By Jon Rosenfield, PhD, SF Baykeeper science director; and Eric Buescher, SF Baykeeper managing attorney
California is at the forefront of a global crisis known as the Anthropocene extinction. This rapid eradication of living diversity is not caused by meteor strikes or volcanic eruptions, but by human activity.
No animal group is more at risk than fishes. Researchers recently concluded that our state is a world leader in the number of freshwater fishes likely to become extinct by the end of the century. Governor Newsom’s water policies are accelerating this race to oblivion.
Many of California’s imperiled native fishes live in San Francisco Bay, including five species that are listed under the federal Endangered Species Act. Baykeeper recently sued the US Fish and Wildlife Service to add the Bay’s population of longfin smelt to that list. And, late last year, we and our partners petitioned state and federal agencies to protect the Bay’s white sturgeon population as threatened after decades of decline.
These species suffer because of human water management decisions. Impassable dams block most of the historical freshwater habitat for migratory fish, and they release water that is too hot for fish eggs incubating downstream. The dams are part of a vast water management infrastructure that allows California to divert or store about half of the natural flow from Central Valley rivers that would otherwise reach the Bay.
The effects of our unsustainable water management extend beyond endangered species. Last summer, California’s salmon fishing season was closed completely because Central Valley spawning populations collapsed following years of bad decisions by state and federal water managers. Depleted river flows also promote toxic algal blooms that now persist throughout the summer in Delta communities like Stockton. Central Valley tribes can no longer rely on fishing for subsistence, and their water-based ceremonies are at risk of being lost forever.
Fortunately, California has a powerful tool to restore and protect San Francisco Bay and its watershed: the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan. This plan is required under state and federal laws to create standards and rules to protect human activities that rely on clean water, vibrant fish populations, and functioning ecosystems.
We recently reviewed and submitted comments on proposed updates to the Bay-Delta Plan. One proposal, written by the State Water Board, calls for small increases to river flows and protection for coldwater salmon spawning habitat upstream. But the Water Board’s own analysis demonstrates that this proposal will not restore imperiled species or decimated fisheries. Tiny incremental improvements will not reverse the massive degradation of the Bay-Delta ecosystem.
The second proposal is a set of voluntary schemes negotiated in secret by Governor Newsom with large agribusiness and urban water purveyors. Not surprisingly, the Governor’s “voluntary agreement” (VA) promises much less water to protect San Francisco Bay than does the Water Board’s inadequate plan.
Newsom’s VA is astonishingly weak. The Water Board’s analysis shows that, at best, the VA’s purported benefits will be meager. For example, although flows to San Francisco Bay are projected to increase slightly over the severely degraded status quo in many years, the VA would result in lower flows to the Bay in wet years—the only times when our Chinook salmon, white sturgeon, longfin smelt, and other native fish can still catch a break. Without suitable conditions that now result only during very wet years, imperiled fish will continue to slide toward extinction and the Bay’s once-productive fisheries will continue to wither.
The proposed VA would spend tens of millions of dollars for more science, a new bureaucracy, and for wetland and floodplain restoration efforts. These are not the problem or the solution. And despite the money promised for so-called “habitat” restoration, the Water Board’s analysis projects that the VA will actually reduce the habitat available to several species. Habitat available for rearing juvenile Chinook Salmon would increase by 2-3 percent, at most.
Importantly, neither the Governor’s VA nor the Water Board’s proposal would prevent new dams or diversions from removing even more water from the Bay-Delta. That means the promised additional flows will never materialize. In fact, Newsom’s Department of Water Resources just approved its plan to build a new tunnel to divert additional fresh water from the ecosystem. Baykeeper and our allies are challenging the tunnel’s inadequate and misleading environmental impact report in court.
Sadly, these two proposals to update the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan are woefully inadequate to meet the self-created crisis we face. Neither alternative would create environmental conditions that comply with California law, halt the extinction crisis in the Bay-Delta, or restore this estuary for future generations.
The Water Board’s flow proposal is inadequate, but at least it focuses on the right problems. The best available science shows that preventing extinctions and restoring the Bay’s fisheries will require significant increases in river flows through the Delta to San Francisco Bay, while maintaining coldwater habitats for spawning salmon upstream.
Governor Newsom’s VA is a ruse, not a serious proposal to protect the Bay-Delta. Since the 1990s, California has invested heavily in earth-moving projects intended to restore “habitat” in lieu of the river flows that science indicated were necessary. The result: fish, fisheries, and water quality have continued to decline as water diversions increased.
The Board should reject the Governor’s proposed VA, increase Bay-Delta flows and coldwater habitat safeguards beyond what is currently proposed, and ensure future dam and diversion projects do not later undermine those protections.
By protecting and restoring San Francisco Bay and its watershed, California can show the rest of the world how to avert the Anthropocene extinction. But the state needs to follow the science, and not double-down on false promises.
GUEST COMMENTARY: Gov. Newsom is accelerating California’s extinction crisis
By Jon Rosenfield, PhD, SF Baykeeper science director; and Eric Buescher, SF Baykeeper managing attorney
California is at the forefront of a global crisis known as the Anthropocene extinction. This rapid eradication of living diversity is not caused by meteor strikes or volcanic eruptions, but by human activity.
No animal group is more at risk than fishes. Researchers recently concluded that our state is a world leader in the number of freshwater fishes likely to become extinct by the end of the century. Governor Newsom’s water policies are accelerating this race to oblivion.
Many of California’s imperiled native fishes live in San Francisco Bay, including five species that are listed under the federal Endangered Species Act. Baykeeper recently sued the US Fish and Wildlife Service to add the Bay’s population of longfin smelt to that list. And, late last year, we and our partners petitioned state and federal agencies to protect the Bay’s white sturgeon population as threatened after decades of decline.
These species suffer because of human water management decisions. Impassable dams block most of the historical freshwater habitat for migratory fish, and they release water that is too hot for fish eggs incubating downstream. The dams are part of a vast water management infrastructure that allows California to divert or store about half of the natural flow from Central Valley rivers that would otherwise reach the Bay.
The effects of our unsustainable water management extend beyond endangered species. Last summer, California’s salmon fishing season was closed completely because Central Valley spawning populations collapsed following years of bad decisions by state and federal water managers. Depleted river flows also promote toxic algal blooms that now persist throughout the summer in Delta communities like Stockton. Central Valley tribes can no longer rely on fishing for subsistence, and their water-based ceremonies are at risk of being lost forever.
Fortunately, California has a powerful tool to restore and protect San Francisco Bay and its watershed: the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan. This plan is required under state and federal laws to create standards and rules to protect human activities that rely on clean water, vibrant fish populations, and functioning ecosystems.
We recently reviewed and submitted comments on proposed updates to the Bay-Delta Plan. One proposal, written by the State Water Board, calls for small increases to river flows and protection for coldwater salmon spawning habitat upstream. But the Water Board’s own analysis demonstrates that this proposal will not restore imperiled species or decimated fisheries. Tiny incremental improvements will not reverse the massive degradation of the Bay-Delta ecosystem.
The second proposal is a set of voluntary schemes negotiated in secret by Governor Newsom with large agribusiness and urban water purveyors. Not surprisingly, the Governor’s “voluntary agreement” (VA) promises much less water to protect San Francisco Bay than does the Water Board’s inadequate plan.
Newsom’s VA is astonishingly weak. The Water Board’s analysis shows that, at best, the VA’s purported benefits will be meager. For example, although flows to San Francisco Bay are projected to increase slightly over the severely degraded status quo in many years, the VA would result in lower flows to the Bay in wet years—the only times when our Chinook salmon, white sturgeon, longfin smelt, and other native fish can still catch a break. Without suitable conditions that now result only during very wet years, imperiled fish will continue to slide toward extinction and the Bay’s once-productive fisheries will continue to wither.
The proposed VA would spend tens of millions of dollars for more science, a new bureaucracy, and for wetland and floodplain restoration efforts. These are not the problem or the solution. And despite the money promised for so-called “habitat” restoration, the Water Board’s analysis projects that the VA will actually reduce the habitat available to several species. Habitat available for rearing juvenile Chinook Salmon would increase by 2-3 percent, at most.
Importantly, neither the Governor’s VA nor the Water Board’s proposal would prevent new dams or diversions from removing even more water from the Bay-Delta. That means the promised additional flows will never materialize. In fact, Newsom’s Department of Water Resources just approved its plan to build a new tunnel to divert additional fresh water from the ecosystem. Baykeeper and our allies are challenging the tunnel’s inadequate and misleading environmental impact report in court.
Sadly, these two proposals to update the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan are woefully inadequate to meet the self-created crisis we face. Neither alternative would create environmental conditions that comply with California law, halt the extinction crisis in the Bay-Delta, or restore this estuary for future generations.
The Water Board’s flow proposal is inadequate, but at least it focuses on the right problems. The best available science shows that preventing extinctions and restoring the Bay’s fisheries will require significant increases in river flows through the Delta to San Francisco Bay, while maintaining coldwater habitats for spawning salmon upstream.
Governor Newsom’s VA is a ruse, not a serious proposal to protect the Bay-Delta. Since the 1990s, California has invested heavily in earth-moving projects intended to restore “habitat” in lieu of the river flows that science indicated were necessary. The result: fish, fisheries, and water quality have continued to decline as water diversions increased.
The Board should reject the Governor’s proposed VA, increase Bay-Delta flows and coldwater habitat safeguards beyond what is currently proposed, and ensure future dam and diversion projects do not later undermine those protections.
By protecting and restoring San Francisco Bay and its watershed, California can show the rest of the world how to avert the Anthropocene extinction. But the state needs to follow the science, and not double-down on false promises.