Research and Outreach Associate

Tomorrow morning,March 19th, we expect to start our day with the release the National Academy of Science report on Delta Fisheries Protection. As we've blogged before  the nation's highly reputable scientific panel will analyze the science behind plans (otherwise known as the Biological Opinions) that outline among other actions, the timing and volume of water that can safely be pumped out of the Delta for cities and farms while preventing the extinction of endangered species, such as salmon.

We continue to be cautiously optimistic that science will win out over the politics in the Delta. The results of this report will be critical to our work on the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan which is using the Biological Opinions as a foundation of protections to build off of for the long-term protection of species.

As this report is reviewed and analyzed by stakeholders and policymakers, it will be critical that the science is interpreted and communicated appropriately. For an important look into the role of communicating science and its role in policymaking in the context of this study, read a blog post by our resident expert Rod Fujita.

We'll keep you posted on tomorrow's report release.

Rod Fujita is Senior Scientist and Director, Ocean Innovations, for EDF.

The National Research Council Reviews Biological Opinions Designed to Protect Endangered Fish Species
On March 15th, the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences will issue an important report. It will detail the NRC’s evaluation of the science that has been used to determine how much water can safely be pumped out of the Delta for cities and farms while preventing the extinction of endangered salmon and other fish.

This science forms the basis of the Biological Opinions at the heart of a very contentious debate over the role of science in policymaking. If science is to serve policy well here, expectations need to be realistic and the results of the NRC review must be accurately communicated. Otherwise, we may see political mischief – the science may be misinterpreted in ways that justify old ways of doing business in the Delta and serve special interests at the expense of salmon, the fishing community, the natural ecosystem, and the public trust.

Politics spurred a review of the science
The science underlying the Biological Opinions has already been subject to rigorous scientific peer-review, the gold standard of scientific credibility. The science-and common sense-supports the notion that salmon (and other important fisheries) require more protective flows to recover. The tricky part is to figure out how much flow will be needed. At this point, it is impossible to tell whether the recommended flows will prevent extinction of endangered fish species; we are only into the second year of implementation, so they haven’t yet had a chance to work. Hence, it seems clear that this new scientific review by the NRC was not triggered by performance issues. Instead, it is being undertaken at the request of Senator Diane Feinstein following appeals from agricultural interests squeezed by a 3 year drought.

The credibility of the National Academy of Sciences and its National Research Council is on the line. Read more »

Ashley Rood is a Research & Outreach Associate with EDF.

Beginning this past Sunday with an address by Congressman Costa, the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) started its review of water management in the Bay Delta. The nation's elite scientific panel will analyze and either support or refute the science (otherwise known as the Biological Opinions) behind how much water can be pumped out of the Delta for cities and farms while preventing the extinction of endangered species.

I was at UC Davis this week, along with my colleagues Ann Hayden and Spreck Rosekrans, to watch the public workshops unfold. Although we were  skeptical when this additional review was initially announced—we're cautiously optimistic that science will rule the day and this will rise above the sticky politics of the Bay Delta.  Below, find out more about what the NRC will deliver and what we're looking for in this review. Read more »

Spreck Rosekrans is an Economic Analyst at EDF.

CBS’ 60 Minutes began last night’s show with a piece titled “California: Running Dry”. It was perhaps too much to expect comprehensive coverage of our complex water issues within a 13 minute segment. The show began quoting the adage, sometimes ascribed to Mark Twain, that “whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting” and offered only the opportunity to spend up to $40 Billion as a way to solve our problems.

As a result, 60 Minutes missed the opportunity to tell its viewers how we can be smarter, and must be smarter, about using water in places like California if we are to support our farms, cities and fisheries in the 21st century. Read more »

Ann Hayden is a Senior Water Resource Analyst at EDF.

This recent independent review of the USFWS Biological Opinion (BO) for Delta smelt is worth a read. The study seems largely to have been released under the radar, and we only just became aware of it.

In general, the panel concluded that the science underpinning the BO is sound and credible. Read more »

Laura Harnish is the California Regional Director.
Spreck Rosekrans is an Economic Analyst at EDF.

Environmental Defense Fund is delighted that the package of water policy reform bills has passed both houses of California’s legislature and will be sent to Governor Schwarzenegger for his signature. We believe this package provides a foundation that will guide environmental protection and sustainable water supply management for many years to come. And we expect that as a result, California’s farms and cities, as well as fisheries in the Bay Delta and Central Valley watershed, will be better off.

Most obviously the legislation establishes a framework for managing the Delta and the rivers that supply it with freshwater. It formally recognizes the importance of the Delta as an ecosystem while acknowledging its role in moving water from north to south. It empowers our Water Board to determine the inflows that are necessary to meet public trust requirements under California law. And the legislation establishes important oversight roles for both the legislature and a newly created Delta Stewardship Council to ensure that any changes to water infrastructure accommodate protection of the Delta and its fisheries.

It is important to realize that the legislation does not authorize a peripheral canal. Read more »

Ann Hayden is a Senior Water Resource Analyst at EDF.

After another week of attempts  to weaken the Endangered Species Act, EDF couldn't be happier to see Lester Snow, Director of the State's Department of Water Resources, put his support of the ESA in writing. See his letter to Senator Feinstein, Secretaries Salazar and Locke  here (PDF).  We're hoping to hear the same commitment from Secretary Salazar at the public hearing tomorrow.

Spreck Rosekrans is an Economic Analyst at EDF.

The coverage of California water by Fox News Host Sean Hannity last night was disappointing. It was simplistic, one-sided, misleading and, in some cases, flat wrong. And perhaps most egregiously, the famously “small government” host delivered his message on behalf of wealthy farmers who owe their very existence to the federal handouts and are still deep in debt to United States taxpayers.

Let’s be fair. Mr. Hannity got some things right. He is correct that unemployment is particularly high in many towns in the San Joaquin Valley. The food lines and human suffering are real. In 2009, water deliveries to farming communities on the west side of the Valley have been significantly reduced. And part of that reduction is due to the Endangered Species Act protections designed to protect Delta smelt from extinction.

But Mr. Hannity does not tell the whole story. Read more »

Spreck Rosekrans is an Economic Analyst at EDF.

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial “California’s Man-Made Drought” (Sept. 2), buys into the false choice of fish versus jobs. It is disappointing that the Journal, given its financial focus, fails to address or even acknowledge opportunities for market-based solutions to improve water use efficiency. The editorial also ignores many salient aspects of water management in California.

The WSJ seems to believe that the “pumps” are off (pumps which convey water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to cities and farms to the south). The pumps were never “off” but pumping rates were reduced during spring months to protect endangered fish. While the legal rulings are in place due to concern over Delta smelt, it is only one of several species whose populations have plummeted in recent years as diversions of freshwater have reached record levels. The pumps are now at full capacity. Lester Snow, Director of California’s Department of Resources, estimated that protecting fish in the Delta reduced overall pumping only about 5% for the year. The largest reason for reduced deliveries is that California is in its third year of drought. Read more »

Ann Hayden is a Senior Water Resource Analyst at EDF.

It seems like not a day goes by when we don’t hear about another attempt to undermine endangered species protections in the Bay-Delta. The latest attack comes from the Pacific Legal Foundation. PLF is planning to hold a press conference this week to call for convening a federal committee, known colloquially as the “God Squad”, to eliminate Endangered Species Act protections in the Delta. PLF is seeking to collect 10,000 signatures by August 19th on its petition and has also filed suit to invalidate protections for Delta smelt. The group claims its action will help San Joaquin Valley farmers.

PLF has chosen to blame the Delta fisheries protections for reduced water deliveries that some farming communities have experienced. Instead, PLF should evaluate California’s historically-derived water rights system, which too often provides full supplies to some areas and leaves others dry. This has meant that water sells at under $8 per acre-foot on one side of the Valley and up to $600 per acre-foot on the other side. Read more »