Newspaper editorials should be elision-free zones

Given the mastery of spin that interest advocacy experts have developed, editorial writers would be well-served to not make basic errors if they want to contribute accurate, important and mature points of view.

In an otherwise thoughtful piece, an editorial in the Oakland Tribune made the claim that “agriculture…uses 80 percent of California’s water.”

The editorial was about Delta issues, and the writer(s) made an error when referring to a state-wide water use statistic.

So, in the comments section of the online editorial, Mike Wade, of the California Farm Water Coalition, correctly called the paper on this.

Mr Wade cited DWR statistics that “identifies water use in California during a normal year as environmental, 48%, agriculture, 41% and urban, 11%.” Fair enough.

The problem is that while these numbers may be true, they also deflect from the defensible point of view the Trib’s editorial staff was trying to make.

Which is, that in order to meet the challenges of the Delta Stewardship Council’s “fix the Delta’s ecosystem” mandate, “sacrifices by water users will have to be made, particularly by agriculture.”

It may not be that Ag uses 80% of the state’s water, and Mr Wade’s number of 41% may be close to a reasonably accurate percentage of Delta water use by Ag, but only if calculated as the theoretical/ideological total amount of water available to export.

That last little bit is where all of the debate and rhetoric is, or should be. Rhetoric about property rights and the price of food, “wasted” water and “three-inch bait fish,” and the like.

The debate shouldn’t be reduced to quibbling over which scale of water policy is being referred to and supported by which statistics.

I got involved in the comments string at the bottom of the editorial, and here cite one part of what I wrote there:

[S]tatistics involving Delta “wasted” and exported water, to whom and what it goes is really a key point of debate. At the very least, those numbers need to be made clear and consensually agreed to. And even that is probably is not as simple as it sounds.

The editorialists wished to make a responsible contribution regarding the idea of sacrifice vis-a-vis finding “co-equal” balance. Unfortunately, they got their numbers wrong, but those are the numbers that need to be understood and debated. A sloppy error allowed for that point to be marginalized.

Read the full entry...

After genetic adjustments, endangered fish coordinate migration

This set of thoughts has little to do directly with Judge Wanger’s X2 decision. I mostly wanted to remind myself that several endangered fish species migrate in and out of the Delta at several different times of the year. 

This is very inconvenient for Westside SJV agricultural interests.

Why don’t those special fish just get together, start a Facebook page, hire Dr Frankenstein, and adjust their genetic migration patterns through the Delta to accommodate some westside SJV investors’ bad business decisions?

Consistent with previous statements of her position, Dianne Feinstein once again has come down on the side of water interests on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley.

From the Senator’s website:

“It is increasingly clear to me that key biological opinions done by the Department of the Interior are not based on sound science.

“I strongly urge the department to heed the court’s message, develop a reasonable alternative that protects the smelt and water users and finally settle this matter.”

Love that last paragraph. C’mon folks, how hard can this be? This should be an easy solve for the “department.”

Whether the spring (smelt) or fall (see below), why should it be WSJV ag’s problem that fish evolved in the way that they did? Why do those “three inch bait fish” need to migrate out of the Delta at the time when WSJV ag really wants to push the pumps?

From Wikipedia:

Delta smelt, Hypomesus transpacificus, are an endangered slender-bodied smelt, about 5 to 7 cm (2.0 to 2.8 in) long, of the Osmeridae family. Endemic to the upper Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary of California, they largely inhabit the freshwater-saltwater mixing zone of the estuary, except during their spawning season, which primarily takes place during the early spring months from March until May.

As alluded to above, there are other endangered fish that migrate in and out of the Delta. And if we wish (to use Mr Middleton’s rhetorical technique about wanting to “live in a world where”) to live in the world where WSJV ag wants to live, those species would pretty much cease to exist except as fish meal ground up by the pumps.

Nothing personal, just business.

From Barry Nelson of the NRDC:

Recently, a federal judge blocked ESA protections in the Bay-Delta system for winter-run salmon, spring-run salmon, steelhead, green sturgeon, and orca.  Protections for these listed species also helped to protect California’s troubled salmon fishing industry.  Three weeks ago, we warned that relaxing Delta pumping limits designed to protect listed species could harm the commercially valuable fall-run Chinook salmon.

The smart, well-informed people at the NRDC disagree with Sen Feinstein about the merits of the science in question, and have decided to continue to pursue with the DOI a stay of Wanger’s ruling. I suspect the NRDC folks know more about the science in question than does the Senator, if for no other reason than she has lots on her plate, including presumably seeking reelection in 2012.

Stay tuned.

updated 9/11

Read the full entry...

Politics’ handmaiden

It appears that the federal government and the NRDC will appeal the latest X2 rulings by Judge Wanger.

Some assert that the federal government’s scientists should not be trusted just because they say we can trust them.

Hard to argue with that. But it is significant that those very same (federal and environmental interests) scientists have enough confidence in their work that they will continue to spar with the (state and property rights interests) scientists. I can only guess that both sides believe that their science is solid.

“...if only we can get the right judge…”

Does this appeal mean that the untrustworthy federal government’s position will prevail this time around? That question will be in large measure be determined, just like it was with Judge Wanger, by the new judge’s values.

And if the feds win this time around, who will win when the property rights folks make their appeal? Who knows?

In the era of increasing scarcity, science is becoming the handmaiden of politics.

——————-

A semantic correction: I used the word “demonize” to describe the anti-government folks’ multi-pronged siege of the federal government. I used that word in reference to the title of this post by Brandon Middleton. I could have chosen a better word, like say, “impugn.”

Finally, a thank you to Brandon Middleton for correcting me, and elaborating on just how much science has become vested with particular interests.
 

Read the full entry...

Trust us, we’re () scientists

Brandon Middleton’s response to my post about Judge Wanger’s last decision is titled “Trust us, we’re federal scientists.”

Why not make the title “Trust us, we’re scientists”? Seems to answer itself. The “federal” word has gained much negative authority among Mr Middleton’s audience.

Maybe due to my own clumsiness, I’ve been unable to access Mr Middleton’s blog comment section and therefore can’t comment there. So instead thought I’d ask a couple of questions here.

From Middleton’s post:

Likewise, if “any water lost is too much,” [quoting me] then why exactly did Judge Wanger order X2 to be located such that water users will lose 90,000 acre-feet of water under most circumstances?  The court could have enjoined any use of the X2 measure, but despite recognizing that “the record reveals no support for X2 and smelt abundance,” it did not.

Well, why didn’t he “enjoin” the X2 line’s use altogether, since, according to Mr Middleton’s account of the Judge’s decision, “the record reveals no support for X2 and smelt abundance”?

Why accept some unsubstantiated science, but not all or none of it?

I am not looking for an answer to a rhetorical question. But I do wish to reiterate the basic point of my post in question: Wanger’s take is based in ideology and the dynamics of power, political advantage and compromise, but not science.

As I’ve discussed in other posts, the X2 line is an index of those dynamics. There are factors other than smelt’s existence at play in the X2 line’s existence.

It’s possible that Mr Middleton is taking the judge’s decision out of context, but if I understand Middleton’s quote correctly, Judge Wanger makes this case.

There is no science that will satisfy a standard based in politics.

I mean Judge Wanger no harm. His decisions just reflect the world he believes in and the uncertainty of any science in such a complex physical environment.

Which leads me to my other question for Mr Middleton. From his post:

Bass seems to want to live in a world where the feds can do what they want, when they want, and not be expected or required to explain their decisions.  Fortunately, as Judge Wanger has recognized, “Trust us is not acceptable.”

From whatever perspective, I cannot understand why any interest would find it productive to demonize those parts of a federal government that created, manage, subsidize, and are charged with finding a sustainable future for your world. “They” are not an enemy. They are you.

This is not about trust, at least about trusting science. This is about finding a “science” that adheres or otherwise is consistent with interests and ideology.

Don’t deflect. I live in this world, Mr Middleton—not in the caricature of the (less-than-ideal) ideal world you place me in. You have every right to fight for a pull back of environmental regulation.

I get that this is about power, ideology and influence.

I promise (and many times have, with scars to prove it, that) I’ll say the same thing when this gets flipped on its head, and instead it’s about trusting or not trusting scientists who say that a canal/tunnel will be good for the Delta.

note: updated this post on 9/7 at 9:13 to clarify that smelt aren’t the only reason for the X2 line’s existence.

Read the full entry...

The X2 line and climate change denial

Just prior to announcing his resignation, Judge Wanger (R-Fresno) made one last decision regarding water policy in California. In it, he asks of science an impossibly high standard that, science failing to meet it, leads to a default ruling supporting water export interests.

Judge Wanger knows that the X2 line is a product of politics, not science, doesn’t he? That there is no science that is capable of fully solving a political problem as complicated as California water policy?

Wanger’s latest decision uses a logic that climate change deniers also use with some success. Unlike, say, insurance companies, who can’t afford to ignore the facts of a long view, the judge and climate change deniers use a head-in-the-sand logic to support their anti-environmental views.

From the Kern Valley Sun:
In yesterday’s injunction, Judge Wanger ruled the 2008 biological opinion still “fail[s] to explain why it is essential to maintain X2 at 74 km and 81km respectively, as opposed to any other specific location.” Judge Wanger instead ordered that the outflow requirement be modified to minimize the amount of Delta water lost to the ocean.

“As opposed to any other specific location?” It is possible to turn the Judge’s reasoning on its head, to interpret the location of the X2 line as doing just what the Judge asked for - “minimizing” water lost to the ocean. It is just that any water lost is too much for the thirsty.

The Impossibly High Scientific Standard argument is emerging as a real favorite of many involved in Calfornia’s water struggles. IHSS has become a very successful tool in conservative policy as it battles against forty-plus years of environmental progress. IHSS is also a tool used by those on both sides of the canal/tunnel debate.

The future of the Delta will be decided politically, supported by the efforts of science. It is this unfortunate truth (and lack of political leadership) that poses the biggest threat to the Delta and its intricate human and natural complexities.

We are pretty sure the retiring judge will have many more chances to use IHSS now that he is returning to the other side of the bench.

Read the full entry...