The National Academy of Science has convened a special
investigation into the validity of previous scientific rulings
regarding the management of the California Delta. Those previous
findings, and the work of this panel, determines the fate of a
seemingly inconsequential fish at the bottom of the Delta fresh
water food chain, the Delta smelt.
The National Academy of Science has convened a special investigation into the validity of previous scientific rulings regarding the management of the California Delta. Those previous findings, and the work of this panel, determines the fate of a seemingly inconsequential fish at the bottom of the Delta fresh water food chain, the Delta smelt.
There are several good sources of information for those who are looking for a recounting of the events that have been taking place this week at University of California, Davis. I would recommend reading the work of Matt Weiser in the Sacrament Bee, Wednesday, Jan 26. His headline was “Steady flow of conflicting views marks Delta debate in Davis.”
After reading Weiser, plus the comments of NAS panel member Michael E. Campana at the WaterWired blog, I am increasingly convinced that the fate of the Delta lies in the hands of those with the most money and the best public relations firms. It is only a hope that some degree of scientific integrity will not be swayed by the opinions expressed in the testimony of so called experts.
Campana, to his credit, admits to his own ignorance of the local ecology. “And I now know how complicated the Bay-Delta system is, far more than I had imagined.”
If, however, he relies only on the testimony of these experts to enlighten him, then the results were predetermined by whatever agency selected this group of lobbyist in lab coats to appear.
I know that he has had some introduction to the politics of California water since he brought Fresno journalist turned lawyer, Lloyd G. Carter to talk at Oregon State University last fall. Carter was the journalist who broke the story of selenium contamination in the Kesterson Reservoir.
I was a bit surprised by how open some of the connections were. We know that there are no tuna in the Delta, but when Richard Derisio, chief scientist at the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission testified the original studies were “flawed,” it was not revealed that his analysis was done for the lobby firm representing the Metropolitan Water District in Southern California. These waters were not transparent.
Some of the testimony came not from wildlife experts or biologists, or even bureaucrats, but from an economist who opined that the Delta smelt would he harmed by having more fall fresh water flows. Once again, this testimony was on behalf of a group called the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta … most of whose officers work for the Diane Feinstein contributor who asked for the study in the first place – Stewart Resnick and his Paramount Farms operation.
Transparent? These waters are murky. It is so bad that one real expert, Dr. Jeffrey Mount of UC Davis, testified that the entire panel was a waste of taxpayer money since the original studies have gone through two previous reviews and had been substantiated both times. Still, Dr. Mount went on to give his entire sermon which I am sure that many did not want to hear. He is of the opinion that some large portions of the Delta cannot be saved and need to be abandoned over time as they will inevitably turn into salt marsh.
This eventually all relates back to an issue here. The Santa Clara Valley Water District spent $459,271 of ratepayer money lobbying around last fall’s package of water legislation, a package the included a lot of good words about goals or objectives and very little to back them up. According to reports filed with the State of California, this lobby effort was in regard to AB39, SB 12, Bay Delta Governance, Delta Conservancy and Bay Delta Finance … all part of that late night, unread package of bills.
I guess that, if everything is a complicated as Mr. Campana says, one might need a lot of lobbyist time just to learn what might happen. Still, as a ratepayer who also voted to elect one of the water board, I expect to be able to find out what the district was trying to accomplish and why they had to spend nearly half of a million dollars doing it. Both of those pools of questions remain murky as well.
References:
Matt Weiser in Sacramento. Bee.
http://www.sacbee.com/1268/story/2492329.html
Michael Campana WaterWired commentary
http://aquadoc.typepad.com/waterwired/2010/01/civility-in-norcal.html
Wes Rolley is a Morgan Hill artist and concerned citizen. He is Co-Chairman of the EcoAction Committee, Green Party.
