Thread by @RestoretheDelta

TODAY: @CaWaterBoards Voluntary Agreements Science Report Workshop 10:00 a.m.
CalEPA Building 1001 I Street, Sacramento
Watch VA Workshop youtube.com/user/BoardWebS…
Register for Public Comment
bit.ly/3kuCEp0

The @CaWaterBoards staff has begun with their presentation on the Proposed #VoluntaryAgreements, including updates to the #BayDeltaPlan.

Currently staff are reviewing the @cawaterboards efforts to date on the #BayDeltaPlan .

Here are upcoming actions. We will be following the process and updating members along the way.

In-depth timeline of the LSJR & SDS Plan Amendments between 2019 through 2022 is being discussed along with the next steps and implementation for these activities.

Here are the plans for the next year for Lower San Joaquin River (LSJR) & South Delta Salinity (SDS) #CaWater

Chuck Bonham of @CaliforniaDFW of “exciting possibilities” that will finish off historic fisheries & create more HABs for Delta residents through voluntary agreements! #CaWater

Chuck Bonham believes contradicting past work of his agency on the need for flows will save fish! Ha! #WhatYouSaidAboutFlows

The scientific report Chuck Bonham speaks about glowingly for VA’s is incomplete and contains science for special interests, not fishery or EJ protection. @CaliforniaDFW @CaWaterBoards #CaWater

And for the record— Restore the Delta strongly supports habitat restoration for fish and floodplains. What we don’t support is when the science shows that habitat will receives less flow & intent is greenwashed while EJ & tribal communities suffer. #whatyousaidaboutflows #cawater

Boardmember Firestone says that all of the details matter when it comes to water management of the Delta and it should be collaborative and we agree. However, #VoluntaryAgreements and reduced Delta flows are not the collaboration we need. @CaWaterBoards
#CaWater

Tina Yin from EPA Region 9 reminds the @CaWaterBoards that @epa has a duty to review all new water quality standards and action plans from the State. (1/

Everything is subject to approval or disapproval from @epa based on what is consistent with standards for ALL beneficial uses, and that EPA protects those uses under an open public process. (2/

She acknowledged the Petition for Changemaking from the Stanford coalition and says that EPA will be paying attention to what happens with the VAs and updates to the Bay-Delta plan. (3/3)

Barry Nelson representing @goldenstsalmon says that the VA timeline shows a long pattern of failing to complete a package and deadline. Each time the @CaWaterBoards has set a deadline for a package, they have failed to meet it. (1/

He is also disappointed with comments by other speakers on @CA_DWR's public engagement. All interests (tribal communities/EJ groups) have been frozen out the VA process. The state has laws about public engagement and what he has seen is a concerted effort to bypass that. (2/2)

Heinrich Albert from @SierraClubCA says that the @CaWaterBoards has dragged the VA Process on for too long. He notes that conditions for fish and wildlife continue to deteriorate and that the VA process does not produce real biological goals.

John McManus from @goldenstsalmon says that we’ve had a very poor return of adult salmon in the central valley, won’t know official numbers until the end of the month. (1/

Flow is the primary constraint on salmon health in the Central Valley. He says scientific basis report doesn’t appropriately show that. (2/2)

Kasil Willie from @SaveCaliSalmon says that tribal beneficial users are not being included in the update for the Bay Delta plan. In 2016, @CaWaterBoards made it a priority for tribal beneficial uses into the water control plan, not included for beneficial uses for Bay Delta Plan.

Our ED Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla: "We see the VA process as morally wrong and unjust. The VA process is the most poorly executed process we've seen so far, delta local community groups were left out from the start. It’s hard to believe it wasn’t intestinal. (1/

"Local government agencies, tribes and EJ groups were left out from the start. Because of this exclusion, the @CaWaterBoards do not have the best and brightest working on the VAs. Our communities know our needs. (2/

"I am disturbed hearing that parties should join the governance preocess now as the solution for the process mistakes in light of what hasn’t been dealt with in item 9 which I will address at the appropriate time."(3/3)

Gary Bobker from @TheBayInstitute notes the real delays in implementing phase one Bay Delta Plan amendments and in producing documents for phase 2. Since the process has been delayed, @cawaterboard resources and staff have been diverted to VAs. (1/

He says that when the @CaWaterBoards are more clear and firm you are about regulatory requirements, the more it can actually survive legal challenges. He also mentions that there is a complete lack of support from so many vital sectors. (2/2)

Regina Chichizola from @SaveCaliSalmon says that the the VAs are based on politics and not science. She mentions that after 4 years of talks, tribes and NGOs are only now being invited to the process. (1/

She points out that in 2018, many tribal members asked about tribal beneficial uses before discussions began. How the @cawaterboards has handled these concerns seems disingenuous to her. (2/

She says that it is the job of the Board to go beyond politics and implement beneficial uses and science. She says that it is critically important for restoration projects but it does not work without water. (3/3)

Peter Drekmeier from @TuolumneRiver tells the @CaWaterBoards that the implementation of the Bay Delta Plan is needed as soon as possible.

You cannot fix problems for one #EnvironmentalJustice community by breaking another. Delta Water is diverted to industrial ag, not to drinking water communities in the SJ Valley. The Delta stands in solidarity with SJ Valley drinking water groups!

Danielle Frank from @SaveCaliSalmon and Hoopa Valley Tribal Member says that the VAs are very much contradicting the @CaWaterBoards priority recognizing tribal nations and there is a lack of protection of tribal beneficial uses. (1/

She says that the water temperature is incomplete and that water analysis is absent. She mentions that these reports needs to use the best science, but that this is not the case with the VAs. Habitat alone will not benefit fish without water. (2/

She mentions that the only people who are brought in as non federal interest were powerful landowners while tribal partners were initially excluded from the VAs. She says that the @CaWaterBoards continues to
leave Tribal people out of conversations. (3/3)

Kate Droz comments on @CAwaterboard Racial Equity Plan. She says that racial equity can be a topic but the actions have to match. She says that Tribal people, environmentalists, fisherman they have all argued against the current processes. (1/

She also points out that younger generations can see what's happening and know that it is affecting them. (2/2)

After a recess for lunch, we're back at the @CAWaterboards to discuss the Draft Scientific Basis Report Supplemental for the Voluntary Agreements.

Here's what will be discussed:

Gary Bobker of @TheBayInstitute and Jon Rosenfield of @SFBaykeeper are now giving a presentation on their review of the Supplemental Draft Report for the VA, with Gary giving the introduction and Jon speaking on Pelagic Species.

Jon Rosenfield points out that the Draft report estimates "habitat", not fish viability. It assumes that "habitat" availability translates into more fish, even when there is no evidence that habitat is limiting.

He says that the analysis of the report shows that there is no quantitative connection of habitat area to fish viability and that most non-flow actions lack scientific basis as a path to improve fish viability.

Jon points out that the Draft report fails to consider temperature effects to flow into the estuary. Temperature is regarded as a key variable controlling extent, location, timing, and equality of fish habitat in the Delta.

He says that there is no evidence that the VAs support and maintain native fish species and provides this case study:

Case studies on longfin smelt continued:

Jon points out that adequate flows are necessary for native fish inundation duration. The VAs do not provide adequate flows.

Now we move on to a presentation by Julie Zimmerman of The Nature Conservancy and Barry Nelson of @goldenstsalmon.

Julie says that habitat cannot function in the absence of flow.

.@nature_org

She points out that habitat benefits are produced by the interaction of flow and habitat and that there is no evidence that non-flow actions produce habitat without adequate flow.

Julie says that the Draft report fails to demonstrate that non-flow actions will achieve the Plan Objectives without adequate flows. She says that targeting 25% of needed habitat is inadequate by definition and that the VAs do not even achieve the 25% target in most cases.

Barry Nelson is up next and he's talking about water temperature and its impact on salmon and other species. He notes that the Bay-Delta watersheld river temperatures are driven by water management and that climate change will play a role in temperature also.

Barry says that the VAs do not address water temperatures and spawning success. He says that the damage from high temperatures is greatest when VA water contributions are smallest in critical years.

Due to timing, public comment was taken from Malissa Tayaba, Vice Chair of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians. Malissa said thst the scientific analysis on VA is incomplete and inadequate nowhere does it consider tribal consultation or traditional ecological knowledge. (1/

She noted that it is a failure to say that this report represent our best interests, and that the Tribe will not be left out and ignored. She says that the Tribe does not accept the incomplete science which worsens the Delta. (2/

Malissa also said that their traditional food sources are in danger, and the waterways that sustain her people are now unsafe. She noted that Tribes were excluded from any and all discussion for VAs. (3/3)

Our Delta Science Coordinator Spencer Fern is on a panel with Ashley Overhouse from @Defenders and Gary Bobker from @TheBayInstitute.

Spencer says that HABs are an afterhtought in the Draft Scientific Basis Report. There is only one paragraph discussing HABs in the report and it states that "increases to flow may alleviate the impacts of cyanoHABs".

He points out that HABs will form in scenarios with low flow conditions, high water temperatures, light availability, turbidity, and nutrients. Lack of flow is one of the critical environmental factors for HABs formation.

Spencer says that the low flow conditions in dry years clearly exacerbate HABs outbreaks, which negatively affect fish habitat, but states that wet years can also have low-flow conditions, due to management decisions made regarding flow through the Delta.

He points out that flow is a critical environmental factor that can help to mitigate HABs outbreaks and that regarding the Scientific Basis Report, more investigation is required for HABs.

Ashley Overhouse states that the Report inappropriately defers achievement of doubling salmon population numbers to 2050. She says that recovery measures to double natural production need to be implemented now to achieve doubling as soon as possible.

Ashley says that the Report's analysis is inconsistent and misleading. She includes these four examples in her talk.

Gary Bobker of @TheBayInstitute points out that the report fails to consider temperature effects of VA actions regarding Pelagic habitats in the estuary, spawning and early rearing success of salmonoids and other species upstream.

He also says that the report fails to consider effects of the VAs actions on HABs formation and that low inflows to the estuary contribute to HAB events. The report's assumptions are inconsistent with the attainment of existing and proposed Water Quality Control Plan objectives.

After another brief recess, we are back for public comment.

RTD Climate Water Advocate Gloria Alonso Cruz: "My name is Gloria, I’m a senior climate water advocate with Restore the Delta, and a Metropolitan Area Planning student at Sacrameto State University. I'm representing Stockton as a Delta Environmental Justice Community. (1/

"Where I have gained numerous experiences and observations that reflect how the Science behind the Bay-Delta Plan has failed for decades to provide Environmental Equity while prioritizing water extraction and diversion processes that are not reflective of (2/

"surface water beneficial uses, overlook the climate crisis, and perpetuate socioenvironmental disparities. The recent update to the Draft Report continues to grow concern about the social systems ruling over science and future of aquatic systems. (3/

"Rising concerns about the current and updated Bay-Delta plan objectives in connection to the additional regional temperature fluctuations, implementation timeline, and monitoring of critical local and regional scales. (4/

"The assumed “reliable” engineered solutions for Delta Water management continues to be based on an incomplete understanding and modeling of the regional ecology and Delta Habitats that are dependent on adequate flows. (5/

"Divorcing habitat restoration from adequate water flows comprises the health of the most at risk native and human ecosystems. The overarching effects of this impacts the ecological integrity of rivers, food systems, (6/

"and food sovereignty within the Delta and the interconnected watersheds. Some of which are partially reflected in the most recent Your Delta Your Voice Survey from 2021. This reflects the strong connection between Delta Habitat and Delta Environmental Justice Residents. (7/

"The Scientific report does not reflect the recent studies that emphasize the message in the following quote: “the effects tidal marsh habitat restoration do not substitute for flows, but instead depend on adequate flows and temperatures to provide benefits”. (8/

"To conclude, the current calculated vulnerability by the Scienfic Report leaves important spatial and modeling assumptions that question the effects of outflow in a compounding manner behind." (9/9)

RTD Assistant Policy Analyst: "Good afternoon. I am Cintia Cortez, the Assistant Policy Analyst for Restore the Delta. I am here today to comment on the Scientific Basis Report. The presence of aquatic species is a marker of health for any waterbody. The presence of native (1/

"fish in the Delta is an indicator of good water quality. However, the continued decline in native
fish species in the delta, their natural habitat, is an indicator of improper management.
Increasing flows has been recognized as the solution to improve the Delta’s water (2/

"water quality and restore its native fish population. Flows are important because they have a direct effect on habitat conditions such as temperature, transport, residence time, nutrient loadings, just to
name a few, that are vital for the success of key species including (3/

"Chinook salmon, Longfin
Smelt, and Delta Smelt. The report fails to consider relevant conditions in its analysis of fish
habitats which leads me to question the credibility of the results in the Sciences Basis Report
being presented. (4/

"When analyzing fish habitats, the report misses the mark in completeness. Per the report,
target for the 8-year term of the VAs is to provide habitat necessary to support approximately
25% of the doubling goal but it is expected to exceed this goal. (5/

"However, how can we expect
the proposed voluntary agreements to meet the target, much less exceed it, when the report ignores the effects of water temperature on spawning. Not to mention the report fails to adequately consider the increasing concern of the proliferation (6/

"of HABs. Like the Bay-Delta Plan that the Voluntary Agreements are in support of, the Scientific Basis
Report fails to use the best available science to ensure the restoration and improvement of Bay-Delta conditions and and fails to consider the impacts to EJ communities and (7/

"tribal beneficial uses as stated in the Racial Equity Impact Report. Thank you for the opportunity to speak." (8/8)

RTD Sustainable Ag Coordinator Sara Medina: "Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Draft Scientific Basis Report. I would like to raise concerns regarding the Draft Scientific Report: The first concern to bring up is the various inconsistencies throughout the report. (1/

"For example starting on how the table 2-1 is not working hand in hand with the latest scientific research. Also it does not match the claims made in the 2017 Science Basis Report. (2/

"If there have been major changes in the last 4 to five years, where are the science reports that support those changes? This leads into the second concern. Which is that those changes are not taking into account various factors like the runoff from agriculture and (3/

"its effect on HABs, as brought up by Spencer Fern. The Board needs to do the correct research and realize that not only is the flow important but the Water quality matters significantly. (4/

"Finally the third concern is that the board has not taken the time to speak to those who will be directly affected by the decisions made off this report. The Board did not consult with those tribes whose main life line is off the fish they consume. (5/

"By not doing so it begs the question as to who the board writes these reports for. In summary, this report was put out by the board not to help the general public, but it's just another political paper to help agriculture interests, senior water holders and water exporters. (6/

"Failure to do otherwise is another suppression to underserved communities." (7/7)

RTD Community Organizer Artie Valencia: "Currently, the VA’s expect that the proposed combination of flow and non flow along with restoration assets will improve conditions for native species and double salmon populations by 2050. (1/

" However, these claims are unsupported by existing scientific literature and without the best available science to implement and determine the correct amount of flow needed to achieve this feat, (2/

"this puts Environmental Justice, tribal communities and native fish in the Bay-Delta at risk. (3/

"Peer reviewed scientific research recognizes the benefits of wetland restoration but without enough flows, Salmon runs cannot be restored and this has an impact on the health, cultural and spiritual wellbeing of Northern California tribes and fishing communities. (4/

"A decline in fish combined with hydrologic and physical changes in the Delta are evidence that current flows are not enough to maintain or recover the processes that support native Delta fishes. (5/

"Two of the four runs of Chinook salmon are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The rate of salmon participating in the fall run is at a historic low. (6/

"The chinook salmon are the way of life for tribal communities dependent on waterways for food and beneficial cultural practices and uses. (7/

"HABs pose a threat to the Delta smelt as HABs will dissolve oxygen levels in water as discussed in Spencer Fern’s presentation to the board today. HABs are persistent due to lack of flow. (8/

"Chief Caleen Sisk of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe stresses that Salmon have fed and depended on the Delta smelt as a food source for years and if they were to change their diet to rice and anchovies, there is no scientific studies on how that will impact salmon health. (9/

"There is a clear lack of tribal consultation and incorporation of tribal knowledge in the Scientific Research Report for the VAs, thus illustrating its incomplete status as a report. (10/

"In what ways is the board committed to working with tribal partners and environmental justice communities? If there is no proper scientific analysis for proposed flow impacts on salmon populations and their food sources, (11/

"this will exacerbate the inequality impacts on these communities. When disparities are created, this becomes a civil rights issue too." (11/11)

RTD ED Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla: "The 2010 flow study provides the science we need to implement improved flow standards to restore fisheries, and improve water quality for people living in the delta and delta watersheds. The scientific basis report has been designed to (1/

"undercut what you have already said about flows. The VAs are an attempt to change the science narrative and the science report is the second supporting novella in the in the trilogy to undo meaningful flow standards to heal the estuary. (2/

"We have addressed the harmful algal bloom problem in front of the board starting in 2017 and in our WaterFix testimony and to have it ignored in the Scientific Report for the VAs is erasure of our work and the impacts from. HABs on the Delta EJ community. (3/

"While we appreciate the work on the equity resolution and we did listen and have staff comment yesterday— our observation is that your processes are truncated. Offering equity briefings on the Bay-Delta Plan and VA processes that are separate from planning processes with (4/

"water districts will likely end up in separate and not equal outcomes because Ej groups and tribes will be briefed after the fact. As I said earlier, being asked to participate after agreements are designed is not being a working partner. Equity and representation needs to (5/

"be integrated into processes, plans and science reports during their creation. Otherwise you are setting a child’s table at Thanksgiving for tribes EJ groups and environmental groups. Shouldn’t tribal knowledge be included in scientific reports? Shouldn’t data that we provide (6

"to the board around HABs analysis be included in the VAs? Especially seeing we were trained by water board staff on how to collect and interpret data. Wouldn’t this aid in the study of flows to HABs? I also want to add the longfin population is down over 99.5%. An 11% (7/

"An 11% increase is not the same as achieving viability. And all that improvement is based on flow, not “habitat” — so why are we delaying and limiting flow improvements for “habitat” that will have no effect? (8/

"Wouldn’t the fine peer reviewed papers by Dr Peggy Lehman and other papers listed by Jon Rosenfield improve analysis regarding flows for fish, HABs and other key issues? (9/

"Wouldn’t Delta water agencies and public works agencies have insights to flow needs and application that would be useful to a scientific analysis?

And wouldn’t this boards own work like the 2010 flow report be applicable to how habitat expansion could be achieved? (10/

"This board needs to return to its mission as regulator rather than planning resource specialists for one sector of the California water industry. (11/

"And to be a successful regulator, the Board must intentionally incorporate the concerns of impacted parties into science analysis and produce science for communities in order to achieve true equity." (12/12)

RTD Policy Analyst Tim Stroshane: "My comments focus on two aspects of this supplemental VA report: the proposed voluntary agreement assets, and betrayal of the salmon doubling goal by the proposed fishery viability objective. (1/

"Table ES-1’s description of assets feels more like “wishes and prayers” than something concrete. This table brings up so many questions that are NOT ASKED, let alone answered, by the supplemental VA report about (2/

" who buys? who sells? and why are supposed flow numbers allowed to appear in this table to which no one has formally committed? How can this be considered as a serious alternative in the Bay-Delta Plan with a straight face? (3/

"You as water board officials are asked by this report to consider science applied to a chimera, an elaborate hydraulic fantasy. Second, by adding a fish viability objective to the salmon doubling objective, (4/

"RTD and the environmental justice and tribal communities with whom we link arms believe the supplemental VA report is a solicitation by water right holders and operating water agencies to let them comply with an objective easier than salmon doubling. (5/

"The viability objective will become the new, lower ceiling for regulated folks, DWR, and the Bureau to reach for, but will salmon truly recover? Another unasked question. (6/

"This report is meant to show the viability of the viability objective and NOT of the salmon doubling objective, nor of the two objectives somehow marvelously working in tandem. (7/

"There is nothing about how the VAs would achieve salmon population doubling, which is currently the law. Such silence represents an open if unstated official act of hostility toward salmon recovery (8/

"because salmon population doubling would seem to be JUST TOO HARD for the supreme propertied rulers of Delta watershed rivers and the Delta estuary.

This report implies extinction is the as-yet unspoken objective of the Bay-Delta Plan yet to come. (9/

" If it’s NOT about allowing extinction, then how will the State Water Board achieve the remaining 75 percent of salmon doubling habitat goal if the major water users of the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys commit only to achieving 25 percent of that goal? (10/

"The emperors of water rights and water project operations push the VAs to rehabilitate their poor record as environmental stewards the last five decades. It is simply the latest model of greenwashing, California-style. (11/

"Your non-cooperation as board officials with their sales pitch, while not expected, would be appreciated." (12/12)

Haley Flanagan, RTD Climate Water Advocate: "I would like to further point out how the Voluntary Agreements released by the State Water Board have not prioritized the Delta community in their inadequate analysis on flow management (1/

"- particularly how its management impacts harmful algal blooms within Delta waterways. While the Board has claimed to back its decisions with scientific analysis, its Scientific Research Report is noticeably lacking in its coverage of potential adverse impacts to the most (2/

"at-risk areas of the community. The Report has failed to assess how flow management changes will influence HAB growth, while we know that flows could be a major factor in HAB occurrence - as Spencer Fern (discussed/will discuss) in his presentation. (3/

"This is in addition to the fact that HABs - and their negative effects on water quality as well as fish populations - are a burden unduly experienced by minority and low-income groups, violating the Board’s own Equity Policy. (4/

"The Voluntary Agreements, and their associated Research thus far, blatantly ignore the well-being of disadvantaged communities within the Delta, even as the long-term impacts of HAB exposure to humans and wildlife are becoming more well-understood - and more concerning. (5/

"As the Report admits to not have considered temperature in the well-being of spawning salmon habitat, it is also leaving out the potential risks of rising temperatures alongside reduced flow on the future growth of HABs and their produced cyanobacteria in these habitats. (6/

"With such carefree decision-making behind these changes, what was the point of the scientific analysis in the first place? Who are we caring for, if not the people most exposed to and affected by potential toxins? (7/

"And if these reports are intended to address the safety of the Voluntary Agreements for salmon populations, why isn’t the potential risk of HABs being addressed?" (8/8)

Representatives from @SierraClubCA, California Sportsfishing Protection Alliance, and @SaveCaliSalmon all agree with the NGO panels from earlier in the day.

MacKenzie Owens, RTD Social Media Lead: "First and foremost, I’d like to emphasize that the Voluntary Agreements are a culmination of various shortsighted implementations that will continue to benefit those who are currently profiting from this poorly constructed framework (1/

"which are senior water rights holders and water exporters. This continues to build on a similar privileged narrative with the inadequate scientific report for the Voluntary Agreements, the focus at hand. (2/

"The report exhibits a lack of updated science needed to properly adhere to the Delta that is confronting a constantly changing climate (pause a second) while also failing to provide science that properly represents Tribal and Environmental Justice communities (3/

"and the impacts their beneficial uses may face. Additionally, not only will these groups be at the forefront of lasting negative effects, local wildlife from various fish species will continue to decline along with an increase of toxic harmful algal blooms (4/

"due to a lack of flow from water diversion and depletion. As mentioned previously, it was stated that in the Board’s 2018 Phase I Master Response Document there was no tangible evidence that non-flow measures would be able to ensure habitat sustainability (5/

"and saving water in regards to efficacy. If the Board already discovered those results, how can non-flow measures protect habitats and wildlife when those normally need flows in the first place? (6/

"The report presents itself as a political science report rather than an accurate and equitable scientific document that should prioritize the most vulnerable communities that continue to bear the brunt of environmental mismanagement. (7/

"How can we move forward in development when the science in discussion is lacking the proper updated practices and neglecting those who are the first to suffer from these outcomes? There must be less contradictory procedures in order for future water and equity management. (8/

"Again, the report and the Voluntary agreements focus on the welfare of senior water right holders and water diverters rather than all impacted parties such as Tribal and Environmental Justice communities. (9/

"I implore you to recognize and reconsider the ramifications that the current Scientific report will result in." (10/10)

Sam Little, RTD Climate Water Advocate: "I am here today to comment on the Draft Voluntary Agreement Scientific Research Report. In the report, there was a lack of assessment on water temperature and how this would be impacting the spawning habitat of salmon. (1/

"Temperature is a critical component in spawning and is entirely overlooked in the Voluntary Agreement. The Central Valley's salmon population is in decline, with the federal and state Endangered Species Act listing two of the four Chinook salmon runs, (2/

"and with the fall-run Chinook salmon being at a historically low abundance. (3/

"The disregard for evaluation on water temperatures is deeply concerning due to the changing climate we are experiencing and with flows being vital for regulating river temperatures for the health of fisheries. (4/

"The oversight to consider how this would influence the health of fish and flows is another example of how this scientific analysis fails to address the concerns of tribes and environmental justice communities for restored fisheries. (5/

"The salmon in our waterways is relied upon by many for sustenance and spiritual practices, and this report does not take into account how neglecting rising temperatures will directly affect many livelihoods. (6/

"Salmon fisheries won't recover if inadequate or partial research serves as the foundation for Delta management. The consequences on tribal communities and Delta environmental justice communities will be substantially more disproportionate. (7/

"Flow in our waterways, as previously discussed, supports Delta health and reduces the rising water temperatures brought on by climate change. Flow minimizes the potential existence of harmful algal blooms, and without this, (8/

"it will threaten the health and safety of these communities further. A political choice that ignores the worries, safety, and health of communities of the Delta is an oversight of thorough and (9/

"comprehensive scientific analysis on how flows affect the formation of harmful algal blooms in the Delta. Since the needs of these communities are not factored as equitably as water exporters, (10/

"incomplete science that does not appropriately estimate what is required to restore fisheries for impacted communities will result in additional discrimination in California water management. Better framework is needed to ensure equitable resolutions. (11/

"I thank you for the opportunity to comment and I hope you take this as an opportunity to reconsider the addition of water temperature in your analysis and the significance of salmon and flow for our communities in this Scientific report. " (12/12)

Mark Raftry, law student at @StanfordLaw, which represents Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians and others in the Complaint to @EPA: "In the 2017 Scientific basis report for phase 2, flow is commonly regarded as a key driver, but flow and physical are not interchangeable. (1/

"The Bay-Delta Plan should not be organized around the VAs and should protect beneficial uses. The VAs are not productively advancing the Bay Delta Plan." (2/2)

Regina Chichizola of @SaveCaliSalmon agrees with the panels earlier about temperature and flow. She said that this is a crucial issue and the @CaWaterBoards need to take these things into consideration.

Matt Holmes from @littlemanila said that he agrees with our staff and that it's important that the @CaWaterBoards take the concerns brought up today seriously.

Boardmember Laurel Firestone is asking staff how the @CaWaterBoards staff will better incorporate HABs into this report and their work because there is so much evolving science. She encourages staff with sister agencies to do the same.

Staff responded by saying that HABs through flow actions is a very challenging problem but that they are analyzing those impacts in the staff report. They noted that there isn’t a simple solution. We'll be tracking this.

Chair Esquivel asked how Climate Change modeling was included into the report, but staff confirmed that Climate Change modeling was not included in this report or the 2017 report.

The board meeting is now over.