Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
norcalkat

Well Hope we enjoyed our 1st victory because here comes another attack

Rate this topic

15 posts in this topic

Well, as I said after our success with the Fish and Game Commission, we won a battle but the war is yet to be finished...Here's the next battle and it came quick! If you want any Striped Bass in the Bay/Delta or anywhere else in California or any other anadromous fisheries for that matter! You better get in touch with your Congressional Representative because H.R. Bill 1837 by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Tulare, and co-sponsored by House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield is out kill the CVPIA and it's fisheries restoration objectives, as well as sucking Northern California dry. This is a classic example of self serving greed by Southern San Joaquin Valley Corporate AG...

 

 

We need to get everyone we know to write, phone and e-mail their Congressional Rep.'s as well as copy both of their Senators! This Bill is going to committee soon and then to the floor for a vote. We need to act quickly!

Below is just a sample of part of the Bill's language. Especially read (b)(2) below, I'm told that this is an amendment by Tom McClintock.. If they can't win a lawsuit then they buy congressional reps. to overturn any State laws.

 

"SEC. 108. COMPLIANCE WITH ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973.

 

(a) Compliance-

 

(1) IN GENERAL- All requirements of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) shall be considered to be fully met for the protection and conservation of the species listed pursuant to the Act for the operations of the Central Valley Project and the California State Water Project, if the Central Valley Project and the California State Water Project are operated in a manner consistent with the `Principles for Agreement on the Bay-Delta Standards Between the State of California and the Federal Government' dated December 15, 1994.

 

(2) BIOLOGICAL OPINIONS AND MODIFICATION- The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce shall issue biological opinions for coordinated operations of the Central Valley Project and the California State Water Project that are no more restrictive than provisions of the `Principles for Agreement on the Bay-Delta Standards Between the State of California and the Federal Government' dated December 15, 1994. Such biological opinions may be modified only with the consent of the signatories to the `Principles for Agreement on the Bay-Delta Standards Between the State of California and the Federal Government' dated December 15, 1994.

 

(b) Preemption of State Law-

 

(1) STATE LAW PREEMPTION- Neither the State of California, an agency of the State, nor any political subdivision of the State shall adopt or enforce any requirement for the protection or conservation of any species listed under the Endangered Species Act for the operations of the Central Valley Project or the California State Water Project that is more restrictive than the requirements of this section. Any provision of California State law that authorizes the imposition of conditions or restrictions on the operations of the Central Valley Project or the California State Water Project for the protection or conservation of a species that is more restrictive than this section is preempted.

 

(2) NATIVE SPECIES PROTECTION- Any restriction imposed under California law on the take or harvest of any nonnative or introduced aquatic or terrestrial species that preys upon a native fish species that occupies the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries or the Sacramento-San Joaquin Rivers Delta shall be void and is preempted."

 

We all need to start a tidal wave of opposition to HR 1837

Go read it yourself to see what a dangerous bill this is. It will be the complete and total rape of Northern California for Stewart Resnick's personal enrichment and others of his ilk! Read it here:

Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

 

 

here we go again!!This time it will be Stripers, American Shad, LMB, SMB, and arguably hatchery Salmon and Steehead. You wipe out all fishing and there will be no one to argue about taking its water.....This is such a scum bag move.....imo

 

 

oppose hr1837

 

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Wow, just wow! Crazy stuff in there, crazy like "let's secede from the union" if this passes. Section (b)(2) gets our attention as anglers, but (b)(1) is absolutely ridiculous, and to my knowledge, is unprecedented in its goal to wipe out state laws that are more restrictive than federal laws.



 



I don't see this getting out of committee, but worse things have. Even if it does, I don't see either Dem Senator voting for it... even if they are partially in Resnick's pocket. That said, I'm writing a letter.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to step it up a notch on this bill, its nothing to sleep on. HR1837 will kill off everything we enjoy. Here is a quick summary of it.

 

 

San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act - Amends the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) to redefine "anadromous fish" for purposes of such Act as those native stocks of salmon and sturgeon that, as of October 30, 1992, were present in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries and ascend those rivers and their tributaries to reproduce after maturing in San Francisco Bay or the Pacific Ocean. Excludes striped bass and American shad from such definition. (BAD)

 

Directs the Secretary of the Interior, upon request of the contractor, to renew any existing long-term repayment or water service contract that provides for the delivery of water from the Central Valley Project (CVP) for a period of 40 years and renew such contracts for successive 40-year periods. Requires a contract entered into or renewed pursuant to this provision to include a provision that requires the Secretary to charge only for water actually delivered. (WORSE)

 

Directs the Secretary to take actions to facilitate and expedite CVP water transfers. (BAD)

 

Prohibits the Secretary from imposing mitigation or other requirements on a proposed transfer. (WORSE) In other words let 'em of the hook for destroying our fisheries!

 

Authorizes the Secretary to modify CVP operations to provide reasonable water flows of suitable quality, quantity, and timing to protect all life stages of anadromous fish. (Very BAD, "Authorizes" has a whole different meaning than "Requires")

 

Prohibits the Secretary from requiring a payment to the CVP Restoration Fund, or environmental restoration or mitigation fees not otherwise provided by law, as a condition to providing for storage or conveyance of non-CVP water. Requires the Secretary to submit a plan for the expenditure of funds in the Fund, including a cost effectiveness analysis of each expenditure. Establishes a Restoration Fund Advisory Board. (Free ride for those that destroy our fisheries to enrich their selves)

Considers all requirements of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) to be fully met for the protection and conservation of the species listed pursuant to that Act for the operations of the CVP and the California State Water Project (SWP) if such Projects are operated in a manner consistent with the "Principles for Agreement of the Bay-Delta Standards Between the State of California and the Federal Government" dated December 15, 1994 (Bay-Delta Accord). Preempts California requirements for the conservation of any species listed under ESA for the CVP and SWP that are more restrictive than the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord. (BAD) A far lesser standard than what we have now!

Preempts any state law that imposes more restrictive requirements or regulations on activities authorized with respect to San Joaquin River restoration. (BAD) What happened to the Republican hue and cry about State's rights??

Repeals the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. Directs the Secretary: (1) to cease any action to implement the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act and the Stipulation of Settlement; (2) in each water year (October 1-September 30), commencing with the year starting on October 1, 2012, to modify Friant Dam operations so as to release the Restoration Flows (the minimum flow of 50 cubic feet per second at Sack Dam) for that water year; and (3) in cooperation with representatives of affected landowners, to develop and implement a least-cost plan to fully mitigate the impact on groundwater resources within the service area of the Friant Division, Hidden Unit, and Buchanan Unit of the CVP caused by the release of restoration flows.

(Really BAD) It rips up an agreement reach by all parties after 20 years of court battles and will no doubt, send everyone back to the Courts

 

Establishes within the Treasury a San Joaquin River Fishery Restoration Fund. (Bad) From the taxpayers pockets, not the users.

Prohibits the Secretary from distinguishing between natural-spawned and hatchery-spawned or otherwise artificially propagated strains of a species in making ESA determinations. (Bad) This concept has already been tossed by the Courts

Directs the Secretary, upon request of the contractor, to convert all existing long-term contracts with CVP contracts to contracts that require the repayment of the remaining construction costs identified in the most current version of the CVP schedule of Irrigation Capital Allocations by Contractor, by specified dates. (Does this mean the Taxpayers will finally get their money back?? Somehow I doubt it.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


That's all bad, but somehow I did find one laugh in there...

 



Quote:

Originally Posted by norcalkat View Post

...San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act - Amends the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) to redefine "androgynous fish" for purposes of such Act as those native stocks of salmon and sturgeon...



I think those are fish that have a peepee and a vajayjay. I'm guessing that someone doesn't have "anadromous" on their spell checker. Did you write this up? It's a good summary regardless of that hermaphrodite slip. icon14.gif



 



Sorry, back to seriousness, this sucks! Write your Congressperson.



 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's all bad, but somehow I did find one laugh in there...

 

 

 

 

I think those are fish that have a peepee and a vajayjay. I'm guessing that someone doesn't have "anadromous" on their spell checker. Did you write this up? It's a good summary regardless of that hermaphrodite slip. :th:

 

Sorry, back to seriousness, this sucks! Write your Congressperson.

 

 

:laugh: :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California Resource Secretary cites HR1837 as a bad bill

 

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – California Natural Resources Secretary John Laird sent the following letter to the chairman and ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee prior to their mark-up of H.R. 1837, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act.

***********

Dear Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member Markey:

On June 2, 2011, I testified before the Natural Resources Committee’s Water and Power Subcommittee in opposition to H.R. 1837. At the time, the state of California objected to the highly dangerous and unprecedented nature of this legislation. Despite some efforts to recast and amend the flaws of the original legislation, I write on the behalf of the state of California to again express our strong opposition to the amended version of H.R. 1837, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act.

Even after its amendment, H.R. 1837 continues to undermine California’s ability to address its serious water challenges and will erase years of progress toward a collaborative solution to address water issues. The bill seeks to impose extreme legislative decrees – including sweeping exemptions from federal laws and sweeping pre-emption of California state laws – while ignoring the very real problems in our water system that require reasoned, consensus-driven solutions, rather than new congressional mandates.

The centerpiece of H.R.1837 would be to enshrine into law the 1994 water agreement that created the CALFED process. In the subsequent 18 years, many California water issues have changed. The fishery populations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta crashed a decade ago; the full impact of seismic activity on possible water service interruption has been better understood; and the impacts of climate change in water delivery and habitat restoration have more clearly come into view. These facts have led all parties to see the need for a series of new long-term agreements over California’s water future. Yet, H.R. 1837 will undermine our chances of obtaining such agreements and make genuine solutions more difficult.

For the state of California, the carefully wrought and strongly supported bipartisan compromise passed by the California State Legislature in 2009 must guide our development of a Delta solution. The 112th Congress just reaffirmed this guiding principle in its own Omnibus Appropriations bill signed into law just two months ago. The 2009 compromise provided statutory authority to proceed with the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, which will achieve the dual co-equal goals of water supply reliability and ecosystem restoration through the use of sound science. These goals were added to California law as part of this agreement.

By destroying part of this package, H.R. 1837 wreaks havoc with this delicately balanced effort, and could make achieving any final Bay Delta Conservation Plan impossible, despite massive investments by numerous California water agencies to achieve a long-term Delta solution.

H.R. 1837 would also overturn a century old precedent in water law: Congress ought not pre-empt the right of states to manage their own water under state water rights law. If this bill passes, no state will be safe from congressional interference in their water rights laws. Another consequence would be the immediate opposition of states to continued federal involvement in water development, since it would come with the danger of a future Congress overturning state water rights law as H.R. 1837 now seeks to do.

This bill would also overturn the San Joaquin River Restoration Act, an act that resolved an extremely divisive controversy in a way that was supported by all sides. By overturning the Act, H.R. 1837 would almost certainly send that controversy back to court, where the consequences of litigation would be unknown and the ability to resolve long-standing issues, including meeting the co-equal goals could be substantially delayed.

There remain numerous other problems with H.R. 1837, which is as threatening to our state’s laws and future with the newly announced amendments as it was when I testified on the original bill last year. For these reasons and more, we strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 1837 and instead reiterate your support for consensus-based solutions to California’s difficult water issues, solutions that meet the twin goals outlined by the California State Legislature that are based on sound science and sustainable water management.

Sincerely,

John Laird

Secretary for Natural Resources

cc: California Congressional Delegation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think this has a chance of passing,,Even Feinstein & Boxer are against this bill according to the paper...But to be sure we should write our letters anyway...I think Resnick just wants usto improve our writing skillsCost us a buck to mail a couple of letters & it's costing Resnick a bundle on lawers fees..Keepthe good fight guys....Jim :mad::mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damm that is crazy and scary,we fisher people can not afford to sit by...these battles are never ending ....I can not believe our so called representatives let this thing pass....bunch of patties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Rep. Devin Nunes (author of the bill): Today’s vote is an enormous victory for the people of California. With House passage, we are halfway through the legislative process and now can look to the Senate for their response. Will our Senators help restore our property rights and end the death grip of radicals over California’s water supply or will we have to look to others in the Senate to lead the charge?”



 



I don't see it that way Rep Nunes. Partisan crap and north vs. south is all I see, as usual. As much as I dislike our two Senators, I hope they bitchslap this junior congressman down... again. Good for California? Here are some that disagree... (the first one on the list is for you CC wink.gif)



 



Opposition from the White House




Congressional Opposition




State of California Opposition 




Opposition from Other States




Local Government and Water District Opposition




Environmental, Fishing, Farming, and Business Opposition






 Editorials & Op-Eds



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.