STANISLAUS CONNECTIONS

Working For Peace, Justice, and A Sustainable Environment

A Modesto Peace/Life Center Publication

May, 2001

Living Lightly

mudpies.jpg (23940 bytes)

By DAN and BARBARA POLLOCK

Dear Friends and Fellow Gardeners,

Summer heat is upon us, and you would do well to consider mulching the garden.

The benefits of mulching include, moisture retention, prevention of weed seed germination, protection of surface roots, degradation of the organic matter that adds beneficial humus to the soil, soil temperature modification, soil texture improvement to allow better water penetration, and improved aesthetics. 

A layer of wood chips around shrubs, trees, and planted beds can help make a beneficial difference in growth, health, fruit, and bloom.

In selecting mulch materials, keep in mind the following. Use coarse wood chips 3/4” – 1.5”. Cover the area 4” – 6” deep, This depth is needed to block the light necessary for weed seed germination. Although not as important with coarse wood chips, it is still a good idea to keep a clear space (8”- 12”) around the trunk of trees to protect them from crown rot.

Check with your local county landfill for the availability of wood chips. Remember, you want wood chips, not compost which should be incorporated into the soil.

If you happen to see a tree crew chipping trees limbs, ask them if they would like to dump their chips in your drive. This could save them a long haul and a landfill dumping fee. Be aware that this could be a very large pile and you must be prepared to move it.

I have heard that walnut wood chips have a weed seed pre-emergence effect upon the soil. Weeds will not germinate due to the chemicals leached out of their bark.

There is new safer insecticide on the market which could be a help to farmers and gardeners. It is called Diatect V insecticide and is made up of pyrethrins and diatomaceous earth. As you know, I prefer not to use any insecticide in my garden. However, for those that need to protect a crop this sounds like safe and effective alternative to other chemicals.

Just finished two books that I highly recommend. Tuesdays with Morrie by Mitch Albom, a wonderful, true story of Mitch’s conversations with Morrie, one of his former teachers. Oh, if we all could be more like Morrie, how much happier the world would be!

Plainsong by Kent Haruf. What an artist with a pen! Such descriptions bring the characters to life and really draw you into the story. Some of you will say “I know people like that.”

Until next Month, Peace and Good Gardening

2nd Annual Heartland Conference and Country Fair

The Energy Crisis: new hydroelectric dams are not the solution

By STEVEN L. EVANS

Hydroelectric dams are often touted as a clean, renewable source of electricity. So why not build more to help alleviate the energy crisis? The answer can be found in the long list of extinct and endangered fish, degraded river habitat, and lost recreational opportunities associated with existing hydroelectric development on California rivers.

More than 90 percent of historic salmon and steelhead habitat in the Central Valley have been blocked by hydroelectric and water supply dams. Partially due to the state’s extensive network of dams constructed over the past century, nearly 67 percent of California’s native fish species are now considered to be extinct, endangered, or in decline. The more than 1,400 dams in California (300 of which are federally licensed hydroelectric projects) have also helped eliminate approximately 90 percent of the unique habitat in and around our state’s rivers.

Several years ago, University of California scientists studied the natural resources of the Sierra Nevada and found that river-related habitats were the most altered ecosystems in the mountain range. These experts attributed the problems, in part, to the extensive system of dams and diversions constructed to generate power and supply water. Hundreds of miles of rivers and streams have been harnessed, regulated, and drained nearly dry to generate electricity in California.

Such facilities prompted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to consider free flowing rivers to be endangered ecosystems.

The are many other reasons why we cannot solve the energy crisis by building more dams, including the basic fact that the best and most cost-effective dam sites in California have already been used. The remaining sites tend to be the least accessible and the most costly to develop, as well as possessing significant environmental constraints. Hydroelectric generation is also at the mercy of the weather and climate changes (rain neither follows the plow nor the dam). During times of drought, hydro dams can produce comparatively little power, while their environmental impacts are magnified by low flows. Reducing flows even further to maximize energy production can virtually drain rivers already pauperized by low flows.

Large hydroelectric dams can take as long as 10-15 years to construct and can require a decade or more of hydropower generation to make up for the energy used for construction. Although smaller “run of the river” hydro projects can be constructed in a much shorter period, these projects often divert as much as 90-95 percent of all of the flow in a river or stream, resulting in severe impacts on fish, wildlife, and recreational values. There are many examples in California of so-called “small hydro” projects (generating less than 30 megawatts of energy) that have contributed to the decline and extirpation of aquatic species, as well as to the loss of recreational values. Federal and state taxpayers are spending $30 million to restore salmon and steelhead habitat on one California creek alone that has been damaged by an existing small hydro project.

The construction of more hydroelectric dams would simply extend our sad heritage of resource destruction, resulting in the collapse of entire ecosystems, widespread species extinction, and loss of free flowing rivers and other natural areas that play an important role in the renewal and refreshment of the human spirit. We must solve the energy crisis by wisely using our existing energy sources, conserving power, and developing renewable sources of energy that do not damage the environment. Increased conservation as well as new non-hydro power plants currently under construction and scheduled to come on line in the next few years will largely alleviate the energy shortage. More destructive hydroelectric development is not the answer.

How Dams Harm Rivers:

• Dams Modify River Flows – Many hydroelectric dams in California divert as much as 90% of the flow of a river from the river bed to generate electricity. Larger dams with reservoirs often reduce high spring-time flows needed to flush the river ecosystem, while sometimes increasing flows during the normal low-flow season. Operating hydroelectric dams to generate power when it is most needed or most profitable can result in radical downstream river fluctuations. Unnatural modification of flows can result in severe adverse impacts on native fish, wildlife, and the overall river ecosystem.

• Dams Block Rivers – Dams block the migration of fish and other organisms. Although this can often be partially mitigated with fish ladders, no fish passage structure is 100% effective. Dams also block the natural flushing of gravel, sediment, and nutrients downstream, which are often needed to provide for healthy fish and wildlife habitat. Altering a river’s ability to transport sediment may cause downstream erosion of river banks and beaches. Accumulated sediment behind dams can reduce water storage capacity and require artificial flushing that degrades downstream water quality. Sediment stored behind dams can also accumulate man-made pollutants.

• Dams Alter Water Temperature & Water Quality – Dams often increase water temperature by diverting significant amounts of water and slowing the natural river flow. Dams can change native warm water fisheries into cold water fisheries or vice-versa, wreaking havoc on native species. Water stored in reservoirs behind dams is often oxygen starved, which can kill fish and other organisms downstream when released from the dam.

• Dams Kill Fish – Unscreened diversions associated with dams can capture fish or fish can be trapped against fish screens by water pressure. Fish caught in hydro diversions can be killed by spinning turbines or become disoriented and subject to predation. Dams provide excellent habitat for predators that feed on migrating fish slowed by dams. Fish that spill over the lip of a dam can be injured or killed, depending on the dam height.

• Dams Impact Recreational Values – Rivers with significant hydroelectric diversions are often unable to support self-sustaining native fish populations. Low river flows generally reduce recreational opportunities, with adverse impacts on local tourism-based economies. Although some hydroelectric facilities actually enhance whitewater boating opportunities on some river segments and at some times of the year, they can also reduce or eliminate boating opportunities altogether. Although reservoirs behind large dams can provide flat-water recreation, seasonal reservoir fluctuations can degrade or eliminate this experience.

Steven L. Evans is conservation director for Friends of the River, a statewide river protection organization based in Sacramento.

For more information, contact Charlie Casey, (916) 442-3155 x218; email; cecasey@friendsoftheriver.org

Bush administration’s First Nuclear Budget puts us all at risk

The Department of Energy (DOE) budget proposal, released April 9, 2001, contains funding increases for nuclear weapons design activities in fiscal year 2001. At the same time, the budget chops funding for cleanup of the country’s contaminated nuclear facilities by over $400 million.

This budget puts downwind and downstream communities across the nation at risk by leaving deadly contaminants to migrate in soil and groundwater plumes while spending more than $5 billion on new weapons programs that will pollute even more.

To add insult to injury the DOE did not hold “stakeholders” meetings at its field offices when the budget was released, as it has done in past years. Nor did DOE Headquarters assist local communities in getting the specific budget numbers for the DOE sites in their neighborhoods. In short, DOE tried to “lock out” public participation.

Locally, the DOE budget request would virtually end the program to clean up toxic and radioactive pollutants at the Livermore Lab. The proposed cut for the Lab’s environmental restoration program is an astonishing 48% which means DOE is literally “walking away” leaving cancer-causing contaminants like TCE, RDX high explosives, and radioactive tritium and uranium in our groundwater.

The Livermore Lab main site and the Site 300 high explosives testing range (near Tracy) are both on the “Superfund” list of most contaminated sites. The 2002 budget request does not contain sufficient monies for DOE to approach, let alone carry out, the bare-bones legal requirements of the Federal Facilities Agreement for the coming year. Therefore, this is actually an illegal budget request.

On the other side, in Defense Programs, our tax money is flowing like champagne at a wedding. The DOE wants to increase spending for nuclear weapons projects like the National Ignition Facility (NIF) under construction at Livermore Lab. The NIF violates the U.S. commitment to nuclear disarmament under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Locally, it will produce radioactive wastes and increase contamination. The NIF should be canceled and cleanup fully supported.

Other backward budget requests:

The DOE budget is now in the hands of Congress.

ACTION: Speak out and demand a shift in priorities, locally and across the nation.

Write your Congressmember and Senators demanding budget changes, cleanup, and closure of the National Ignition Facility.

Edited from Citizen’s Watch, Tri-Valley Cares, 2582 Old First St., Livermore, CA 94550; http://www.igc.org/tvc