists uncomfortable. "There's a lot of controversy over using restoration money to pay water users to meet water quality standards," says Bobker. However, environmentalists are considering whether it's possible as a temporary measure.

Some of the water may come from the 800,000 acre-feet/year of water set aside by the CVPIA for environmental restoration. In November the Department of the Interior announced eight measures designed to meet the law's goal of doubling anadromous fish population in Central Valley rivers. The measures will ensure that sufficient water will be available to meet the VAMP's target flows, according to Wright.

Details surrounding export limitations remain to be hammered out. "We've been working from the premise that there will be no net loss over the course of the year," says Dan Fults of the Friant Water Users Authority. "If someone has to cut back on pumping during the flow period, we want to make sure that they can make it up." Environmentalists are concerned that a no-net-loss approach not be used to prevent the use of CVPIA water.

Assuming the remaining issues can be resolved, negotiators say they hope to start implementing the plan this spring. The plan is scheduled to last for 12 years. At the end of that time, says Bobker, "the hope is that we will have enough data to allow us to revisit some of these issues," such as assessment of responsibility for water contributions and funding.

In the meantime, says Dave Fullerton of the Natural Heritage Institute, "the agreement is important as a precedent. It shows how you can set up a management system to be protective, and maximize the opportunity to increase scientific understanding." Contact: Patrick Wright (415) 744-1024

«To @@(newsletter_title)@@ Index

[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]

Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project