Anglers Ask DFG: Where Is The Delta Stamp Money?

Anglers Ask DFG: Where Is The Delta Stamp Money?

June 17, 2005
By Dan Bacher

More Editorials By Dan Bacher

When the California Department of Fish and Game introduced the Bay-Delta Enhancement Stamp in 2004 to replace the Striped Bass Stamp, many anglers feared that the funds wouldn't be used to enhance fisheries as intended.

The predictions of many were that the fund would be raided to pay for other DFG programs, in spite of the fact that the 2003 bill authorizing the stamp specified that the funds collected would be spent on "long-term, sustainable sport fishing benefits." Anglers complained that the $5.00 stamp fee would probably amount to yet another fee imposed upon fishermen - without producing any tangible benefits.

Their worst fears have been realized, since none of the $2.5 million collected from anglers has been authorized for spending yet.

Furthermore, the State Finance Department did approve a separate plan to spend $264,000 of the stamp money on a Delta creel survey this year - without the input or recommendation of the Bay-Delta Enhancement Stamp Advisory Committee, set up to recommend projects to be funded by the DFG.

Representatives of fishing groups, frustrated about the fund not being spent for its dedicated fishery enhancement purposes, asked some hard questions of Department of Fish and Game representatives who addressed the stamp committee meeting on Tuesday, June 7.

"The news that the stamp money hasn't been spent yet - while anglers are forced to pay money into the fund - doesn't sit well with the sportfishing community," said John Beuttler, consultant with the California Sportfishing Alliance and a member of the stamp committee. "How do we explain to anglers how this came to pass?"'

"The Bay-Delta Stamp is a dedicated fund," said Bob Strickland, president of United Anglers of California, "so there is no reason why the money shouldn't be available at any time for a project to enhance fisheries. We have nothing to show fishermen for their money - and there is no reason for us to continue to pay into the stamp fund. Don't be surprised if we see a boycott of the stamp in the coming year if the stamp money isn't authorized."

According to Ed Pert, chief of the DFG's fisheries program, the reason why the money hasn't been spent yet, in spite of the stamp money being a dedicated fund put into the Fish and Game Preservation Fund, is because the Department of Finance denied two requests by the DFG to authorize spending the stamp monies.

The Department submitted a budget change proposal to Finance to authorize expenditures by July 2005. However, Finance last fall denied the request, claiming that the proposals violated the Governor's administrative directive to "refrain from any proposals to expand government."

The DFG then sent a letter to the Department of Finance asking them to release the funds. It was also denied.

The stamp was approved at a time when a lot of the state's general funds, formerly used to fund DFG programs, were drying up. The DFG was ordered by the Legislature to find a way to fund CEQA-mandated programs, in spite of increasing budget constraints.

"The DFG was left with two alternatives in light of this mandate from the legislature," said Pert. "First, we are trying to not do work on some programs. Second, we are working on increasing our revenues."

He continued, "The Bay Delta stamp is a case of bad luck and timing during this process. At any normal time, there wouldn't be any problem of getting the authorization for the budget. However, because of the timing with the decline in state revenue, we're not getting authorization to spend stamp monies."

Also, the Finance Department complained that the DFG proposal didn't have enough program specifics in it to justify authorization. At the meeting, Pert asked committee members to submit a specific plan for projects that could be accomplished by spending the stamp money.

A story in the Sacramento Bee by Andrew La Page quoted a legislative analysis's report of April 11 that found the DFG has "been overspending certain accounts" within its Preservation Fund. "We estimate that Fish and Game has in effect 'borrowed' about $11 million from dedicated accounts," according to the report.

However, Pert said that describing what DFG did as "borrowing" money out of the Fish and Game Preservation Fund was not accurate. "What we did was borrow against our dedicated account, not from it," noted Pert.

Representatives of fishing groups aren't convinced of the difference.

"The Fish and Game says the state can't release the $2.5 million because of a technicality of the budget process," noted Strickland. "That's the department's fault and is not our problem. It's all a big shell game of shifting around funds and the Department is just playing with the money."

Pat Coulston, DFG supervising fishery biologist, emphasized to the committee "people are actively working to solve this problem, so we can get release of the funds authorized by Finance."

Unfortunately, he could give no timetable for the release. "It could be tomorrow or it could be a year," he admitted.

What makes the delay in the release of stamp funds particularly egregious is that it occurs at a time just after a panel of state and federal scientists has documented an alarming decline in the Delta food chain over the past three years.

Beuttler said he is disappointed that there is no firm date for when the stamp funds will be released for expenditure. "With the problems facing the delta now, that's unacceptable," he emphasized. "We need a solution to the release of funds now, not in 2006."

At the same meeting, Coulston updated the studies being done on Delta pelagic species, showing graphs documenting the rapid and rapid decline in Delta smelt, longfin smelt, threadfin shad and juvenile striped bass.

"We've seen an alarming reduction in the abundance of all four species," said Coulston. "Longfin smelt, once the most common forage fish, have declined to their lowest ever levels. The threadfin shad, abundant until recently, have also declined dramatically. When the shad are in the tank, you know that virtually nothing can live there."

The zooplankton trends are also very disheartening. Pseudodiaptomus, a major delta zooplankton source for other species, has virtually collapsed. On the other hand, limnoithona, an introduced plankton species that provides virtually no forage for Delta fish, increased from 1995 to 2002.

To date, the agencies have formed a project work team, begun a trend analysis, completed a work plan and started 2005 sampling estimates.

A number of factors are believed responsible for the collapse, including water projects, introduced species and toxics. However, biologists hypothesize that the change in Delta hydrology over the past four years - where less water is pumped from the Delta in the spring and more water is pumped starting in July - may be a key factor in the forage species declines.

John Beuttler summed up the feelings of many when he said, "The Calfed Program is not working. When the food web collapses, our Bay Delta fishery will be destroyed. We need flows through the system that mimic as much as possible the estuary's natural flow regime."

if you are in to this stuff, and i am sure all of us are, check out california sportfishing protection alliance. c/o john buettler. they try to save water for salmon and steelhead.