You aren't allowed to guess when it comes to science

For years government agencies have said that export pumping is at fault for declining Delta fish populations, yet Judge Oliver Wanger’s ruling could not have been more clear; the government acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” and the pumping restrictions were “a product of guesstimations”. The agencies involved formulated actions that lack scientific justification and they failed to evaluate alternatives other than reduced pumping.

Those are strong words.

Judge Wanger also acknowledged that protections for fish are important. That’s something farmers have never debated. The answer, according to the judge and I agree, must be a balanced solution that doesn’t sacrifice the needs of people for the sake of fish, especially when bad science is used to justify regulatory actions.

Delta fish need water, but it has to be clean

All of the people who have been claiming for years that export pumping is the root cause for declining fish populations will have some new information to consider. According to University of Maryland researcher Dr. Patricia Glibert, upstream wastewater has changed the ratio of chemicals in the Delta, essentially killing off the base of the food chain that native fish depend on and making things easier for invasive species.

This is something we have suspected for years; thanks to previous work done by folks like BJ Miller who concluded that delta smelt were simply starving. Today’s study points to the smoking gun that supports the conclusions in Miller’s earlier work.

Californians should be furious over this because of the hundreds of millions of dollars and billions of gallons of water that have been thrown at the problem over the last 20 years to no avail. In the days to come expect environmental advocates to continue to demand that water supplies to south-of-delta users be reduced even further in this failed attempt to restore the ecosystem.


http://www.umces.edu/Glibert%20Reviews%20in%20Fisheries%20Science.pdf

Leave your mark on the world

It seems to me that some critics of agricultural water use, and even water development in general, are simply trying to fulfill a basic human need to leave their mark on the world. Tearing down what others have built is their way of doing it.

Throughout history men and women have undertaken endeavors to invent some revolutionary device or medical procedure. Some have devoted their lives to discovering a new element bearing their name to be forever emblazoned on the periodic chart. Others have chosen the path of humanitarian efforts to ease hunger, eradicate disease or free oppressed people in parts of the world that most of us will never see.

These are noble actions for which recognition and admiration are often due. Those contributions to humanity can be considered someone’s “mark” so to speak, that they have left by their achievements.

Consider the effect Norman Borlaug has had on eradicating hunger throughout the world. Borlaug, who died in September 2009, is widely considered the father of the green revolution. Not the green revolution that has us all buying compact fluorescent light bulbs and hybrid automobiles. No, Borlaug was a pioneer in plant genetics who developed high yield, drought tolerant crops that could flourish in areas of the world where agricultural production was insufficient to feed the local population. As a Nobel Laureate, Borlaug is credited with saving perhaps a billion people from starvation.

Today in California there are a number of people, personally well intentioned I’m sure, who have chosen a path of tearing down our remarkable water supply system and the people who use it, seemingly as their way of “making their mark” on society. But what are they accomplishing? Is their intent to restore rivers to their pristine, pre-European state – California circa 1840? Do they envision a San Joaquin Valley periodically flooded from Bakersfield to the San Joaquin River as it was before many of our water projects were built?

Maybe. And their desire could be to point to the fact that they were personally involved in the dismantling of some of California’s water projects and returning vast tracts of productive farmland to sagebrush and tumbleweeds.

There are those who argue that California’s ecosystems are damaged and in desperate need of repair. To that, many agree; but in a state as rich as ours we have the resources and the will to fix our problems. Compare air quality in the Los Angeles Basin in the 1970s and today. We have made vast improvements because we’ve been willing and able to do so. The same is true with our rivers, streams and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. We’re on the way to improving those important resources and I’m absolutely sure we will eventually look back with the same success and satisfaction we have seen in other areas.

Let’s step back for a moment and look at humanity and the laws of unintended consequences. California is unquestionably a model for success. From the aerospace industry to computers to entertainment and especially agriculture, California leads the world. No one can argue that. California farms and the role that efficient irrigation systems play in crop production should be held up as a model for the world to follow, not destroy. One only needs to look at the world’s poverty and unbelievable human suffering caused by starvation to see where the real work needs to be done. Areas of Africa and Southeast Asia could benefit greatly from California’s so-called activists. Instead of sitting at a computer terminal leaving anonymous uninformed comments on news articles and blogs deriding “corporate” agriculture, people should look around at the real problems of the world and see what they can do to help out. Make a donation. Volunteer their time.

By looking at the bigger picture, anyone can see how California’s efficient and productive agriculture industry can help ease the world’s suffering directly, by feeding people, and indirectly through technology transfers that will ultimately help them feed themselves.

That is the noble endeavor. Individuals should turn their efforts toward helping other people instead of tearing down the mechanism that already exists and is able to do so.

That is where they should leave their mark.

Letter to Michael Koepf

Dear Mr. Koepf:

Thank you for your letter dated June 9, 2009, regarding the state of California’s salmon industry, water shortages and agriculture. I share your belief that farmers and fishermen have much in common and I agree that the public is misinformed that Delta pumps that provide water to farmers and 25 million Californians are the principle cause behind declining salmon stocks.

There is no doubt that both farmers and fishermen are facing economic ruin under the current water supply and regulatory climate. Salmon numbers are at record lows, which caused the closure of the fishing season during the past two years. At the same time, water supply cuts related to federal agency-produced biological opinions related to the Delta smelt and more recently Chinook salmon have driven water deliveries from export facilities to the lowest level since the construction of the projects 60 years ago.

While your plan to diversify hatchery programs throughout California seems to be a reasonable and prudent way to help revive your industry, I am concerned by the public comments by those representing California fishing interests who seem to only attack farmers. Time after time “corporate agribusiness” and the managers who operate the State and federal water supply projects are blamed for the ills of the Delta, which by the way, we agree needs to be fixed.

We need more people like you interested in having a serious discussion on things that will truly help fishing AND farming in California. Only then will we be able to do what’s necessary for sustainable ecosystems and water supplies that we all depend on.

Thanks again for your letter.

Sincerely,

Mike Wade
Executive Director
California Farm Water Coalition

Water supply cuts and failed environmental policies

As unemployment lines grow longer and rural communities suffer under the economic hardships of the regulatory drought, we can feel better knowing that today’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) biological opinion includes whales among the species protected by reduced Central Valley water deliveries.

That’s right, I said whales.

The 844-page Biological Opinion on the Long Term Operation of the federal Central Valley Project and State Water Project claims that Central California salmon are the food supply for federally-listed “Southern Resident killer whales,” and therefore, the whales are in jeopardy because of low salmon stocks.

But what is causing the salmon to decline? A mountain of data going back 30 years or more shows that operation of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project pumping plants could be responsible for about five percent of the impact on the affected species. Other factors include striped bass predation, overfishing by commercial fishermen, upstream water quality, invasive species, ocean conditions and even the Clean Water Act. Studies of “adult equivalent” impacts show fishermen have almost 10 times the impacts on salmon as the projects.

None of these factors were addressed in the Opinion and the focus has remained where it has for years without any recordable improvements in the health of the Delta. The result is an enormous hardship on working families who depend on farm water for their livelihoods and a crashing ecosystem that is failing because of misguided policies. In today’s economic times taxpayers should be demanding results, not a rehash of the failed environmental policies of yesteryear.

Bad News is Good News

We were discussing news coverage of water issues in the office today and why the water user community always seems to be on the defensive. Most stories you read or hear about from news outlets are geared toward a catastrophe or righting something that has supposedly gone wrong.

Coverage on the Governor's proposal to build new reservoirs to help meet the state's future water supply needs contained some very strident comments from anti-dam people. Their comments included claims that new storage was just another billion-dollar handout for farmers. The papers love conflict, especially when it pits people against the environment. So often we read that projects like Temperence Flat Dam or the South Delta Improvements Project must be stopped because of the harm they might cause. Seldom are all of the facts printed that explain why new water projects are necessary. It just easier to publish the comments from one side or the other and let the public decide what's right based on who has the best spin.

Its difficult to for a farmer to compete for public sympathy when his or her opposition is a salmon. But is doesn't have to be that way. The discussion shouldn't be framed as an either/or proposition. Fish also benefit from surface storage in the way of water supply reliability. There is simply more water available to release into the river during times of the year when water flows would otherwise diminish.

Farmers are as much a part of California as fish are. Heck, we all are. That's why its important for the public to understand that farmers and the water districts that supply them are doing really great things to help the environment. Take a look at the publication "A Smaller Footprint" on the web site for the Agricultural Water Management Council at http://www.agwatercouncil.org. Its full of positive stories and is a resource that members of the media should use to see that there is indeed some balance in the world.

The Legislative Perspective

State Sen. Don Perata insulted water agency officials and water users throughout California recently when he said we have not even begun to make a dent in water conservation activities ("Democrats oppose new dams in California, favor conservation,'' Jan. 26).

According to the Association of California Water Agencies, California has been on the leading edge of water conservation for years and saves 700,000 acre-feet of water per year, enough for about 5.5 million people. In addition, today's farmers conserve water with high-efficiency irrigation systems growing high-value crops.

But without new storage, California will be short 1 million to 2 million acre-feet of water per year during a normal year and even more during a drought. The time for new reservoirs to store water is now.

Standing in the Way

According to the January 7 San Diego Union-Tribune, newly-elected Assemblyman Jared Huffman, the former Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) lawyer, began questioning the motive behind Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s plan to increase water storage in California before the plan was even announced. Another NRDC staffer, Barry Nelson, trumpeted the plan as a conspiracy by farmers to get a “billion-dollar handout” in the form of subsidized water. Their comments came in response to an article in the San Diego Union-Tribune (1/7/07) that previewed the Governor’s plan prior to his formal announcement before the Legislature.

Nelson went on to say that environmentalists have received too much blame for stalling reservoirs and that the fault is with urban water agencies unwilling to pay their share.

Can you believe it? Nothing has stood in the way of new water development more than hard-core environmental groups. Urban and agricultural water agencies have been very open about their willingness to pay for any water benefits they receive from new projects. The rub comes when water agencies are asked to pay for public benefits, such as environmental projects when they are clearly a public benefit and ones for which the public should pay.

People like Huffman and Nelson want the public to believe that farms have unfairly benefited from past water projects, such as the federal Central Valley Project or the State Water Project. What they don’t say is that farmers have been paying for the water they receive and are willing to pay their fair share of the costs for any new water delivered from new water projects.

It is my opinion that hard-core environmentalists want to prevent – yes, stop - any new water development in California. By doing so, they know that the inevitable growth the state will experience in coming years will ultimately get its water from the supply that currently goes to farms. That is an unbalanced approach to planning and a cowardly way to address the needs of the next generation.

What this state needs is a balanced approach to meeting its resource needs. Conservation and recycling programs have done a tremendous job of meeting new growth while only a small amount of new water has been developed in the past 30 years. That can’t go on forever. If we don’t develop more water to meet our needs through the 21st century we’re going to have to meet new water supply needs by taking water away from an existing water user. That somebody is the California farmer and he or she is being sacrificed for tomorrow’s growth by people like Jared Huffman and Barry Nelson.

If people like Huffman and Nelson had their way, the sign at the border would say, “Welcome to California. Bring your own food.”