California water agencies urge overturn of court's Sucker Fish ruling

California water agencies have filed arguments in a federal appeals court challenging a lower court judge's decision that upheld the expansion of the Santa Ana Sucker fish's critical habitat, much of which is in the Inland Empire.

Representing 440 agencies that deliver much of California's water, the Association of California Water Agencies filed a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals on the 9th Circuit on June 3 outlining water agencies' concerns about the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's decision to double the critical habitat area for the small, algae-eating fish.

Other public agencies have echoed the California Water Agencies' concerns.

The agencies contend that expansion of the habitat violated federal guidelines of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which they said requires that federal, state and local agencies work together in a cooperative way.

"This dispute, created by the Service, really reflects a lack of coordination and cooperation between federal, state and local agencies, which is precisely what the NEPA tries to avoid," according to Greg Wilkinson, an attorney representing the public agencies in their appeal.

The appeal stems from October 2012's ruling in U.S. District Court that upheld the Fish & Wildlife decision to designate more than 9,000 acres along the Santa Ana River in San Bernardino and Riverside counties as critical habitat for the endangered fish.

That ruling was prompted after water agencies filed a lawsuit in 2011 against the Fish & Wildlife Service, arguing

that the Service's expansion of habitat in 2010 was based on flawed science.

They claimed that expanding the area of protection could reduce the water supply for residents in the region.

Ileene Anderson, biologist with the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity, said "We definitely think the Fish & Wildlife Service made the right determination about what the sucker fish needs to survive."

"The fish's habitat is limited and Fish & Wildlife did include the perennial part of the Santa Ana River, but also the Santa Ana River Wash," Anderson added. "The sucker has to have gravel-sized pieces of rocks for them to lay eggs, and Fish & Wildlife included the gravel source in the Santa Ana River Wash."

Conservationists and water agencies have a long history of litigation.

Ironically, the whole area does not always have water and is already the designated habitat for the endangered kangaroo rat, according to Anderson.

Agencies that are participating in the lawsuit filed last October against the Fish & Wildlife Service include:

Bear Valley Mutual Water Company in Redlands, Big Bear Municipal Water District, city of Redlands,

city of Riverside, city of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department, East Valley Water

District in Highland, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, San

Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation

District, West Valley Water District in Rialto, and Yucaipa Valley Water District.

The public agencies are also asking the appeals court to order the Fish and Wildlife Service to consider the impact of its decision on the human environment and to re-evaluate the needs of the fish using the best available science.

Source: http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_23710908?source=rss

Ed Koch Groundhog Day 2013 What Time Is The Superbowl Caleb Moore House of Cards Chris Culliver Atlanta school shooting