By Denny Walsh
-- Bee Staff Writer
Saturday, July 30,
2005
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation violated the Endangered Species
Act in pushing through tens of millions of dollars in water delivery contracts
for Central Valley farmers in 2001 while paying scant attention to the impact on
protected species and their habitats, a federal judge in Sacramento has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton found that biological opinions
by two federal agencies - the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service - written to support the contracts are fatally flawed.
"This ruling documents the government's utter failure to consider the
wide-ranging impacts of Friant diversions on downstream fisheries and the San
Francisco Bay Delta," said Kate Poole, an attorney with the National Resources
Defense Council, a plaintiff in the 17-year-old lawsuit.
"It is time for
the government to take the blinders off and acknowledge the effects of Friant
Dam on the downstream environment and our state's imperiled fisheries," Poole
said.
The ruling is the second time in less than a year that Karlton has
found the Bureau of Reclamation has botched its operation of the Friant Dam and
its sale of water captured by the dam and diverted from the San Joaquin River to
Valley farmers.
As part of the same suit, Karlton determined last August
that the bureau's operation of the dam had dried up miles of the river,
destroying fish populations.
The two orders, and another upcoming on
different questions of liability, set the stage for a Feb. 14 trial on what can
be done to repair the damage done to the river, species and their habitat.
Spokesmen for the three government agencies said the Karlton order filed
Thursday is still under review and there will be no comment at this time.
Gregory Wilkinson, an attorney for the irrigation districts that buy
water from the Bureau of Reclamation, said, "I'm quite disappointed. But we'll
continue to prepare for trial on the remedies phase of the case."
The
bureau is paid approximately $117.7 million a year to deliver diverted waters of
the San Joaquin River to 28 irrigation districts, primarily for Central Valley
agriculture along the Friant-Kern Canal that serves thousands of farmers in
Fresno, Tulare, Kern and Madera counties.
In Thursday's 78-page order
Karlton wrote: "While numerous examples may be found, perhaps the clearest
instance of arbitrary conduct was when the bureau, knowing the Fish and Wildlife
Service based its (biological) analysis on less than the full contract amount
(of water), nevertheless, adopted a 'no jeopardy' finding," meaning the water
sale would not put any endangered or threatened species at risk.
Even
though the new contracts called for deliveries of 2.14 million acre-feet a year
for 25 years, Fish and Wildlife used much lower delivery figures from 1988
through 1997 to calculate impact, explaining in its biological opinion that "delivery of full contract quantities is unrealistic."
"Simply put, FWS
did not evaluate the effects of the entire authorized agency action," Karlton
pointed out. The Endangered Species Act "mandates that biological opinions must
be coextensive with the action authorized."
The judge also cited an
e-mail from a Fish and Wildlife senior biologist to a colleague on Jan. 19,
2001, the same day the agency's biological opinion was issued.
The
message discussed " 'possible holes and weaknesses in our crash (biological
opinion),' including inadequate time to do a consultation, inadequate biological
assessments, a track record of lack of compliance by the Bureau of Reclamation,
concern that the contracts are inconsistent with the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act, and lack of coordination with the National Marine Fisheries
Service."
The day before the message was written, Fish and Wildlife
biologists met with their field supervisor as the new contracts were about to be
executed. A biologist asked if they could even consider the issue of jeopardy,
as required by the Endangered Species Act.
The field supervisor, Wayne
White, said it was "too late" to consider jeopardy, according to Karlton's
order. "The opinion had to be rushed out the following day, Mr. White explained,
to avoid the opinion becoming even weaker under the incoming Bush
administration," the order says.
"Because the bureau failed to carry out
its duty to ensure against jeopardy (to protected species) and adverse
modification (of habitats), and because the bureau knew of the deficiency, the
court must conclude that its conduct was arbitrary and capricious," Karlton
wrote.
The judge's order states that the National Marine Fisheries
Service's biological opinion has no meaningful discussion of impact on critical
habitat for winter-run chinook salmon.
As to the California condor, the
Fish and Wildlife opinion "appears to contain no discussion whatever of the
effect of the contract renewal on 'critical habitat,' much less mention of
recovery or conservation," the judge wrote.
For the Delta smelt, the
Fish and Wildlife opinion "is simply inadequate by any measure," Karlton wrote.
The same is true, he said, for five other speicies.
The 14 plaintiffs
claim consultations on steelhead and spring-run chinook salmon had not been
completed before the biological opinion said the species would not be at risk.
The record supports that contention, Karlton wrote.
The Bee's Denny Walsh can be reached at (916) 321-1189 or dwalsh@sacbee.com
This
article is protected by copyright and should not be printed or distributed for
anything except personal use.
The Sacramento Bee, 2100 Q St., P.O. Box 15779,
Sacramento, CA 95852
Phone: (916) 321-1000
Copyright © The Sacramento
Bee