June 2001 Issues Online June 2007 April 2007 February 2007 December 2006 October 2006 August 2006 June 2006 April 2006 February 2006 December 2005 October 2005 August 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 December 2004 October 2004 August 2004 June 2004 April 2004 February 2004 December 2003 October 2003 August 2003 June 2003 April 2003 February 2003 December 2002 October 2002 August 2002 June 2002 April 2002 February 2002 December 2001 October 2001 August 2001 June 2001 April 2001 February 2001 December 2000 October 2000 August 2000 June 2000 April 2000 February 2000 December 1999 October 1999 August 1999 June 1999 April 1999 February 1999 December 1998 October 1998 August 1998 June 1998 April 1998 February 1998 December 1997 October 1997 August 1997 June 1997 April 1997 February 1997 December 1996 October 1996 August 1996 June 1996 April 1996 February 1996 December 1995 October 1995 August 1995 June 1995 April 1995 February 1995 December 1994 October 1994 August 1994 June 1994 April 1994 February 1994 December 1993 October 1993 August 1993 Select any issue from the menu in this bar.

Bulletin Board

AN INVESTIGATION OF RESTORATION MODELS nationwide, conducted by Save the Bay and published this spring, suggests 12 key elements that CALFED should embrace in formalizing the Bay-Delta's ecosystem restoration program. Watchdogs at Save the Bay saw that CALFED is yet to fill in the details of how its restoration program will work, who will have authority and when, and how vague or clear any legislative mandates necessary to begin implementing the program should be. So Save the Bay launched a study of lessons learned from other large scale restoration programs in the Everglades, the Columbia River Basin, the Upper Colorado River, the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, and the Delaware River Basin. The resulting 60-page booklet, entitled Putting it Back Together: Making Ecosystem Restoration Work, provideslots of good lessons for CALFED, says Save the Bay's David Lewis (see Now in Print). (510)452-9261

The LONG-AWAITED PLAN to dispose of irrigation drain water from Westlands Water District will apparently be another four years coming. In April, BurRec filed court papers saying the agency would begin an evaluation of "viable drainage alternatives," with a record of decision expected by 2005. Among the alternatives the bureau will consider are the completion of the controverisal San Luis Drain - which would dump highly saline, selenium-tainted water into the Delta - and a series of evaporation ponds. The bureau has been under a court order since September to come up with a disposal plan.

S.F. BAYKEEPER SUED state water quality regulators this spring, charging that state-issued urban runoff permits for Contra Costa and San Mateo counties are not adequate to protect Bay water quality. In its suit, BayKeeper charged that the two permits, which govern urban runoff for 36 towns and cities in the two counties, lacked minimum requirements mandated by the federal Clean Water Act. Deficiencies included a failure to contain specific monitoring provisions; failure to prohibit new sources of pollutants that already impair Bay water quality; and failure to achieve water quality standards, among others. Many Bay Area scientists have documented that urban runoff contributes to water quality violations. A study conducted by the San Francisco Estuary Institute in September, 2000 estimates that runoff contributes 35% to 95% of all cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel and zinc discharged into the Bay, even after including discharges from industrial facilities, atmospheric deposition and releases from dredged material disposal.
Contact: Jonathan Kaplan (415) 235-9803

«To @@(newsletter_title)@@ Index

[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]

Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project