Below is a good link for information about the threats facing the Mokelumne.

http://www.foothillconservancy.org/pages/Mokelumne2.cgi

Here’s my campaign website:http://www.turnerforebmud.com
Thanks for taking a look.  All the best,

-Matt Turner for EBMUD 20885 Redwood Rd. #332 Castro Valley, CA 94546
(510) 731-8674

Attached is the agenda for the State Water Resources Control Board September 7, 2010 Board Meeting.

At this meeting the State Water Resources Control Board will consider a proposed Resolution approving amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region (Basin Plan) to establish: (1) site specific water quality objectives for dissolved oxygen in the Klamath River; (2) an action plan for the Klamath River Total Maximum Daily Loads addressing temperature, dissolved oxygen, nutrient, and microcystin impairments in the Klamath River; and (3) an implementation plan for the Klamath and Lost River Basins. (Written comments were due on July 21, 2010 by 12 noon.)

Thank you,

Jeanine Townsend

Clerk to the Board

State Water Resources Control Board

1001 I Street. 24th Floor

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: (916) 341-5600

Fax: (916) 341-5620

E-mail: jtownsend@waterboards.ca.gov

SB 565 would:• Provide the State Water Resources Control Board with adequate authority to investigate and stop unlawful diversions of water;
• Modernize the penalties for unlawful use and illegal diversion of water, which have not been significantly updated in nearly 20 years;
We hear that Chesbro and Evans may not support the bill because of opposition by the Wine Institute and others. They need to know that illegal diversions of water are harming the fish and other wildlife on the North Coast.
Illegally diverting water is theft and harms not only the environment but the legal holders of water rights.
Please call Assemblymember Chesbro at (916) 319 – 2001. Please call Assemblymember Evans at (916) 319 – 2007.
Attached is more information about the bill.  Please forward this to others and ask them to contact Evans and Chesbro and urge them to support SB 565.
Feel free to contact me for more information.
Jim Metropulos Sierra Club California jim.metropulos@sierraclub.org www.twitter.com/SierraClubCA

August 19, 2010, 10 a.m. – 3 p.m., Statewide Water Analysis Network (SWAN) Workshop, Sacramento, CALocation: Bonderson Hearing Room, 901 P Street, 1st floor, Sacramento, CA 95814

http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/materials/index.cfm?subject=aug1910

Meeting Purpose:

Recap technical accomplishments of Water Plan Update 2009 & stakeholder input on pressing questions to be answered with quantitative information.

Identify course corrections needed in the analytical approach to get ready for Update 2013.

Discuss a proposal to evaluate water management responses for Update 2013 through multiple scenarios and Robust Decision Making.

Solicit advice from members to prioritize technical work for Update 2013 and provide recommendations to bring to the policy advisory groups for the Water Plan.

RSVP REQUESTED BY August 13th , 2010 to juricich@water.ca.gov

http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/docs/meeting_materials/drought/2010.08.10/CA_Drought_Contingency_Plan-Public_Review_Draft-081010.pdf

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/northcoast/water_issues/programs/dairies/

Stephen

The US Environmental Protection Agency announced recently that it is taking the first step to veto an Army Corps of Engineers permit for the Spruce No. 1 mine in West Virginia, the largest mountaintop removal mine ever authorized by the Corps in Appalachia. EPA has ultimate authority to enforce the Clean Water Act through the veto process established by law. The EPA’s action is based on scientific studies that contain evidence that the mine would have severe health impacts on the people, waters and ecosystems of the surrounding area.

The mine would bury more than seven miles of headwater streams, directly impact 2,278 acres of forestland, and degrade water quality in streams adjacent to the mine. EPA’s proposal to veto the mine’s permit under the Clean Water Act comes after extended discussions with the company failed to produce an agreement by the company to significantly decrease the mine’s environmental and health impacts, or fully comply with the law.
It is urgent for EPA to hear public support for its proposed denial of this permit. After years of destroying the environment and poisoning the waters of local communities, the mining company is suing to stop this critical veto and undo any protections, even before EPA has time to finalize its decision. Public comments must be received by Tuesday, June 1, 2010. Please feel free to share this action alert with members of your own organizations and other networks so we can generate a high volume of written support for EPA’s proposal!

How to submit comments We have prepared a list of suggested talking points that you can use to write your own comments. Personalized comments are the most powerful, and we strongly encourage you to craft your own comments rather than copy our talking points verbatim. If you are a resident of or native to Appalachia, we especially encourage you to share compelling stories about living with this destructive practice in your own backyard. We would love to see your comments so please send a copy of them to Jennifer Peters at jenniferpeters@cleanwaternetwork.org.

Comments must be received by Tuesday, June 1, 2010. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R03-OW-2009-095, using one of the following methods:Federal eRulemaking Portal (this is EPA’s recommended method of comment submission): http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Email your comments to: ow-docket@epamail.epa.gov. Make sure you include the docket number, EPA-R03-OW-2009-0985, in the subject line of your message.

David

State Water Resources Control Board Denies Legal Appeal for Life-line of Water to Save Eel River Salmon

SAUSALITO, Calif., May 4  — Friends of the Eel River (FOER) announced today that the State of California Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), rejected the organization’s petition to increase water flows on the Eel River — water that is critical for the survival of state and federally listed endangered salmon, on what was once the third largest salmon and steelhead producing river in the State of California.  The SWRCB letter is attached.

Friends of the Eel River and organic seed farmer Bill Reynolds petitioned the SWRCB on February 25, 2010, to end diversions at Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s (PG&E’s) Potter Valley hydroelectric project (PVP), consisting of two dams and a diversion tunnel. The Petition asked the SWRCB to eliminate PG&E’s current water rights for the PVP to protect public trust resources on the Eel River, and to prevent unreasonable use of water.

California’s Constitution Article 10 mandates that the state’s waters can be permitted for use, but imposes a clear test that such use be “reasonable and beneficial”, and that it shall avoid “waste or unreasonable use”.   The Constitution and federal law upholds the centuries-old legal tradition and requirement to protect the “public trust”; those natural resources that are held in common for the public good.  Friends of the Eel River believes that the 102 year-old diversion of water from the Eel River at PG&E’s PVP does not meet these critical legal and moral tests for continued water use, as PG&E is only generating, at maximum, 9.4 megawatts of hydropower.

Friends of the Eel River and many people and businesses of the North Coast have long known that the diversion of water from the Eel River to the Russian River via the Potter Valley Project is very destructive to the once abundant salmon and steelhead fisheries of the Eel River, the regional and tribal economy, and tourism.  PG&E’s water diversion is a major contributor to the extermination of the once prolific and world famous salmon and steelhead runs of the Eel River watershed.  While Eel River watershed stakeholders have been severely and increasingly harmed during the past century, the beneficiaries of the water diversion in southern Mendocino, Sonoma and Marin Counties have prospered from this infusion of mismanaged water.

Executive Director of FOER, Nadananda, noted that there is no time to loose, “We had more fish returning this year than we have in the past 20 years, but for a river as long and as wide as it is, the dribble of water that was allowed out of the dams was clearly not enough for the fish to travel up to spawn.”  She added, “The gravel beds that separate so many sections of the river are where most of the fish are ending up – dead.”

The SWRCB rejected FOER’s petition, stating that they interpret their authority over flows of water through the PVP narrowly:  they believe that control of those flows is subject to federal law, via the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC’s) licensing and regulation of the PVP, not state law.   In response to the denial, FOER’s attorney, Ellison Folk, stated:  “We believe that the Water Board has taken an unduly narrow view of its authority and mandate to ensure the reasonable use of Eel River water and to protect the Eel River fisheries.”

The denial of the petition, although disappointing, is not prejudiced.  The door is open for FOER to resubmit an amended petition which will address the areas cited by the SWRCB.  FOER will continue to work with the SWRCB to see that the water conditions on the Eel River are modified in order to restore a healthy Eel River for the wild salmon, as well as the residents, businesses, property owners and visitors who cherish and benefit from the Eel River.

About Friends of the Eel River

Friends of the Eel River (FOER), was founded in 1994 and has been acknowledged and praised for its devotion to the monitoring, defense and advocacy of the Eel River watershed. Through the education and support of residents, businesses and visitors in this third largest watershed in California, FOER has become a formidable challenger of large corporations and public agencies in the interest of preserving California’s North Coast public trust resources. FOER is supported by over 2500 members, a solid volunteer base, a large contingent of scientists and fisheries experts, sport fishing alliances, river enthusiasts, and concerned citizens who are working together to meet the challenges to the Eel River’s watershed integrity.  For more information visit www.eelriver.org

Additional information about the FOER legal action before the State Water Resources Board, including the legal petition, protest, and exhibits, can be found at:http://eelriver.org/news_updates.php

Alan Levine