12 CapitalPress.com
May 1, 2015
Petition follows a separate federal lawsuit brought last summer
SUIT from Page 1
the state’s standard of a “rea-
sonable” water diversion
because many feasible al-
ternatives exist for divert-
ing the water downstream
from Yosemite, such as im-
proving ties to three other
reservoirs in the Tuolumne
River watershed, investing
in groundwater storage or
exchanges with other agen-
cies.
“Operating a dam and
reservoir in an iconic val-
ley within Yosemite Na-
tional Park is not, in 2015,
a reasonable method of di-
verting water for municipal
uses,” contends the suit,
which names as defendants
the city and county of San
Francisco and its public
utility commission as well
as the Modesto and Turlock
irrigation districts and the
Bay Area Water Supply and
Conservation Agency.
The suit asks the court to
order San Francisco to pre-
pare an engineering and fi-
nancing plan that results in
removal of the O’Shaunessy
Dam and restoration of nat-
ural river flows through the
valley. It also recommends
that the city be given time to
make these improvements.
“We are not advocating
taking or buying water from
agriculture,” Restore Hetch
Hetchy executive director
Spreck Rosekrans told the
Capital Press in an email.
“But paying ag districts to
recharge groundwater when
possible is certainly on the
table.”
Federal suit
The petition, filed April
21, follows a separate federal
lawsuit brought last summer
by the Fresno-based Center
for Environmental Science,
Accuracy and Reliability
(CESAR) that seeks to force
the National Park Service to
comply with environmental
laws in its regulation of the
Hetch Hetchy reservoir.
That group, whose found-
er has ties to the Westlands
Water District, claims the
more than 90-year-old wa-
ter project has been allowed
to skirt environmental laws
while farm irrigation in the
Central Valley has been dras-
tically reduced because of
imperiled fish.
The complaint alleges the
park service failed to con-
sult with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service in annually
approving in-stream flows
for San Francisco’s Hetch
Hetchy operations or submit
proper documents as mandat-
ed by the Endangered Spe-
cies Act.
Further, the federal suit
claims the project itself vio-
lates the ESA by degrading
fish habitat and withholding
water from the beleaguered
Sacramento-San
Joaquin
River Delta, putting it at
more risk of saltwater intru-
sion.
Rosekrans said at the
time the plaintiffs “have a
point that the Endangered
Species Act has not been
uniformly applied,” adding
that “they’re taking on San
Francisco because San Fran-
cisco has probably the most
environmentally destructive
project anywhere.”
City’s response
Tyrone Jue, spokesman for
the city’s utility commission,
did not immediately return a
call seeking comment about
the latest lawsuit. City offi-
cials have argued there are
no real alternatives to Hetch
Hetchy, noting that the grav-
ity-fed water system serves 7
percent of California’s pop-
ulation and generates power
for city buildings, streetlights
and traffic signals, the airport
and the transit system.
Nicole Sandkula, chief
executive officer of the Bay
Area Water Supply and
Conservation Agency, said
draining the reservoir would
threaten the health, safety
and economic well-being of
1.7 million residents of oth-
er Bay Area communities,
too. Any plan to drain Hetch
Hetchy must also provide
for reliable alternative water
storage, she said.
“The alternative storage
and supply must be support-
ed by legally enforceable
agreements addressing water
rights, ownership, operating
responsibilities and other
critical issues,” she said in an
email. “Without resolution of
these issues, no alternative
supply would be as reliable
as the existing supply.”
Restore Hetch Hetchy
argues the reservoir is only
one of nine that comprise the
San Francisco Public Utility
Commission’s water system
and stores less than one-quar-
ter of the system’s water.
The city has a water bank
in the Don Pedro Reservoir
and has the nearby Cher-
ry and Eleanor reservoirs,
to which more water can be
diverted from the Tuolumne
River upstream from Don
Pedro at certain times of the
year.
To make up an estimated
dry-year shortage of 60,000
acre-feet, the group proposes
enlarging Los Vaqueros Res-
ervoir in Contra Costa Coun-
ty, banking groundwater with
the Semitropic Water Storage
District in Kern County, pur-
chasing the water from other
districts which could use the
money to recharge ground-
water supplies, or recycling
the water at Bay Area sewage
plants.
However, the Turlock and
Modesto irrigation districts,
which together provide irri-
gation for several hundred
square miles of farmland and
whose water rights pre-date
San Francisco’s, have said
their Don Pedro Reservoir
can’t take on any more water
if Hetch Hetchy’s dam comes
out.
Reaction mixed
While environmentalists
mostly dismissed the CESAR
lawsuit as politically moti-
vated, some have embraced
Restore Hetch Hetchy’s case.
David Mihalic, one of three
former Yosemite superin-
tendents who serve on the
group’s advisory commit-
tee, said in a statement that
restoration of Hetch Het-
chy is important “not only
to Americans but to people
from around the world” who
would visit it.
“We have a strong case
based on the merits,” Ro-
sekrans said last week.
“Other California water
agencies have done far more
to reduce their impact on the
environment. And we are
not asking for any reduction
in supply — only that it not
be stored in Yosemite Na-
tional Park.”
A study in 2006 estimated the state could support 1,450 wolves
WOLF from Page 1
breeding pairs were count-
ed. Four breeding pairs were
confirmed in 2013 and six in
2012.
Ranchers, who with some
compensation available bear
the cost of livestock attacks
and non-lethal defensive mea-
sures, expected ODFW to be-
gin drafting rules for delisting.
Generally, delisting would
give livestock producers more
leeway to shoot wolves in or-
der to protect cattle, sheep and
guard dogs.
Follow the plan, multiple
speakers told the commission
during its meeting in Bend.
“We lived up to our prom-
ise,” said rancher Todd Nash,
wolf committee chairman for
the Oregon Cattlemen’s As-
sociation. “We wholly expect
the agency and this committee
to live up to theirs.”
Nash said later he favors
statewide delisting of wolves.
A partial delisting in only the
eastern portion invites com-
plication and lawsuits, he
said.
“I think it will delay
the process, and I’m not
in favor of that,” Nash
said.
Meanwhile, conservation
groups say the breeding pair
count is not an automatic
trigger for delisting, and
showed up in force to make
that point.
Amaroq Weiss, West
Coast wolf organizer with
the Center for Biological Di-
versity, arrived from Petalu-
ma, Calif. Suzanne Stone,
Northern Rockies represen-
tative with Defenders of
Wildlife, traveled over from
Boise. Quinn Read, Oregon
Wild’s wildlife coordinator,
was there from Portland, as
was Danielle Moser with the
Endangered Species Coali-
tion. Rob Klavins, Oregon
Wild’s Northeast Oregon
field coordinator, attended
from Enterprise.
They said Oregon’s
77 confirmed wolves —
ODFW believes there may
be 90 to 100 — is far too
small a population to loosen
protection.
Weiss, of the Center for
Biological Diversity, said
an outbreak of disease could
wipe out packs.
“Science tells us we need
Courtesy of ODFW
An ODFW biologist in the process of collaring wolf OR33, a 2-year-old adult male from the Imnaha pack, Feb. 25, 2015 in Wallowa County. Larger wild animals are typically
blindfolded while immobilized to protect eyes and to help calm them.
vastly more numbers” to
assure longterm population
viability, she said afterward.
By that standard, Oregon
needs “on the magnitude of
thousands” of wolves, she
said.
A 2006 study by Tad
Larsen and William Ripple
of Oregon State Universi-
ty’s Department of Forest
Resources estimated the
state could support 1,450
wolves.
Weiss said ODFW has
done a good job of making
its actions “transparent” to
the public in the past couple
years.
“It’s brought the hyste-
ria level down,” Weiss said.
“There have been no wolves
killed. In that time the wolf
population doubled. (Con-
firmed) Depredations have
gone down and the hysteria
has gone down.”
Oregon wolves by the numbers
By ERIC MORTENSON
Capital Press
Some of the highlights from a
gray wolf biological status review
prepared by the Oregon Department
of Fish and Wildlife:
Population — From 14 wolves
documented in 2009, the state’s wolf
count grew to a minimum of 77 at the
end of 2014. Wolf program coordina-
tor Russ Morgan said four more have
been counted since then, bringing the
confirmed population to 81. Morgan
estimates the state may have 90 to
100 wolves.
Range — About 42 percent of
Oregon’s landmass is suitable wolf
habitat. Wolves now occupy about
12 percent of that range.
Origin — Oregon’s wolves are
descended from 66 gray wolves cap-
tured in Alberta and British Colum-
bia, Canada, in 1995 and 1996. Of
those, 35 were released in Central
Idaho and 31 were released in Yel-
lowstone National Park, Wyoming.
An Idaho wolf, B-45, traveled into
Oregon in 1999. It was captured and
returned to Idaho. Biologists pre-
dicted continued dispersement into
Northeast Oregon from Idaho, and
Oregon’s first pack, Wenaha, was
documented in 2008.
Favored prey — Probably elk,
although prey selection and kill rate
analysis isn’t complete. Oregon has
a “robust and widely distributed”
elk population estimated at 128,000.
From 2009 through 2014, elk pop-
ulation increased in four Northeast
Oregon management units that have
had wolf packs for at least four years.
Confirmed livestock losses — 76
sheep, 36 cattle and two goats since
2009. Ranchers believe there have
been many more livestock killed,
saying cattle disappear and are not
found. Other primary prey — Mule
deer, black-tail deer and white-
tail deer. Oregon has an estimated
229,000 mule deer in Eastern Ore-
gon; the other two species are “abun-
dant.”
Wolf deaths — Five wolves
have been illegally shot since 2000.
ODFW killed four for chronic live-
stock attacks. One wolf was hit by a
vehicle and one died during a cap-
ture attempt. At least two pups died
of parvovirus. ODFW has not docu-
mented any wolf kills by cougars or
bears.
The Roza began delivering water to growers in mid-March
WATER from Page 1
The districts — two of
the largest in the Lower Ya-
kima Valley — are already
rationing water since the Ya-
kima Basin supply is forecast
by the U.S. Bureau of Rec-
lamation to be 54 percent of
normal. It may go lower next
week. Snowfall was insuf-
ficient in the mountains last
winter.
The Roza began deliv-
ering water to growers in
mid-March and reduced allo-
cations from 7.1 gallons per
minute to 1.8 gpm on April
20 in hopes of saving water
for July and August, Revell
said.
It’s a 75 percent reduction
and flow is so low that some
pumps are having trouble, he
said.
The district can’t operate at
any lower flow and is consid-
ering cutting off all water for
20 days in May to save water
for July and August, he said.
That would add about 17 days
of water to the end of the sea-
son, he said.
Effects of the reduction
so far vary since wine grapes
don’t need as much water and
most hops are on drip irriga-
tion systems, which helps,
Revell said.
However, he said he’s heard
from hop and apple growers
“looking at which parts of
their operations they can sacri-
fice. I think some are starting
to do those things. It’s very
serious. We’re just as worried
about next year.”
In the last drought 10 years
ago, the Roza leased 24,000
acre-feet of water from SVID
and 4,000 from other districts
at $300 per acre, he said.
The Wapato Irrigation
Project is the other big irri-
gation system in the Lower
Yakima Valley. It is operated
by the Bureau of Indian Af-
fairs. The Wapato apparently
has operational problems and
prospects of leasing from it
are not good, Revell said.
Roza has also leased from
the smaller Naches-Selah and
Yakima-Tieton districts in the
past and is talking with them,
he said.
The Roza serves 1,700
growers on 72,000 acres from
Selah to Benton City. The
Roza has junior water rights,
giving it less claim to water
than SVID, which has senior
rights. SVID has 11,000 ac-
counts for 94,614 acres from
just below Union Gap about
45 miles to just below Pross-
er.
SVID began water deliver-
ies April 1 and reduced them
from 7-7.5 gallons per minute
to 6.7 gpm April 20 and then
to 5.7 gpm on April 27, Trull
said. They may drop more to
save water for July, August
and September, he said.
At 5.7 gpm “large growers
may have to run water on one
field at a time instead of two.
It requires flexibility, but it’s
manageable,” Trull said.
The Kennewick Irriga-
tion District is at the end of
the U.S. Bureau of Reclama-
tion’s Yakima Project. It has
23,249 accounts on 20,201
acres and a mix of agricul-
tural crops and residential
lawns. The district is urging
residential users to water
lawns only twice a week.
It’s a return-flow district
meaning it gets its water from
seepage and spillage from
upriver districts, said Chuck
Freeman, manager.
“We are concerned about
the impact of rationing and
conservation by those dis-
tricts,” he said.