Traditional Yurok-Karuk leader speaks out against the Dam and Water Deals

Traditional Yurok-Karuk leader Christopher (Chris) Peters recently sent an e-mail to members of the Yurok, Karuk and Hoopa Tribes concerning the draft Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) and the proposed Klamath Basin Restoration (sic) Agreement (KBRA).

Chris is the president of the Seventh Generation Fund, an international Indigenous not-for-profit organization with offices in Arcata, California. His past accomplishments include founding and serving as the first executive director of the Northern California Indian Development Council. Along with other young Karuk, Yurok and Hoopa Indians and elders Chris is involved in the movement which began in the early 1970s to restore Indigenous ceremonies within the ancestral homelands of the Yurok, Karuk and Hoopa Peoples.

In his e-mail Chris states that the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI) is very concerned about language in the Deals which would grant to the Department of Interior the right to sign waivers of tribal water rights and federal trust obligations for four of the five federally recognized tribes located within the Klamath River Basin. The four tribes are the Yurok, Hoopa, Karuk and Klamath Tribes. A fifth federal tribe – the Quartz Valley Indian Reservation based in the Scott River Sub-basin - is not involved with the KHSA or KBRA.

KlamBlog presents the entire call to action by Chris Peters below.

_____________________________________

Auth,

We need to think about what “our” tribal council is doing and the impact of their action on Federal Indian policy. – Housed within the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) is TERMINATION language.

If the Yurok Tribe should decide not to sign the “agreement” can we back out now? That a very good question to ask candidates for the Yurok Council – Because the federal government recently added language that stipulates that the Department of the Interior can sign the waiver of claims on behalf of tribes. You may recall from my last communication that the Yurok Tribe must sign the agreement stating we will NOT ASSERT OUR TRUST OR WATER RIGHTS. This is how they are going to “deal” with Hoopas and This is TERMINATION of Tribal Sovereign authority and it has generated MAJOR concerns among the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI).

ATNI is a regional organization comprised of Indian Tribes of Washington. Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, Northern California and Alaska, who just signed a resolution expressing their opposition to ------ “any policy of the United States to terminate the rights of or impose adverse consequences upon a tribe that chooses to retain its water rights instead of settling on terms desired by the Federal Government”

They, as well as other tribal Governments nation wide are very concerned about the National significance of the “agreement” and how its termination provisions will impact federal Indian policy. ATNI intends to take their resolution to the upcoming meeting of the National Congress of American Indians that will gather in Palms Springs next week.

Below are a few other things we need to discuss with candidates seeking to be elected or re-elected to leadership positions in the Yurok Tribe. FIRST have they read and do they understand the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) or the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHA)? Because if they have read and if they do understand these “agreements” they would know that there is a lot of CRAZZZZZY stuff in them – below are a few examples. Please read

All our Relations

Chris Peters

1. The water balance, guaranteeing diversion of 330,000 acre-feet for irrigators, has no scientific basis and will, in 40% of water years, leave too little water in the Klamath River to meet the Coho Salmon flow requirements. There are no guaranteed flows for fish. Sec. 15.1.1.B and App. E-5. THIS WILL ALSO LEGALLY GIVE WATER RIGHT TO IRRIGATION CORPORATIONS – OUR INDIAN WATER RIGHTS!!!

2. The KBRA has no restoration goals. It establishes no target salmon run sizes or harvest goals. Thus its success can’t be measured.

3. Neither the KBRA nor the KHA requires removal of any dam. The KHA is a planning process that merely might, after 12+ years, lead to dam removal. WE NEED ACTION NOW –IN 12+ YEARS ALL THE FISH COULD BE GONE!! – ALSO IN 12 YEARS WE MIGHT HAVE ANOTHER REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION.

4. The KBRA requires Indian Tribes to waive claims of violation of trust water and fishing rights regardless of the success of restoration. Sec. 15.3.7

5. The $985 million federal appropriations called for in the KBRA will enable irrigators to increase ground water pumping, which will further deplete surface water flows in the Klamath. Sec. 15.3.1, 15.2.4, 25-28. None of this funding goes to dam removal!!!!

6. The KBRA requires parties to support water diversions and follow procedures that will weaken the effect of the Endangered Species Act. Sec. 20.3. This is critical – the Coho runs are getting so low that we need to think hard about listing them as an ENDANGERED!! IF WE WANT WILD FISH FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS OF YUROKS.

7. If funds are appropriated to purchase water to augment instream flows for the benefit of fish, the Bureau of Reclamation, not a fisheries Technical Team, will decide whether OR NOT to use the money. Sec. 19.4.4. Or maybe Gail Norton will return or al least someone equally as sinister within future Republican administrations and make the decisions.

8. The KHA gives to the Interior Secretary the Determination whether dam removal is “in the public interest,” thus delaying action while unnecessarily duplicative NEPA analysis and state CEQA analysis occurs. Sec. 3.3.1. AGAIN, A REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION MAY ASERT THAT DAM REMOVAL IN NOT IN THE PUBLIC’S BEST INTEREST.

9. The KHA prohibits the Secretary from choosing dam removal until, among other things, two States and Congress pass legislation to fund it. Sec. 3.3.4. WITH GROWING FINANCIAL PROBLEMS OF STATE GOVERNMENTS, CLIMATE CHANGE, YEARS OF DROUGHT AND MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THE SACRAMENTO DELTA AND CENTRAL VELLEY FARMERS – YUROK TRIBAL LEADERS SHOULD BE ASKING –WHAT ARE FEINSTEIN AND SCHWARZENEGGER UP TO THESE DAYS? ALSO THEY NEED TO ASK SALAZAR ABOUT THE “CALIFORNIA WATER PLAN” AND IF HE MIGHT BE PLANNING TO USE THE KLAMATH “AGREEMENT” TO LEVERAGE MORE WATER FROM THE TRINITY RIVER FOR THE FARMERS.

10. The KHA minimizes PacifiCorp’s required operational changes until at least 2021, strips FERC of jurisdiction while the agreement remains in place, and also protects the utility from compliance with any other measures to improve water quality. Sec. 6.1.1 and 6.3.4.A.

11. The KHA halts State water quality certification proceedings, which now are the only remaining step before FERC would force dam removal. Sec. 6.5. WE CAN NOT FORCE DAM REMOVAL WITH THE AGREEMENTS

12. The KHA sets a mere “target” of 2020 to begin dam removal but also demands $27 million in extra payments to PacifiCorp if removal begins before 2021. Sec. 7.3.3. NOW ASK YOURSELVES – WHAT THE HELL IS UP WITH THIS!!!!

PLEASE JOIN WITH THE GROWING NUMBERS OF YUROK AND KARUK AND SAY ---HELL NO TO BOTH THE KLAMATH BASIN RESTORATION AGREEMENT (KBRA) AND THE KLAMATH HYDROELECTRIC SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (KHSA)!!!!!

Shasta River Improves; Scott River still dewatered!

Some flow has returned to the Shasta River where irrigation with surface water diverted from streams officially ended on October 1st prompting California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) biologist Mark Pisano to tell reporters that he is “feeling more comfortable that the fish will be OK.”

This week flow near the mouth of the Shasta River had increased to about 100 cubic feet per second, up from a low of 4.5 cubic feet per second in mid August.

But the same increase in flow has not materialized on the Scott River where most surface irrigation under the Scott River Adjudication is supposed to end “on or about October 15th.” The Scott is currently running at about 9 cubic feet per second, up from a low of 4 cubic feet per second in late August.

This means that while Chinook salmon are moving up and spawning in the Shasta Valley and Shasta tributaries their brothers and sisters in the Scott River remain trapped near the river’s mouth far from their spawning grounds and unable to migrate due to low flows.

KlamBlog surveyed the Scott River Canyon on October 6^th. The canyon emerges from the Scott River Valley to wind for 29 miles to its junction with the Klamath River. The upper 25 miles of the canyon were devoid of adult salmon. In the stretch of river below the village of Scott Bar fewer than 10 adult Chinook – singly and in scattered small groups - were observed trying to migrate. They appeared to be having a hard time as they attempted to ascend rocky and shallow riffles.

Two salmon (the splashes) attempting to ascend the Scott River below Scott Bar
October 6th, 2009

Closer to where the Scott joins the Klamath River, KlamBlog observed several hundred Chinook crowded into a small pool just above the Highway 96 bridge. Crowding and delayed migration encourages disease outbreaks and squanders the energy these fish need to finish their migration and spawn. KlamBlog observed one dead unspawned female below the crowded pool.

Some of the hundreds of Chinook Salmon holding in a small pool near the River's mouth
October 6, 2009

Meanwhile upriver in the Scott Valley most overhead irrigation has ended. The reason is economic. Following the crash of milk prices, the going price for alfalfa – a thirsty hay crop which in recent decades has replaced grain as the Scott Valley’s main non-bovine agricultural product – has crashed. Consequently alfalfa producers have decided not to irrigate for a fourth cutting this year. Fourth cuttings have become popular in Scott Valley since the advent of unregulated groundwater pumping around 1960. This allows producers to ignore the end of irrigation season and continue pumping and irrigating as long as they desire. Groundwater pumping is totally unregulated in Siskiyou County.

So why have the flows not rebounded on the Scott as they have on the Shasta?

The answer has a lot to do with the fact that the Shasta River is fed primarily by large volcanic springs. This means that as soon as irrigation ends the springs are free to run into the Shasta River. The Scott, on the other hand, is a snow melt stream with smaller, non-volcanic springs. In the Scott Valley extensive unregulated groundwater pumping for irrigation lowers the water table all summer long drying out virtually all the springs. When irrigation ends the groundwater must recharge before the springs – and the Scott River – begin to flow again. This means that if fall rains do not come in time and in quantity the Chinook will not make it to their spawning grounds. That is now the situation on the Scott even in years of average rainfall.

The Dewatered Scott River
October 6, 2009

The dewatering of the Scott River and its affect on Scott River Chinook salmon is expected to be a major argument in a petition being prepared to seek listing of Upper Klamath River Chinook salmon under federal and state endangered species laws.

Another reason why Scott River flows have not rebounded in spite of an end to overhead irrigation is that dozens of surface diversions in the Scott River Valley continue to run year around. Water right holders in Scott Valley have a right to 0.1 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water in order to water livestock throughout the year. But several of the major ditches – for example the main Kidder Creek and Etna Creek ditches - run full all year long. Most other irrigation ditches in Scott Valley also continue to run all winter but typically at 1 to 3 cubic feet per second as compared to 4 to 6 cfs in the main Kidder and Etna ditches. The main Etna and Kidder Ditches are controlled by the same ranching family.

Etna Creek Diversion Ditch - This diversion runs full year around

Irrigation Ditch in the Scott Valley on October 6, 2009
Irrigation via this ditch is supposed to end on October 1st

Readers may wonder why it is necessary to run a ditch at 4 to 6 or even 1 to 3 cfs in order to obtain a stockwater right of 0.1 cfs. The truth is that the practice is not necessary for livestock watering. The ranchers, however, like to keep their pastures soaked with water year around. They locate livestock watering at the bottom of their property so that the water has to run through – and sub-irrigate – all pastures above before arriving at the watering site.

Fifteen years ago the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) questioned this practice on Kidder Creek. CDFG asked the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to determine if the practice was legal. DWR said everything was OK. Rather than take the issue to the State Water Resources Board, CDFG decided not to rock the boat. Now CDFG managers want to grant these agricultural operations a permit to legalize their “take” of Coho salmon. Coho salmon are listed as "threatened" under both state and federal endangered species laws.

Out of season flood irrigation by some livestock producers in the Scott Valley has also been documented by fish advocates. Evidence of this illegal practice has been presented to the State Water Resources Board. However, that board - which is supposed to enforce water rights and prevent illegal diversions - has not taken action to stop the practice.

Out of Season (illegal) flood irrigation in the Scott River Valley

November 7th, 2005

Meanwhile the Siskiyou Resource Conservation District - which represents agricultural interests in the Scott River Basin and controls virtually all fish and watershed restoration funds spent in the Scott – has reacted angrily to a front page story in the San Francisco Chronicle which reported on the stranding of Chinook salmon on the lower Shasta and Scott Rivers.

In a long e-mail to Chronicle editors Siskiyou RCD manager Carolyn Pimentel listed what she claims are the good things that Scott Valley irrigation interests have done for salmon.

Pimentel then requested that the Chronicle publish “a follow-up article given the same front page attention as the original article with the attached photo and graph, and the following corrections and pertinent additional information.”

The Chronicle agreed to print a small factual correction: the Coho are listed as “threatened” and not “endangered” as the Chronicle article had stated. According to the Chronicle, Pimentel’s other points were irrelevant to the Chinook stranding story.

Apparently the governing board and managers of the Siskiyou Resource Conservation District believe that because they are doing allegedly “good things” for salmon they should be allowed to dewater the Scott River without complaint from anyone – least of all a big city newspaper.

This incident and numerous others have revealed that irrigation interests in the Scott Valley refuse to recognize that fish need water and not just screens on diversions and other projects which help irrigators as much or more than they help fish.

Among Pimentel’s claims is that this is a “critically dry” year in Northern California and so we should not expect enough water in the river to allow salmon to migrate and spawn.

KlamBlog has investigated that assertion. It turns out that it is only a “critically dry” year in Scott Valley and not elsewhere in the Klamath Basin where a “dry” but not “critically dry” year has been declared. As it turns out, the Siskiyou RCD has developed its own definitions of “dry”, “critically dry” and other year types. The way water year types are defined by the RCD favors irrigation interests over fish. Deceptions and half truths on the Scott just never seem to end!

Ten years ago fish advocates and fish biologists working as part of the Scott River CRMP developed a simple and practical system to evaluate whether fish and watershed restoration projects completed in the Scott River Basin had been implemented properly and were having the benefits claimed in funding proposals. However, the Siskiyou RCD refused to implement the evaluation system. Over the past 25 years the Siskiyou RCD has expended an estimated $25 million of taxpayer funds on “restoration” projects. The irrigator controlled group has never evaluated the effectiveness of even a single project. We know of no evaluations by the agencies which provide the funds either.

Fish advocates know how to evaluate the effectiveness of restoration. When salmon can’t make it to spawning grounds even in average rainfall years these advocates conclude thar restoration is not working. So what has all that money been spent on and why are Chinook and even Coho in some years not able to reach their spawning grounds in the Scott Valley and above?

That will be the topic in a future KlamBlog post. Stay tuned.

Dead unspawned female Chinook salmon near the mouth of Scott River
October 6, 2009

Eight Year delay in Klamath Dam removal a gift to PacifiCorp

Almost a year to the day after member of Klamath river tribes, fishermen and environmentalists rallied in front of PacifiCorp's corporate offices in Portland to demand removal of PacifiCorp's Klamath River dams, a draft agreeement to remove four of the dams and transfer a fifth dam - Keno Dam in Oregon - to The US Bureau of Reclamation has finally emerged from closed-door negotiations. Now the taxpayers and PacifiCorp's customers - targeted in the deal to pay the full cost of dam removal and dam transfer - have a chance to see what the deal entails.

In an interview yesterday on Oregon Public Broadcasting, PacifiCorp's president said that the eight year delay in dam removal (after all environmental, economic and engineering studies have been competed) is justified so that PacifiCorp can collect from its Oregon and Northern California customers the $180 million which is referred to as "Oregon's share" of the estimated decommissioning cost. This is the result of legislation approved in Oregon earlier this year. That legislation was opposed by the Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities, a business association, which fears that this deal will raise power rates including taking cheap Bonneville Power from them and giving it to the Klamath Basin's Irrigation Elite. That cheap power transfer is part of a separate Water Deal - the controversial and costly Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA).

Both the Dam Deal and the Water Deal require federal legislation because they skirt existing laws. In yesterday's interview, PacifCorp's president said it is the "intent of negotiating parties" that the two deals move forward together.

The Water Deal also requires California legislation in order to shield the Irrigation Elite from prohibitions on "take" of species which are listed as threatened or endangered under provisions of the California Endangered Species Act. This would allow irrigation districts in the federal Klamath Project to "take" Bald eagles by cutting off water to Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuges. Scientific studies found that when these refuges do not receive the water they need Bald eagles starve because the waterfowl on which they depend move to wetlands in California's Central Valley. This leaves up to 1,000 wintering Bald eagles without an adequate food supply.

The Bald eagle has been removed from the federal endangered species list but is still listed under provision of California's ESA. The studies identifying water supply as critical to the health and survival of the largest population of Bald eagle in the lower 48 states were completed by the US Fish & Wildlife Services during the Clinton Administration but were suppressed during the Bush Administration.

The eight year delay in implementing dam removal is only necessary so that PacifiCorp's shareholders (including Warren Buffet) do not have to bear part of the cost of removing the dams and powerhouses which are, after all is said and done, the company's property. Opponents of the Dam Deal argue that PacifiCorp shareholders should bear part of the cost.

If this issue had been resolved through the standard FERC relicensing and relinquishment process, critics claim, PacifiCorp's shareholders would have to pay at least part of the dam removal cost. The FERC process has fixed time-lines and would, deal opponents argue, get the dams out sooner and at less cost to taxpayers as compared to the deal announced today.

Controversial legislation which requires cutting funding elsewhere to authorize the $500 million in new spending included in the Water Deal could get held up in Congress for years.

KlamBlog has yet to study the details of the Dam Deal announced yesterday; we will publish a detailed analysis soon. A copy of the draft Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement and a summary are available on line.

Below are links to some of the extensive press coverage which release of the draft Klamath Dam Deal has generated. We find the Associated Press article particularly enlightening:

Bay Area Indy Media:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/09/30/18623925.php

The Associated Press:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i7IdQlgPAwo2el96BS-LNKvyNzQgD9B1U6MG0

The Siskiyou Daily News:
http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/

Northcoast Journal:
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/blogthing/2009/09/29/klamath-dam-deal-announced-opposed/

NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/business/energy-environment/01klamath.html?th=&adxnnl=1&emc=th&adxnnlx=1254394887-as7bgEfqYqP%20F89BTc9boA&pagewanted=print

The Oregonian:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/tentative_deal_will_clear_klam.html

The California Department of Fish and Game: Is it corrupt or just clueless?

One day this week KlamBlog experienced an interesting coincidence. On the same day we received word from a whistleblower that 1500 Fall Chinook salmon are stranded in the lower Shasta River Canyon as a result of low flows, we also received FedEx delivery of the California Department of Fish and Game’s Final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed “Shasta River Watershed-wide Permitting Program.” The adult Chinook are stranded in hot water which may kill them - or kill the eggs inside females - before they can reach spawning ground; the permitting program is designed to render the irrigation and other agricultural practices which stranded the fish in hot water legal under state law.

As of this report six dead adult Chinook have been recovered at the CDFG fish counting weir on the lower Shasta River. The photo below is of one of these fish – a female loaded with eggs. It is expected that many more dead adult Chinook are present in the lower Shasta but are not visible due to water so packed with algae and suspended cattle manure that visibility is severely limited.

Dead Shasta River Chinook Salmon full of unspawned eggs

Photo by Malena Marvin courtesy of Klamath Riverkeeper

If it survives the legal challenges which are planned by fishermen, environmentalists and (possibly) tribes, CDFG’s Watershed-wide Permit will render the Shasta Valley agricultural operations of those who sign up for the permits legal under provisions of the California Endangered Species Act as well as other Fish & Game Codes designed to protect fish. The practices CDFG wants to permit under this program are also responsible for the demise of countless young Chinook and Coho salmon which die each year in the Shasta River while they are trying to migrate to the sea.

Furthermore, in the FedEx package from CDFG we received the Final EIS for a nearly identical program for agricultural interests in the nearby Scott River Basin. The Shasta and Scott together once produced among the largest numbers of wild Chinook and Coho salmon coming from tributaries to the Klamath and Trinity Rivers and they remain essential habitat areas which must produce healthy and abundant salmon if wild Coho and Chinook are to ever recover in the Klamath River Basin.

The demise of Shasta River Coho and Chinook salmon is due primarily to the dewatering of the Shasta River and key tributaries in order to maximize delivery of irrigation water to Shasta Valley farms and ranches. This is not something that happened long ago but rather a saga which continues today. Here’s a short chronology of the demise of salmon in the Shasta. Most of the data presented below is from Life History, Status, and Distribution of Klamath River Chinook Salmon by Jafet Andersson and the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Chinook Salmon Status Review. The rest is from whistleblowers:

• For the most part, the Shasta River escaped the impact which the Gold Rush of the 1850s and 60s visited on salmon in other nearby rivers – the Scott, Salmon, Trinity and Upper Sacramento. That is because the Shasta River Basin is primarily volcanic and no gold can be found in volcanic rocks and soil. In other nearby basins miners dammed, diverted and silted rivers and streamed with abandon. Some of the salmon runs on which local Indigenous folk depended were decimated but others were not affected. While mining impacts continued for some time, when the big rush ended salmon stocks began to recover.

• As late as the 1920s government fisheries folks were reporting large numbers of Spring and Fall Chinook adults spawning in the Shasta River. It is estimated that 5,000 Spring Chinook and up to100,000 Fall Chinook spawned in the Shasta River before large scale irrigation development – including the construction of Dwinnell Dam and Reservoir (aka Lake Shastina) in 1926 to capture and divert water to farms and ranches.

Dwinnell Reservoir in Summer (note toxic algae scum)

• By 1930 Spring Chinook were extirpated from the Shasta River Basin. Dwinnell Dam and Reservoir had cut off access to the deep, cold pools in the upper Shasta River and upper Parks Creek. Springers depended on these deep, cold pools high in the watershed in order to survive through the hot summer in order to spawn in the fall.

• Between 1930 and 1950 the number of adult Fall Chinook salmon spawning in the Shasta River declined from over 80,000 to less than 1,000 fish.

• Between 1950 and 2003 the number of Shasta River spawners was up and down but the overall trend was down. Estimates of the decline range from 2.5% to 5%. The expenditure of an estimated $30 million of taxpayer funds on “habitat restoration” in the Shasta River Basin during this period failed to stem the decline of Shasta River Fall Chinook.

• Sometime in the late 1980s, the Grenada Irrigation District drilled wells to tap the underground river which emerges at Big Springs in the middle of the Shasta River Valley. The flow from Big Springs has diminished from 100-120 cubic feet per second prior to the well drilling to 20-40 cubic feet per second now. Most of the residual flow is diverted by other irrigators downstream. Flows in the Shasta have declined dramatically as a result. The North Coast Water Quality Board has determined that increasing the flow from Big Springs by 45 cubic feet per second would reduce water temperature at the mouth of the Shasta River by 2 degrees Celsius. Those 2 degrees can make the difference between death and survival for salmon eggs inside adult females and for vulnerable young salmon migrating to the sea.

Aerial view of Big Springs

The black dots in the water and on land are cattle

• This year USGS recorded flows in the Shasta River during August and September have been among the lowest flows ever recorded. Flow records go back to 1933.

The California Department of Fish and Game is responsible for protecting Public Trust Resources – including salmon – for the benefit of all Californians. For CDFG chief Don Koch (pronounced “Cook”) it is his sworn duty to protect the salmon for his employer – current and future California citizens. Yet, as outlined in the history above, Koch and those under him have been complicit in the demise of Shasta River salmon.

Now Kock and CDFG want to legalize the destruction by offering permits which will allow the continued dewatering of the Shasta River. If this is allowed to go forward KlamBlog believes we can kiss Shasta River Chinook goodbye. That is one of several reasons EPIC – the Environmental Protection and Information Center - opposed confirmation of Koch as CDFG’s chief executive even as the big environmental and fishing groups were falling over each other to praise him. Before Governator Schwarzenegger appointed him to the top post at CDFG, Koch headed the agency’s Northern District. In that role he has been the official most responsible for the decline and current state of Shasta River Chinook and all Klamath River Salmon.

Is the desire of Donald Koch and the Schwarzenegger Administration to legalize the dewatering of the Shasta and Scott River and the extirpation of salmon from these watersheds corruption? Most readers would probably say “No” – that corruption involves taking bribes and acting illegally.

But the primary definition of corruption in the Merriam Webster dictionary is: impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle. Is it moral and a sign of integrity and virtue when the state official with the most responsibility for assuring that salmon survive and recover not only abrogates that responsibility but also takes action to render the destruction of our salmon legal under state law?

It has been said that “Democracy is the only system that persists in asking the powers that be whether they are the powers that ought to be.” Don Koch should not be the power in the California Department of Fish and Game. Instead he should be denied confirmation by the California Senate and drummed out of CDFG. This is a necessary step to restore the integrity and reputation of the California Department of Fish and Game

As far as we can tell the Senate has not yet confirmed Koch. You can weigh in with the Senate Rules Committee concerning whether or not he should be confirmed as director of CDFG. Send your comments to:

The Honorable Darrell Steinberg, Chair
Senate Rules Committee
State Capitol, Room 420
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attention: Nettie Sabelhaus, Appointments Director

Or you can send an on-line message to Rules Committee Chair Darrell Steinburg via this link.

CDFG’s corrupt and misguided Watershed-wide Permitting Programs for the Shasta and Scott Rivers will go down in flames – or in a flurry of court orders. But that will not be enough. We need a Fish and Game Department which faithfully discharges its duty to uphold the laws which have been enacted to protect and preserve Public Trust resources. We don’t have such an agency today. Getting rid of Koch is a necessary first step but that alone will not end the official corruption. What Californians need and should demand is a Department of Fish and Game with the guts and integrity to fulfill its duties to fish, wildlife and the people of California.