Protect The Delaware River!!!!!

[COZ]

Morning Water Code/FFMP update!!!

The water code vote has been delayed for 60 days. The pressure that was put on by your e mails to the powers to be "WORKED". NJ dep, Pa and the Army corp. responded to our push and they were the ones that pushed to reevaluate the FFMP thus resulting in the 60 day delay, not to mention the "ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT" violations that has taken place during the implimentation of the FFMP. This was also a key factor in this outcome. What will happen in the next 60 days? We can only speculate at this point! If we look at DRBC's past performance you can bet that they will put a little twist on the FFMP and the will get their propaganda news releases and statistics together and try to convince the concerned parties that this new twist solves all concerns. Mark my words this will happen soon. This fight is far from over!!!

Let's get to the real reason that NYC/DRBC will not release water to ANYONE for ANY CAUSE:

The FEDS have been on NYC/CRBC to build the Hudson Water Filtration system to the tune of $9,000,000,000 thats ($9 billion).

The Feds main concern is that if the Croton system goes down there would not be enough water to take care of this emergency. NYC/DRBC
convinced the feds that there is enough water in the Catskill system to take care of this emergency if it ever takes place. The FEDS in turn backed of NYC/DRBC for the construction of the filtration palnt at the $9,000,000,000 cost. If NYC/DRBC gives any water to anyone outside of normal operations the FEDS will force NYC/DRBC to build the system. NYC does not have nor will they spend $9,000,000,000 even if they had it. They would rather spend far less $ fighting in COURT!!!
THIS IS THE REASON THAT WE OR ANYONE ELSE WILL NOT GET WATER!!!

I again would like to thank you all for your support in this fight. I will keep you posted on the future series of events to come.
COZ

 

[Future Fanatic]

Morning Water Code/FFMP update!!!


Let's get to the real reason that NYC/DRBC will not release water to ANYONE for ANY CAUSE:

The FEDS have been on NYC/CRBC to build the Hudson Water Filtration system to the tune of $9,000,000,000 thats ($9 billion).

The Feds main concern is that if the Croton system goes down there would not be enough water to take care of this emergency. NYC/DRBC
convinced the feds that there is enough water in the Catskill system to take care of this emergency if it ever takes place. The FEDS in turn backed of NYC/DRBC for the construction of the filtration palnt at the $9,000,000,000 cost. If NYC/DRBC gives any water to anyone outside of normal operations the FEDS will force NYC/DRBC to build the system. NYC does not have nor will they spend $9,000,000,000 even if they had it. They would rather spend far less $ fighting in COURT!!!
THIS IS THE REASON THAT WE OR ANYONE ELSE WILL NOT GET WATER!!!


COZ

Can you tell us when and how this took place?

 

[Ausable]

What does success look like?

I want to thank Coz and all that are involved for fighting the good fight. In any negotiation you try to shoot for the moon but normally have to give some ground to come to agreement.

In this case what are the "asks" and "gives"? For example the flows in May and June (~260 cfs per the new plan) were extremely low in thew WB and put a damper on some key Spring fishing. What would be success? 350cfs, 400cfs.

I know the FUDR has a release of 600cfs in the Summer as the goal and would love to see that but is it realistic? How about 425cfs from May 1st to October 1st as a goal?

Again I want to thank all of the folks who have put in countless hours to save our beloved river!

 

[Agust]

Re: What does success look like?

In this case what are the "asks" and "gives"? For example the flows in May and June (~260 cfs per the new plan) were extremely low in thew WB and put a damper on some key Spring fishing. What would be success? 350cfs, 400cfs.

I know the FUDR has a release of 600cfs in the Summer as the goal and would love to see that but is it realistic? How about 425cfs from May 1st to October 1st as a goal?

I believe we should avoid assigning a hard number to flows on any of the tributaries (Neversink, East and West branches) because that number needs to change depending on a variety of conditions. I believe setting flow and temperature targets at Calicoon and Lordville serve the river better. If it is unusually hot, then adding more water to the West Branch will help keep the mainstem cool, but if temperatures are more moderate then flows can be reduced to conserve for when water is needed. No matter what there needs to be some balance of flows to the Neversink and East Branch. Sacrificing any one stream for the benefit of any other is not acceptable.

The problems come when NY City refuses to release any water, and they perceive that fisherman always want as much as possible. Balance is needed, and that can only be achieved if we allow NY to hold back when less water is required, and NY releases more water when it is required. That is something a truly flexible plan can accomplish, but not with such rigid and meager levels such as those in the current plan.

 

[rossk]

One more thing. Last Friday TU National sent out an Action Alert on the FFMP vote, as of this morning 1900 e-mails were tracked as being sent to the DRBC officials.

I am sure that FUDR and the Flood groups also had similar results over the past few days. The single best hope we have is to have all the "acronym" groups singing the same hymn. Political pressure is really our best ally in getting the water that the river is legally entitled to, back in the river.

Keep up the pressure everyone, even if we like to poke at each other here, keep in mind who the real enemies are and what the real problem is.

I also sent this out on the NJ Highlands email list, reaching thousands of additional advocates.

I agree with Agust - argue all we want here on tactics, but maintain a united front.

 

[NJFred]

Agust... I do think there is a clear priority to releases.

Top priority. The entire WBD and Upper Main down to Lordville (there is not enough water to cool to Callicoon!) needs to be kept cool and to have decent flows to wet the bottom of the river.

The Neversink and East are secondary. First both are pretty heavily stocked (yes I know there are wild fish in the cool tail sections). Second water dumped into the East heats up when it meets the Beaverkill and ends up heating up further as it makes it's way down the long lower EBD pools down to Junction. This water does nothing to cool the upper main temperature wise.

We know from the Telemetry Studies that fish will migrate for miles out of the East and for miles out of the lower mainstem into the upper mainstem if the upper Mainstem is kept cool. This is a key reason to maintain the upper main cool which can only be accomplished with sufficient flows out of Cannonsfille.

The impact of more water into the East and Neversink instead of the WBD were made very clear this year. We've had the lowest average daily flows across the summer in the WBD in the last 30 years (85 and 92 drought years the exception). One of the main reasons for this has been the 100+CFS increase of water into the EBD and the Neversink, which was not made available to the WBD, as called for by FFMP.

Unfortunately, we are going to have to sacrifice to some extent the upper east and Neversink to save the Delaware system as a whole. It's a reality.

 

[frankensteel]

Although the Delaware has never had perfect flows, as far as fishermen are concerned, I think we will all be in agreement that it has gotten worse over the past 3-4 years. The competing conservation groups with different agendas who negotiate with high emotions to undo "the new plan" (I've seen the presentations and read the text) seem to confuse the issues, aggravate the "powers that be" and I can't help they are now doing this on purpose to tweek you. It also seems contradictory that some of the conservation groups who are involved in the flow negotiations "discussion" were applauding 800 cfs and gushing about the new FFMP in January are now panicking that the sky is falling. I know it is a passionate subject for most of us who understand the value of the river and how special a fishery the Delaware River is, but we need to be realistic in our expectations. For those of you who fight the fight for better conditions for all of us, I thank you but I know this is a terribly frustrating time and we all need to look at the glass half full. I feel strongly that all of the acronym groups need to back off of the decree parties and perhaps things will return to some sense of normalcy.

1.Let's face it, the water is there for the people, not the fish or the fishermen. Money is involved which as we know will corrupt all.
2. The BRBC doesn't give a rats ass about the local economy in Hancock or any other town along the D.
3. The more groups that get involved to undo a "bad plan" tend to foul things up worse. I'm sure there is a new acronym group forming as we speak.
4. A modest fish kill strengthens the gene pool.
5. I live on the Ramapo in NJ and it is a trickle for most of the year and warm, yet we get more consistent mayfly hatches than the Delaware because the water rises and receeds naturally.
6. What's wrong with understanding realistically that it is a spring and fall fishery and if you get some good flows in the middle of the summer it's a bonus...buy golf clubs or do something with the family instead if the conditions are not ideal.
7. Stop targeting a perfect scenario, it will never happen and you will drive yourself crazy if you try.
8. Since there is no large voting block in that area, no weasel politician will champion your cause.
9. This isn't a conservation issue in states like Vermont, Montana, Oregon or others that have a population that understands the importance of the outdoors and it's resources. This is NYC and NJ where we have liberals (sorry for the politics) who have never fished and probably want to take away your rights to harm fish, who make the decisions for the river. They act more like the French than Americanas when it comes to conservation issues because they are so far removed from our inherent instincts by living in cities it is painful.

Time to watch some football...

GH

Your post is meaningless babble. There's not much else to say about it .Just keep your big mouth shut and let the people involved do everything they can to try to convince NYC et al to supply the river with a decent flow rate. I appreciate and support everyone trying to do this whoever they are and wherever they come from. JUST DONT GIVE UP.

 

[flyfishmike]

Green Hilander ....you can't just lie down and accept it as this is the way it is. If people are currupt and don't care is all the more reason to stand up and act. And the last I heard Fishermen ARE people.

 

[COZ]

Agust,

Temerature targets alone will not provide for the needs of the river and the enhabitants. This was proven in Rev 1 and Rev 7. Numerous times the temps exceeded the target. There is too much margin for error and the biggest issue was enforcement. The original target was at Hankins some 10 miles below Lordville. DRBC/DEC stated that the temp target at Hankins can not be maintained. So in their infinate wisdome they moved it to Lordville and kept the same temp requirements.. The only obligation to these targets was to get the water temp below X one time in a 24 hour period. So they would release a shot of cold water that wouild take time to hit the target and they met their respponsability. In spring the temps are met by mother nature but she may have very little water in the river, again not the solution. The combination of a constant release and temp target would be ideal.

.As for the fish migration, yes they do migrate to colder water but in most cases they go deep and become sedintary, as our scientests report this is just as harmfull because now you have a greater number of fish in a small habitat that are fighting for space and that stress leads to a deteriation of health.

What is the magic CFS release out of the West Branch? We should not get wrapped up in numbers. There has been a recent study conducted (not to mention by who) that resulted in much more water than the DRBC leads you to beleave that is available. Are you aware that DRBC prior to running their study/model takes 25% of the total storage in the reservoirs and keeps that as a reserve and then they run the numbers? My point don't settle for little CFS# when there is a lot more CFS available.

Let's not miss the point. DRBC will not give the water because the FEDS are holding the $9,000,000,000 filtration plant over their heads.

Understand that this is the first time that there has been this much momentum of DRBC's water management or lack there of. The FFMP
will most likely be passed at a later date with little changes. The next step is a legal one.
COZ

 

[Future Fanatic]

Agust,

Let's not miss the point. DRBC will not give the water because the FEDS are holding the $9,000,000,000 filtration plant over their heads.

COZ

Well, I'll try to ask again,

Could you tell me where I could find info on this?

And I'll ask another, in a post, a few back you wrote "Hudson Water Filtration system", did you mean a west of the Hudson water filtration system, or is that something unrelated to the latter?

Thanks, (hopefully) in advance.

 

[babyblue]

John,
This pertains to the Croton system east of the Hudson. As far as I understand it, the Croton system is used for a supplemental supply in times of drought. It is becoming increasingly polluted with runoff, hence the need for a filtration plant. This goes back to 1997, as far as I can tell.

 

[babyblue]

Correction,
I found news articles referring to this as far back as 1989. Some more recent articles I looked at refer to a filtration plant that is being built. I also found an article that states a desalinization plant is being proposed to serve some down state counties with drinking water. Do a google search of hudson river filtration plant, there's plenty of info.

 

[Future Fanatic]

Correction,
I found news articles referring to this as far back as 1989. Some more recent articles I looked at refer to a filtration plant that is being built. I also found an article that states a desalinization plant is being proposed to serve some down state counties with drinking water. Do a google search of hudson river filtration plant, there's plenty of info.

What I found was articles related to the Croton filtration plant that is currently being built because the EPA says that water needs to be filtered. I found nothing about the EPA or any FED telling NYC that they had to build a 9 billion dollar desalination/filtration plant on the Hudson.

As I recall, NYC avoided building a filtration plant for waters west of the Hudson due to their efforts to spend money protecting the watersheds up here by buying land and other measures(wastewater treatment/farm redesigns).

What I'm asking, is where I could find information about the "FEDS" saying that NYC has to have X amount of water available from the west of the Hudson reservoirs to deal with an "emergency". I've never heard of this except for what COZ has written in this thread. Did you find this info when you did your Google search? I didn't.

 

[Future Fanatic]

[The Feds main concern is that if the Croton system goes down there would not be enough water to take care of this emergency.
COZ

And COZ, if you would indulge me, what do you mean by "if the Croton system goes down "?

Thanks.

 

[babyblue]

John,
If the Croton system goes down, meaning that the water does not meet clean water standards (?) that the water will not be available in an emergency situation, therefore, requiring more water to be left in the Delaware system to meet the need, therefore, leaving less for releases. That's what I got from my google search.

 

[oasis man]

So to change the subject just ever so slightly, does anone know what happened at the DRBC meeting yesterday??
OM

 

[Future Fanatic]

John,
If the Croton system goes down, meaning that the water does not meet clean water standards (?) that the water will not be available in an emergency situation, therefore, requiring more water to be left in the Delaware system to meet the need, therefore, leaving less for releases. That's what I got from my google search.

The water quality DID go down and that is why NYC HAS to spend a billion constructing that Croton system filtration plant. It is supposed to be done in 2010 I think. That is part of my confusion with these past statements. The "FEDS" do not have this Croton filtration plant to hold over the heads of NYC, because NYC is building it RIGHT NOW. I'd like to know specifically, what filtration plant the "FEDS" are holding over NYC that won't allow them to give up any water, like COZ says. That is why I wish HE would clarify his statement a bit. It seems he knows the answer, but as of yet has not shared his insight. Is he away from the boards for some reason?
Maybe he has not seen the question.

 

[Future Fanatic]

Babyblue and others,

There is talk about organizing a mass physical presence at this meeting on the 24th in Trenton. I will get back to you on that later today.

COZ

Oasis, Maybe COZ could fill us in on that one. Was the "mass physical presence" accomplished?

 

[Joe D]

Perhaps this all refers to the 10 year waiver NYC was given on building a filtration plant for Delaware & Catskill reservoirs.

Gothamist: Central Park Reservoir Fountain Flowing Again

APPLE'S GUSHING TRIBUTE - New York Post

New York City | Information Center for the Environment

EPA > Watersheds > Watershed Projects > New York City Watershed Agreement

http://www.epa.gov/region02/water/nycshed/fadmidrev.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/region02/water/nycshed/documents/epaeval_august2006.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/region02/water/nycshed/chap6city2001longtermplan.pdf

 

[Future Fanatic]

Perhaps this all refers to the 10 year waiver NYC was given on building a filtration plant for Delaware & Catskill reservoirs.

I appreciate the effort, Joe D, but this explaination would further complicate the issue. If NYC has a 10 year waiver(and they do) then the "FED" could not hold a filtration plant over them, could it? At least not for ten years... Unless of course, a stipulation of the waiver, was for NYC to not give away water for other purposes. Have you ever heard of that one? Me neither.

You wrote "perhaps...", but the easiest way to not have to speculate is for COZ to clarify what he meant. Has he been poking around here lately?

 

[Joe D]

If NYC has a 10 year waiver(and they do) then the "FED" could not hold a filtration plant over them, could it?

The waiver agreement does have provisions that would make NYC build a Delaware/Catskill filtration plant if they didn't comply with the terms of the waiver agreement. I don't have the time to read the entire set of documents today... could it be in there?

 

[Joe D]

Was the "mass physical presence" accomplished?

I wasn't at the meeting, but I would doubt it since the water code vote was postponed. What is interesting is that NY State and NY City didn't show up.

 

[COZ]

Dear Future Fanatic (John),

As a Tax paying NY resident and former educator you should know that research is the key to getting the answers. The agreement is over 200 pages long. I suggest you look it up and make (as we all know you will ) your oun spin on this. Yes the Feds can come back at NYC if the agreement is violated.

COZ

 

[COZ]

Attendence at the meeting was about 40 people besides the DRBC. NYC and NYS did not show up for this meeting. This tells you everything about the attitude of NYC. In less that 11 weeks the water code vote will on the table. We will keep you posted prior to.

COZ

 

[rossk]

Attendence at the meeting was about 40 people besides the DRBC. NYC and NYS did not show up for this meeting. This tells you everything about the attitude of NYC. In less that 11 weeks the water code vote will on the table. We will keep you posted prior to.

COZ

Coz,

Good to know. Thanks for keeping us updated and informed. I'm sure a lot of folks that would have attended (like myself) did not, due to no action being taken on the FFMP.

As an FYI, I contacted TU about the possibility of litigation. A lot of folks had been telling me that this was not being pursued because there was nothing to go after. Seems that's not the case. In his response to me Chris Wood of TU said


"...litigation is a measure of absolute last resort for us as an organization, and we are just not there yet."

That's quite a bit different from having no legal angle to pursue. I don't know exactly what options need to be exhausted before they get serious about a court action. Stay tuned.

 

[Future Fanatic]

Dear Future Fanatic (John),

As a Tax paying NY resident and former educator you should know that research is the key to getting the answers. The agreement is over 200 pages long. I suggest you look it up and make (as we all know you will ) your oun spin on this. Yes the Feds can come back at NYC if the agreement is violated.

COZ

Research is great, COZ, but you wrote that initial statement about the Feds stopping NYC from giving up water as fact. I figured you would be able to easily clarify what you meant. NO spin, I asked you to elaborate a bit.

Let's get to the real reason that NYC/DRBC will not release water to ANYONE for ANY CAUSE:

The FEDS have been on NYC/CRBC to build the Hudson Water Filtration system to the tune of $9,000,000,000 thats ($9 billion).

The Feds main concern is that if the Croton system goes down there would not be enough water to take care of this emergency. NYC/DRBC
convinced the feds that there is enough water in the Catskill system to take care of this emergency if it ever takes place. The FEDS in turn backed of NYC/DRBC for the construction of the filtration palnt at the $9,000,000,000 cost. If NYC/DRBC gives any water to anyone outside of normal operations the FEDS will force NYC/DRBC to build the system. NYC does not have nor will they spend $9,000,000,000 even if they had it. They would rather spend far less $ fighting in COURT!!!
THIS IS THE REASON THAT WE OR ANYONE ELSE WILL NOT GET WATER!!!

You seemed to say this as if you had the answer. I had never heard this.
I was asking you to clarify your statement a bit so what you knew to be true would be perfectly clear to me. If the FACTS were laid out, I would have far less latitude in spinning ANYTHING.

In this last post you wrote

Yes the Feds can come back at NYC if the agreement is violated

Is what you are saying is that if NYC gives up any "west of the Hudson" water, that they would be "in violation" and then NYC would have to build a

Hudson Water Filtration system to the tune of $9,000,000,000 thats ($9 billion).

?



By the way, all, does anyone know which of our beloved trout/river organizations had representatives at the last DRBC meeting(even though the decision about FFMP was put off)? I'll bet 10 bucks it's a short list. If NYC not showing up says anything, what does it mean when the people fighting for this don't show?

 

[Kilgour Farms]

I thought that they were keeping water levels high in the Delaware reservoirs because they are cleaner then the Catskill, Croton reservoirs, they can mix it to decrease the turbility, clarity of the water and pass the EPA standards.

Turbility is the issue. They have damaged one of the reservoirs because of using to much Aluminum Sulfate, Alum to keep the water clear. I have yet to found out which reservoir, Croton?

Alums byproduct is sulfuric acid. Although alum is not harmful by itself it contributes to harbouring bacteria, parasites and viruses.

 

[Joe D]

By the way, all, does anyone know which of our beloved trout/river organizations had representatives at the last DRBC meeting(even though the decision about FFMP was put off)? I'll bet 10 bucks it's a short list. If NYC not showing up says anything, what does it mean when the people fighting for this don't show?

John, I'm not sure what organizations exist, but I know FUDR had at least a person there. I don't know if NJTU, PATU or NYTU was there. It was known several days before the meeting that the water code vote was being postponed. Because of that, I could understand why many people would wait for the meeting with the water code vote.

 

[Agust]

By the way, all, does anyone know which of our beloved trout/river organizations had representatives at the last DRBC meeting(even though the decision about FFMP was put off)? I'll bet 10 bucks it's a short list. If NYC not showing up says anything, what does it mean when the people fighting for this don't show?

It says that when folks who have to work for a living need to take time off of work to attend meetings during the day, they prefer to do so when actual decision are being made. That being said I'm pretty sure Lee Hartman from PATU was there, he seldom misses a DRBC meeting. I know three TU folks from NJ decided to go plant trees on the Musky instead of attending the meeting, mainly because the vote was delayed and a grant deadline was closing in.

Does anyone else find it interesting that someone who obviously was not there, is complaining about others not having been there?

But what the heck I'm just another unpaid gadfly.

 

[Big_Spinner]

Hi Guys,

IT was an interesting meeting.

I think that it is important to interact with the decision makers before they have made the decision. Showing up for the "vote" may be too late.

The attorney for the DRBC (Ken Warren) gave a great explaination of the history and status of flow and release issues on the Delaware. The content of this explaination will be posted to the DRBC website soon. IT was very informative and I learned a few interesting things.

It was curious that NYS did not show up at the meeting. I am not sure what was worse, to not show up at all or send some sub-underling to the meeting like NJ and DE did. Additionally, the Feds have a new Lt. colonel serving the 2 year term. Trying to keep the turnover postisiotns up to speed on the issues is difficult.

Some of the best face to face with the decree parties is over lunch and I would encourage anyone and everyone to try to make these meetings.

Until FFMP gets approved for the provisional period which ends in May 2011, I do not see too much movement in any of the decree party positions.

NJ has taken the position that the protocol for the re-assessment needs to be worked out before they will move forward with FFMP.

My take is that as long as FFMP is truly flexible, it should be passed, and then as new information becomes available it should be modified accordingly.

The Flood Assessment Model will be available in January along with the extended data sets for the OASIS model.

Then do you delay agian until those are evaluated?

Then does it get delayed again until a new study is needed?

You get the picture. Science is in exact and there can always more information or another study you would like to do before a decision is reached.

FFMP certainly has some problems, but they can be fixed. I think it is easier to fix them if the structure is in place within the water code. That said, I do have a need to make sure that there is the ability to make changes, I do think that the decree parties are committed to make substantial changes to by May, 2011.

When FFMP gets approved for the May, 2011 evaluation period, then and only then will the flood analysis, re-assessment and true water availability be brought into the picture. I do not think that those issues will be put on the table until there is a framework for discussion and regulations to operate by.

I do not care when approvals happen, just as long as the rivers get the water they need.

The decree parties are all in a holding pattern right now, they are not willing to committ resources to making those substantial changes until the FFMP framework is in place in the water code.

Jim