The Northern California Fly Fishing Board

Delta Ruling 7/23/10

Last year the NCCFFF voted to approve both the use of Striperfest and its efforts and funds to support the legal fees in the Striped Bass lawsuit, "Coalition for a Sustainable Delta vs. John McCammons, et al." CSPA's attorney, Michael Jackson, represents us as defendant interveners. He has done a wonderful job for stripers to date, and has represented our interests well. There is no doubt that Michael understands the issues, and is passionate about the fishery and Delta.

Judge Wanger ruled against summary judgment. This means that a formal trial is needed to decide the issues, and that the claims of the plaintiff are not necessarily factual or appropriate. There will be a conference in the court next Tuesday to decide the process going forward. It is possible that the plaintiff could withdraw from the case, but that is not likely, and I think that we as defendants are committed to continuing.

The claims in the case are essentially that stripers are the major predator on listed species in the Delta, and the protections of them by DFG fishing regulations are inappropriate. They therefore have filed suit against DFG to get the regulations changed. There are many complexities in this case, and going into them is inappropriate here due to space. Suffice it to say, if we want the striper to remain as a California game fish, we need to win this suit. That is the reason NCCFFF, CSPA, Striperfest, Central Delta Water Agency and CSBA are all supporting defendant DFG in this case.

We'll know more after the conference next week on what will be happening in the future. If the case moves forward to trial, we will need to discuss what support we can provide in the future. NCCFFF VP Conservation Mark Rockwell is working on gathering past financial information so we can evaluate costs to date, and what can be expected going forward.

For striped bass, this is a critical case, and will likely be the basis of other decisions on stripers. Currently, there is too much focus on predator-prey in the Delta and not enough focus on the other, man created stressors. Striped bass have lived in harmony with other species in the Delta for more than 130 years. There is no reason to think this cannot continue if the more recent Delta challenges are addressed well.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to contact me.

Dr. C. Mark Rockwell, D.C.
V.P. Conservation, Northern Calif. Council,
Federation of Fly Fishers 530 432-9198 This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it www.nccfff.org

I still have mixed opinions on this one..... I don't know if "living in harmony for the last 130 years" is the right quote to throw out there. Bottom line is they are not native. And to be honest, could we really impact a predatory species with over fishing? With the diversion dam gates being open longer and soon to be open forever, these predatory fish are starting to move further upriver and pick off native rainbows as well. I understand that they are not the biggest problem concerning our salmon. But they are a problem. Just some food for thought.

Yes, they have been living in harmony and in great numbers before more water was extracted that the resource can stand. Stripers are naturalized citizens and tests of have only indicated minimum predation. Unless you want to first eliminate all the squawfish, largemouth bass, and shad, lets bring back our fantastic striped bass populations. More Water will bring back the salmon, steelhead, stripers, and shad to their great historical levels.

The present capacity of the pumps are about 10,000 cfs. The peripheral canal, if you vote for the bond issue, will bring it up to 15,000 cfs. Our fishery demands only a 3,000 cfs removal. Why do you, the taxpayer, have to pay to irrigate the entire Mojave Desert?

In 2005 Westland Water District farmers paid between $8/af and $27.57/af
dependent on their location. If they had to pay the Bureau of Reclamation's cost based on how it was to be calculated in 1982, the 2005 subsidized price would have been $55.20/af. Oddly these prices do not include the full major energy and construction costs to pump the water to Westlands. That would bring it to much more than $170/af. Pumping this water requires one of the greatest uses of energy in the state. In 2003 the Environmental Water Account was paying $129.48/af to buy water back from these thieves.

I just looked at our home water bill. We used 7,921 gallons over a three month period starting in March and as far as I can tell, we paid the City of Sunnyvale at $666.42/af

Estimates of the water subsidy ranged from $24 million to $110 million — all of which went to just 422 farms. Some Westlands farmers are also getting a double helping of government subsidies. These "double dippers" not only get federal irrigation water delivered at cut-rate prices, they then turn around and get cash payments from the government for growing subsidized crops they have irrigated with highly subsidized water. Matching up names and addresses in our crop and water subsidy databases, EWG found that 37 percent of farms in Westlands were double dipping in 2002, with crop subsidy payments alone averaging $144,345 per farm. Overall, these 156 farms got crop subsidy checks worth $22.5 million in 2002.

You're also paying the cost of the latest game in town, Water Districts making big profits, from the sale of the water they they get, that we subsidize.

http://www.ewg.org/node/8585
http://www...t_formula.htm#calculator
http://aquafornia.com/

Skitt fiske!

I understand all your "facts". But the bottom line is Salmon 1st. Thats the way I look at the situation. Stripers,Largemouth, and Shad are a damn hearty fish and Not native. Thier the type of fish you could dump 5 truckloads of hatchery fish in any part of the river and call it good. We're facing a little bit of a different story with Salmon..... Any efforts or funds going to these non-native fish before they go to Salmon of the Lower Sacramento is a selfish mistake. I'm all for getting more water in the delta and what not. I just don't believe that there should be programs putting funds and lobbying for a non native species over our almost extinct native fish.

I agree philosophically with some of what you are saying. But the strippers co-existed with strong salmon runs for a number of years. If I recall correctly the strippers were transplanted in the 1880's and the decline of the salmon population has only been in the past 30 years.I would certainly agree with your point that predation is one of the factors that is effecting the overall salmon run on the Sacramento. I guess I would ask to what degree is the salmon population effected by strippers? I would say my biggest concern would be the issue of stripper predation is being used as a ploy for another agenda which has nothing to do with the health of any fish population. This is certainly a complex issue.

Right on, its a water agency ploy, on which basis they actually sued DFG. We are intervenors on the side of Fish and Game. Last ruling was in our favor but the battle goers on.

Several of us from FFF spoke to Dr. Peter Moyle at the March SRF/AFS Conference in Redding and he laughed at the thought:"Concern about striper predation on salmon is a bad biological joke. It's ludicrous."

Skitt fiske!

It's not as complex as some people think, two of the reasons salmon, steelhead and other native species are in trouble are mismanagement and excessive pumping past poorly designed and installed screens (if they had been installed properly, there wouldn't be stripers in the canal system or in San Luis Res.).
the lawsuit (in my opinion) is a rather transparent attempt at a water grab.