Delta Smelt Breeding Project

xyzabc

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2004
RO Number
14301
Messages
89
Here isthe URL for an interesting article about a project to breed the Delta Smelt. Unfortunately, I cannot create a link. --- Warren >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Address......................... :http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/403570.html
 
I DID create a link --- and it works. Hope you enjoy this info. -- Warren
 
I certainly do not enjoy reading that the Delta Smelt may be on the edge of extinction in the wild. However, I do take some pleasure in seeing DWR making some attempt (as late as it is) to correct the environmental mess they and all of the other water hogs made of the Delta. It isn't just DWR: just about everyone is guilty of exploiting the Delta in one way or another.

Fish have a way of bouncing back, and sometimes they don't. Only time will tell if reduced pumping this winter has any effect on Delta Smelt numbers. If the worst happens (and there is a good chance that it will) then I'm relieved that there is a back-up population of captive smelt that could be used to restock the Delta.

What is the worst that could happen? All of the smelt could die off in the wild, taking other species with them. Or, a residual population of small, weak-swimming Delta Smelt may survive the heavy water export era only to die off if better water circulation is returned to the Delta. Either way, a stock of healthy captive fish could be worth its weight in gold for Delta restoration.

I'm looking forward to a time when Delta water exports are permanently reduced and more natural hydrologic patterns are returned to the Delta. I'm looking forward to a restored and safe Delta that exports water, but also thrives with fish, game, tules, wildlife and tree-lined shorelines that could be found in the Delta before DWR turned it into their pet irrigation ditch.

97% of San Joaquin River system water and 50% of Sacramento River system water are now diverted for agricultural and municipal use. Even if southern California gets all of the remaining 50% of Sacramento River water, there still won't be enough water to meet California's water needs in the near future: whether we get increased water storage or not.

It's time for the Governor, DWR and the water brokers to give up on outdated plans like peripheral and cross-delta canals and catch up with the 21st century. Decide what we want the Delta to be, run the science and then make the designs that will do the job. Get over the automatic ditch-digging and dam building thing and start designing the large scale desalination plants this state really needs and the nuclear power plants to run them.

rant over, I'm out.
 
Yzer-- I don't consider that a raant, but rather a lament and a prayer. I have been a boater since the early '60s, the River Rat era of the Delta, and what has occurred down through the years is indeed lamentable, and possibly beyond prayer to fix. I even remember the beautul tree=lined banks of the Sacramento in the early '50s (it was idyllic) and the horror that followed when the Army
Corps ordered everything cut down. Back then, working stiffs like myself, considered a boat like yours the epitome of luxury, something to admire as it passed by on the river. Wish that restoring the Delta could be as simple as restoring your beautiful, nostalgic craft. I salute you, your thoughts and your Chris. -- Warren
 
Warren, you are very lucky to have seen the Delta of the '50s. The rest of us have to rely on old photos and writings to understand what the Delta was like back then.

I don't think it's too late to start restoration. We can't take the Delta back in time even 50 years, but if the state resolves to improve environmental values with all of the work it does there: we can do a lot in small increments. This could mean improvements like natural shorelines whenever a levee is repaired or something larger: like water projects that actually restore natural water conditions while supplying export water.

Controls on Delta water exports are essential and we'll have to find new ways to produce water for California. Right now, the best shot we have is desalination but even that has environmental issues to overcome. Not impossible issues, but challenging issues. Desalination also has political problems: water conveyance is a big business that doesn't want competition and clean power for desalination plants means nuclear power. Use of nuclear power will divide old-school environmentalists from younger and science-oriented environmentalists.

There are a lot of hurdles to overcome before reaching a balance between water use and Delta conservation.

There is still a lot of Delta left for those of us who like to drop by for a visit or choose to make it our home. Changes for the better will be slow in coming and most of us will only see small improvements during our lifetime. But, I'm convinced that Californians of the future will thank us for turning the Delta course from destruction toward restoration.

Right now the best thing any of us do is send the emails and make the phone calls to our elected officials. A lot of water and Delta issues are in the works for Sacramento next week and our opinions are valuable.
 
I too favor desalination plants, as well as conservation, for southern California as a means of saving the delta from total destruction. I'm wondering if solar power could be used to power desalination plants? yzer, perhaps you have enough knowledge on this matter to comment?

Thanks for your well phrased opinions on this subject!
 
I'm a big solar energy fan and have panels on my house and boat. There just wouldn't be enough acreage available to power a large desalination plant by solar. These plants require a tremendous amount of power to do reverse osmosis on this kind of scale. Natural gas works for some areas in the middle east where they have a lot of it and its cheap, for the rest of the big plants: nuclear is the only practical solution.

San Diego has nuclear plants already. Building more wouldn't be a huge issue there. Southern CA has been luckier with atomic power than we have. They didn't have a PG&E try to build a nuclear plant on top of the San Andreas Fault or a SMUD of the 1970's and 80's who shouldn't have been trusted to power a flashlight, let alone a nuclear power plant.
 
PG&E also built a nuclear plant on the southern coast near San Diego. I believe it is in the process of being deactivated?
 
A lot of the old nuclear plants are obsolete. Hard to believe they were designed to run without the kind of computer power we have today. A plant at Eureka was phased out too and a new fossil fuel facility took its place.

Incidently, that Eureka plant was built in the early 60s before seismic studies became part of the planning process. It was phased out in 1976 because the cost to retrofit was too high.

Shock-absorbed foundations under buildings like the Transamerica Tower (built in SF in the early '70s) proved engineering was there to protect nuclear power plants from quakes. It's still smarter and cost-efficient to build them away from known fault zones, though.
 
A minor note on San Diego and nukes: SD is the homeport of the USS Nimitz, USS Stennis, and USS Reagan. If these three are home and one of the other Pacific carriers (USS Vinson or USS Lincoln) drops in for a visit, San Diego becomes the "most nuclear" city on earth--those four carriers alone count for eight operating nuclear reactors. Kudos to SD for not running the Navy out of town like SF did.

BTG
 
The San Diego nuclear plant would be the San Onofre plant near San Clemente. It's Southern California Edison and has three reactors. Reactor #1 is being torn out now, but the other two are expected to produce power for another 15 years.
 
Thanks, I couldn't think of the name for the life of me! I believe PG&E sold the reactors to SoCalEd when they were in bankruptcy......
 
I like the fact that there are efforts being made to prevent the extinction of the smelt.

However, I hope it doesn't lead to a concept where depleting smelt is acceptable, as farmed smelt can replenish those stocks.

I am curious as to how they can breed a "stronger" breed of smelt in captivity, compared to the natural occuring breed?

Not a bioligist here, but I have never heard of that one before?
 
quote:

Originally posted by chiselchst

I like the fact that there are efforts being made to prevent the extinction of the smelt.

However, I hope it doesn't lead to a concept where depleting smelt is acceptable, as farmed smelt can replenish those stocks.

I am curious as to how they can breed a "stronger" breed of smelt in captivity, compared to the natural occuring breed?

Not a bioligist here, but I have never heard of that one before?





This is the way I understand it from the CALFED science Workshops. It's kind of a bassackwards issue with wild smelt vs. captive smelt.

The South Delta pumps are deadliest against healthy Delta Smelt that are strong enough to swim from the Sacramento into the pump's kill zone (which is most of the Central Delta). Once into that zone the smelt are sucked south and killed off by the fish screen system or the pumps themselves.

This isn't proven yet, but evidence is strong for this theory... Pumping has killed off many (if not most) of the full-sized healthy wild smelt. The wild smelt that remain are small and weak fish that don't swim into the kill zone. Those surviving wild smelt will produce an increasing number of "dwarf" offspring. It's natural selection at work to produce smelt of any kind that will survive delta pumping long enough to produce a new generation.

Natural selection (evolution) does this all of the time in response to natural changes in the environment. Species can evolve into a larger or smaller variety in response to the environment. Those changes can be natural or man-made. That's why wild corn in South America is so much smaller that corn that was domesticated by Native Americans and the European settlers. That's how some wolves became dogs. It's why sharks and crocodiles are so much smaller than prehistoric versions.

The Delta Smelt that were captured before the population tanked are strong, full-sized smelt. If we breed them carefully, they will retain their full size and strength. But the longer we breed them in captivity the less likely they are to keep instinctual behaviors. (Ever see a hatchery trout in a small wild stream? Right after they are planted the trout will swim up to people they see on the banks looking for a fish food handout.)

If the Delta Smelt survive in the wild as a smaller, weaker-swimming fish it may not survive if Delta water circulation turns back to something more normal. The captive fish will have normal strength and size. That's another reason why it's good to have a back-up ready. The primary reason is the captive smelt may be the only ones left alive.

There are other factors that probably contributed to the Delta Smelt crash. Loss of food supply is one. That could be caused by the cross-Delta pumping or by invasive species. The loss of good spawning habitat is another possibility. Reseach is still going on to nail down the cause(s).
 
Back
Top