Restore the delta's Blog

Delta Science Panel Witness List Raises Questions About Commitment to Real Science

January 25, 2010 at 6:25 pm (Uncategorized)

Delta Science Panel Witness List Raises Questions About Commitment to Real Science  Stockton —  The Department of the Interior has released the draft agenda for the National Academy of Sciences panel reviewing the biological opinion mandating reduced diversions of fresh water from the Sacramento Delta to protect Delta fish populations.

The panel’s list of outside experts has struck the environmental and fishing community with its blatant bias in favor of agricultural and urban water users.

The “expert” invited to represent the Sacramento Delta is a representative from the “Coalition for a Sustainable Delta,” an astroturf organization funded by Stewart Resnick, the billionaire owner of Paramount Farms, a San Joaquin Valley agribusiness.   The group is housed in Resnick’s Paramount Farms headquarters, and three of its four officers are Paramount employees.

“This is an insult to Delta residents who will be most affected by the decisions of this panel,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla of Restore the Delta. Delta farmers and Delta cities rely on water from the Delta, which has suffered from water quality problems from overpumping in previous years.   The collapse of Delta fish populations has also severely impacted the Delta’s and California Coastal commercial, sportfishing and tourism industries, to say nothing of the natural environment.  Neither Restore the Delta staff, nor any of its 4500 members were invited to testify before the panel.

Commercial salmon fishermen aren’t even represented on the witness list.  The group invited to testify before the panel is the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, which studies skipjack and yellowfin tuna populations.  These deep sea fish breed in Mexico and in warm years are sometimes found as far north as Point Conception in Santa Barbara.  “It is ridiculous to suggest that the West Coast’s largest salmon run can be replaced by increased fishing of skipjack tuna in Southern California,” said Zeke Grader of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association.   “This leads me to question whether the Department of the Interior is serious about restoring the West Coast salmon fishery and the thousands of lost jobs in coastal communities in Northern California, Oregon, and Washington.”

Another “expert” witness has been the source of deep skepticism because of the lack of vetting of his research.   BJ Miller, who is listed on the panel as a “consultant” is expected to testify that he has found no correlation between Delta smelt populations and Delta pumping.   Miller has no University affiliations and his research has never been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.  He has been listed as a “Consulting Engineer” for agricultural groups, including the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, a major beneficiary of Delta pumping.

The Metropolitan Water District also is slated to testify at the hearing.   The District has had its plans for further housing development in Southern California impacted by the biological opinion.  Observers wonder whether these industry groups even belong as expert witnesses at a hearing for an independent scientific review of the biological opinion determining freshwater flows needed to restore salmon, smelt, and other species of fish.

We had expected better from the current administration,” said Byron Leydecker of Friends of the Trinity River.  ” Seeing that the National Academy of Science review will be an extended process, we hope that representatives from the salmon industry,  Delta communities and the independent, University-affiliated biologists who are studying the decline of Delta fish populations will be given an equal opportunity to testify in the near future.”

Permalink Leave a Comment

Delta Flows Newsletter January 14, 2009

January 14, 2010 at 11:34 pm (Uncategorized)

Permalink Leave a Comment

Questions on Economic Data and Value of Westlands Agriculture

January 13, 2010 at 8:32 pm (Uncategorized)

In his blog Valley Economy, Dr Jefferey Michael, delves into the accuracy of agricultural monetary value as reported by Lloyd Carter/Dan Bacher and Mike Wade of the California Farm Water Coalition. Dr. Michael points out there are inaccuracies in the economic figures and interpretations made by both sides. (To read the blog click here.). http://valleyecon.blogspot.com/2010/0…

At the end of the blog posting, Dr. Michael suggests that people should ignore the articles posted by Carter/Bacher and Mike Wade and laments that he should have followed his own advice.

Restore the Delta thinks just the opposite. We maintain that California lawmakers and policy experts need a thorough and unbiased economic analysis of the true value of Central Valley agriculture vs. the true value of Delta assets in the present, and the potential economic value of restored fisheries in the Delta vs. the costs doing water business as usual in California and/or for building, maintaining, and operating new conveyance. We respect Dr. Michael’s independent thinking and believe that he is just the person to oversee such a project.

Carter/Bacher state up front in their analysis that their estimates were rough. Restore the Delta covered their story as a way to raise awareness of the issue. We do not have the capacity to perform a full economic analysis of the value of the Delta vs. Westside SJ Valley agriculture, and would welcome an independent institution such as the Eberhardt School of Business at the University of Pacific leading the analysis.

As an outreach/education/advocacy organization on behalf of the Delta, it is part of Restore the Delta’s mission to question that which is presented to the public in a biased/untruthful/incomplete manner (such as the farm vs. fish debate) to undermine the perceived economic/environmental/societal value of the Delta. Thus, we would welcome an unbiased critical economic analysis of the questions at hand, as we have full confidence that such an analysis will reveal the true economic/environmental value of the Delta to all of California.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Status quo is far beyond compromised on water issue

January 12, 2010 at 12:04 am (Uncategorized)

What they are doing goes beyond inordinate political influence. They are plundering a public asset at immense profit and suckering the public into paying for it through something akin to Imagineering.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Why Just About Everything You Hear About California’s Water Crisis Is Wrong, Wrong, Wrong

January 8, 2010 at 8:00 pm (Uncategorized)

By Yasha Levine

AlterNet.

January 8, 2010. 

We’ve been lied to for years now about the severity of California’s water shortage. The media and state officials have been ringing the alarm, warning that the state was in the grips of the quite possibly the “worst California drought in modern history,” when in fact the state nearly pulled in its average rainfall in 2009. The fearmongering is about to go into overdrive, as powerful interests start whipping up fears of drought to push through a $11 billion bond measure on the upcoming November elections, setting up the Golden State for a corporate water grab.

One of the big boosters promoting the drought scare is Gov. Schwarzenegger, who declared a state of emergency in early 2009, and promised to reduce water deliveries across the state by a whopping 80 percent.

Such a huge cutback is alarming for a state in which most of the population lives hundreds of miles away from water sources and is dependent on a gargantuan aqueduct system for basic survival. Journalists in a wide range of publications have recently seized on this juicy disaster-in-progress story, hitting their readers with heavy-handed images of drought and suffering that seemed more in line with something filed on a UN humanitarian mission in Somalia than news from the heart of California.

Has the drought really been that bad? According to the November/December 2009 issue of Mother Jones, yes, it has: “[F]armers are selling prized almond trees for firewood, fields are reverting to weed, and farm workers who once fled droughts in Mexico are overwhelming food banks. In short, the valley is becoming what an earlier generation of refugees thought they’d escaped: an ecological catastrophe in the middle of a social and economic one — a 21st century Dust Bowl.” 60 Minutes‘ recent segment on California’s water crisis agreed, proclaimed: “You don’t have to go to Africa or the Middle East to see how much the planet is running dry. Just go to California.”The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, McClatchy’s, the Wall Street Journal — all have sung the same tune.

When left, right, print, broadcast and mainstream media outlets agree, it has to be true, right? Well, not exactly. Here’s what an end-of-the-year update published in November 2009 by the US Bureau of Reclamation had to say about the drought: precipitation in 2009 was about 94 percent of average in Northern California, which is the most important region for precipitation, since it is where three-quarters of the state’s water comes from.

Ninety-four percent of average? That does not sound like severe drought conditions at all. But don’t tell that to California’s Department of Water Resources, which still has a huge DHS-style “Drought Condition Severe” orange alert plastered on its Web site.

The power of simple fact-checking aside, why would California officials exaggerate — if not outright lie — about the drought? Well, the issue here is less about the drought itself and more about what a drought — real or not — can help achieve. If there is one thing 2009 revealed about California’s “action hero” governor, it’s that he is eagerly willing to serve as the front man for the sleaziest, most crooked business cartel in the state: a de facto water oligarchy made up of billionaire corporate farmers who run vast stretches of the state like their own personal fiefdoms, exploiting migrant workers for slave labor and soaking the taxpayers for billions of dollars in subsidies every year. And like all good businessmen, they aren’t letting a good mini-crisis go to waste. Their objective is to whip up fears of a drought-related calamity to push through a “solution” they’ve been having wet dreams about for the past five decades: a multi-billion-dollar aqueduct the width of the Panama Canal that would give them near total control of more than half of California’s water supplies.

That’s what the state’s “historic” $11-billion bond measure that will appear on the November 2010 ballot is all about. A columnist at the Stockton Record said it best: It “really amounts to an old-fashioned California water grab based on the failure to face nature’s limits.”

In the convoluted world of California water politics, nothing is ever what it seems. And this time, it appears that even the most well-meaning of journalists fighting the good fight fell hook, line and sinker for the propaganda spun out by California’s well-greased water oligarchy. But if everyone got something as basic as the premise of California’s supposed water crisis — the drought — wrong, what else did they miss? Turns out, quite a bit. With no real drought in California, a lot of the myths, falsehoods and outright lies meant to stir up the masses might no longer makes sense. On the other hand, just because the state has rain doesn’t mean the state can’t run out water, not with the way corporate farmers are ramping up the pumping of the state’s increasingly-overtapped water supplies. So here are the top five things your bullshit meter should be picking up:

Myth: Urban water conservation is key in protecting California’s water resources

Schwarzenegger’s mandate that urban water use be cut by 20 percent has earned the governor a lot of green cred, but few people realize that his plan for water conservation is actually a forced wealth transfer scheme in a environmentalist disguise. Conservation is a good idea, but it won’t do much good for California, no matter how diligent residents are about turning off the tap while brushing or the number of low-flush toilets they install, not unless farmers are forced to conserve water as well.

It is a simple matter of discrimination. Why is the agricultural industry exempted from mandatory conservation when it consumes an unreal 80% of California’s water? There won’t be much conservation going on even if every living soul in California up and moves to another state. Because no matter how much water city dwellers save, it’ll be sucked up by wealthy corporate farmers who are always on the lookout for more taxpayer-subsidized wet wealth. And with water trading for a minimum at ten times what they pay for it on the open market, every gallon a city dweller conserves will will end up as cash in the personal bank account of some wealthy corporate farmers. It’s all part of the master plan because, even as the governor talks up urban conservation, he tries his darnedest to get them more water.

Myth: Irrigation water rationing is causing California’s unemployment to spike to critical levels.

I could quote from a number of news sources — Fox News, CBS, Mother Jones, the New York Times — to demonstrate the pervasiveness of this bogus notion, but luckily there is no need because most of the stuff is oddly similar to the media spam cranked out by Governor Schwarzenegger’s press secretary. Something like this: “[Drought] conditions are causing a loss of livelihood for many thousands of people, an inability to provide for families, and increased harm to the communities that depend on them . . . the Central Valley town of Mendota, as one example, already reports an unemployment rate of more than 40 percent and lines of a thousand or more for food distribution.”

Had any journalist bothered to look up its unemployment rate for some other year, they would have seen that water has never been a factor. Over a decade ago, Mendota’s unemployment normally ranged from 28 to 32 percent. In 1998, a wet year, it had an unemployment rate of 38 percent. In 2002, a slightly dry year, unemployment was still the same: 37.7 percent.

The chronic hardship seen in Mendota, and the much of the Central Valley, can not be neatly blamed on the weather. There are other bigger, more ominous forces at play here. Mendota is in a bad place, at once existing on the edge of America’s poorest Congressional District and also in one of its wealthiest, most subsidized farming communities: the Westlands Water District. This is how Lloyd G. Carter, a veteran UPI reporter who has covered California’s farming industry for three decades, describes it: “Rule is by the rich. Indeed, in Westlands, which is a public agency, the growers with the most land have the most votes in electing directors to the district’s board. The late Justice William O. Douglas called this voting control by the big growers a corporate political kingdom undreamed of by those who wrote our Constitution.”

To put it another way: the billionaire farmers who run Westlands like their own fiefdom have always liked to keep their labor costs down, preferring low-paid migrant workers to those who would register with the unemployment office.

Myth: The “drought” is hurting small, family farmers — “the backbone of America” — the most.

Small farmers are hurting, but rarely does it have anything to do with water rationing. You’ll find gobs of farmer pity in just about every story filed on the Central Valley, but most forget to mention that the bulk of the land threatened by water shortages is owned by wealthy corporate farmers clustered in and around Westlands Water District, in the driest, hottest and most isolated corner of the Central Valley. Most of these “farmers” don’t rise with the crow of the rooster, but fly in on private jets from Orange County and Beverly Hills. Most journalists, like the one who wrote a long rambling piece in the David Eggers special Bay Area newspaper production, Panorama, insist on painting scenes of family farm life in sentimental pastel while ignoring the agribiz moguls who really run the show.

But you get to meet one of the boys from Westlands doing his struggling farmer routine on 60 Minutes, giving viewers a walkthrough of his family-farm-in-crisis, explaining how the drought forced him to fallow some of his fields while, in the background, massive shredding trucks turned $18-million worth his almond trees into a neat pile of wood chips. The 60 Minutes segment, like most other farmer profiles, left out the stuff that would squelch any sympathy for their cause. Like the fact that the Woolf family clan operates the “biggest farming operation in Fresno County” that receives $4.2 million in taxpayer-subsidized water every year, enough to supply a city of 150,000 people. In the past decade, the dozen or so companies partially owned by Stuart Woolf have taken in roughly $8 million in federal crop subsidies. But Stuart Woolf still feels like he isn’t getting enough. In 2008, he threatened a congressional subcommittee that he’d move his family’s farm holdings to Portugal, Spain, Turkey and even China if the feds didn’t give him more taxpayer-subsidized water.

Myth: Water shortages threaten to wipe out California’s agricultural industry, causing a chain reaction that will cripple the state’s economy and raise food prices around the country, maybe even the world.

It’s true, a total meltdown of California’s agricultural industry, the largest in the United States, would be bad news for everyone involved. But the problem with this apocalyptic domino effect, which pops up as a talking point on Schwarzneger’s press releases and is parroted by the likes of Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal, is a pesky thing called reality. Most irrigation districts have been getting their water on schedule. And because the drought has only affected atiny sliver — about two percent — of California’s total farmland, most of which happens to be some of the most heavily-subsidized growing operations in the state, any “multiplier effect” is bound to be limited, if noticeable at all.

Take Westlands Water District, where a sizable chunk of the state’s fallowed farmland is concentrated. The district produces about $1 billion in gross income a year, $750 million of which is funded by water subsidies. Add to that hundreds of millions more in direct crop subsidies, and pretty soon the government ends up funding most, if not all of Westlands’ economic output. Even if Westlands farmers weren’t such welfare queens, it would be hard to get worked even if the entire old billionaire club went under. After all, their entire output amounts to one-half of one percent of California’s $1.8 trillion. And we’re not talking about missing out on vital crops here: who’d even notice an uptick in almond prices?

Myth: Big city environmentalists are making the drought more serious than it actually is.

In 2007, a federal judge limited the amount of water that could be pumped out of Northern California because it endangering a small, but important fish called the Delta smelt, which is now protected by the California Endangered Species Act. Ever since, California’s wealthy Central Valley farmers — including Westlands — have staged a public relations war, blaming big city elitists for caring more about the environment than they do about American farmers. “Thanks to environmental regulations designed to protect the likes of the three-inch long delta smelt, one of America’s premier agricultural regions is suffering in a drought made worse by federal regulations,” pronounced a Wall Street Journal editorial in September 2009.

Fox News took the attack to a whole new level, with Sean Hannity proclaiming that President and his Royal Democratic-Socialist Guard were single-handedly killing off hardworking American farmers and demanded that the Obama “turn this water on now.” The funny thing is that Obama had already done that, when the court-ordred pumping restrictions were lifted three months earlier.

The reason these farmers weren’t getting their water had nothing to do with the fish, and all to do with their “junior” water rights and a bailout business mentality. In the past decade, farmers had lobbied for and received 30% more water than they did in the 1990s, knowingly taking a gamble by planting permanent, high-cost crops in an area first to suffer water cutbacks during dry times. But they did it anyway, fully expecting to get the government to keep delivering the water even in a time of drought, which it has. According to the Environmental Defense Fund, even the most junior water rights holders were receiving almost all of their water all throughout 2009.

Where has all that water gone? Well, some of the farmers have been selling it on the open market, frequently flipping their heavily taxpayer-subsidized water back to the government for twice the price. One millionaire farmer-cum-real-estate-developer made roughly $60 million selling his welfare water to a McTractHome paradise in the Mojave Desert, selling water was easier and more lucrative than farming.

Bonus myth: the drought has sparked a grassroots movement of farm owners and farm workers, uniting to pressure the government for more water.

Nothing exposes Arnold Schwarzenegger and his billionaire farmers backers for the sadistic slime balls that they are than the Latino Water Coalition, an astroturf group created by farming interests, paid for by taxpayer money and blessed by the governor himself. The group was designed to give a populist face to a purely corporate cause, paying poor Latino migrant workers to take part in protests staged for the benefit of Fox News’ camera, even sent to go on a 5-day “March for Water” to draw attention to California farmers’ plight and generally exploiting the exploited so that you can help you exploit them even more. But the worst part about it is that well-meaning journalists fell for it.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Task force member’s water ties questioned

January 6, 2010 at 11:57 pm (Uncategorized)

Phil Isenberg, former Sacramento mayor and legislator-turned-lobbyist, worked for a Southern California water district while also serving as chairman of an “independent” task force making key recommendations about the future of the Delta, a Stockton-based advocacy group reported Tuesday.

Isenberg is co-founder of Isenberg/O’Haren Government Relations, which collected more than $224,000 from the Irvine Ranch Water District from 2007 through the third quarter of 2009, according to California Secretary of State records.

Isenberg’s Delta task force decided in late 2008 that new facilities – perhaps a peripheral canal – were needed to channel water past the Delta.

Once disbanded, task force members formed a Delta Vision Foundation, which supported the controversial suite of water bills approved in November.

Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, director of Restore the Delta, said the news about Isenberg raises questions about upcoming appointments to a new seven-member Delta council.

“Will they (the governor and the Senate) consider appointees who truly champion a statewide perspective which includes Delta communities?” Barrigan-Parrilla wrote in an alert to Restore the Delta members. “Or will they appoint representatives like Mr. Isenberg who have financial ties to special water interests like the Irvine Ranch Water District?”

Isenberg said Tuesday that it’s no secret who his clients are; a list is posted on the firm’s Web site.  And he said that when he was appointed to the Delta task force in early 2007, he notified Irvine Ranch that he could no longer lobby for that group on Delta issues. He did, however, continue to work on some water legislation.
“All of this stuff, for me, has been on the record,” Isenberg said, although he did not recall the issue ever being discussed at a Delta Vision meeting.

“Everyone in California is affected by these kinds of issues,” Isenberg said. “The real battle in this is that people have different solutions. A lot of people who objected to the solutions we recommended … continue to object.”

In a 2006 executive order, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pledged that the “independent Blue Ribbon Task Force (would) develop a durable vision for sustainable management of the Delta.”

Barrigan-Parrilla said Tuesday that what irked her about Isenberg’s role as a lobbyist was how often he referred to the Delta task force as “independent.”

Irvine Ranch Water District gets about 35 percent of its water from the Metropolitan Water District, which imports water from the Delta and the Colorado River. Irvine Ranch serves portions of seven cities.

Contact reporter Alex Breitler at (209) 546-8295 or abreitler@recordnet.com.

Permalink Leave a Comment

State bond lets firms profit from water

January 5, 2010 at 9:23 pm (Uncategorized)

Permalink Leave a Comment

Luxury development’s dubious Delta water supply

January 5, 2010 at 9:22 pm (Uncategorized)

Permalink Leave a Comment

Phil Isenberg’s Business Ties to the Irvine Ranch Water District

January 5, 2010 at 9:20 pm (Uncategorized)

by Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla
 
Restore the Delta has recently learned that Phil Isenberg, former Sacramento Mayor, California Assembly Member, Chair of the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force, and presently Chair of the Delta Vision Foundation, has represented the Irvine Ranch Water District in a lobbing capacity over the last two years.  His lobbying firm, Isenberg/O’Hara Government Relations, has received more than $224,000 in payments for services rendered from the Irvine Ranch Water District during 2008 and 2009.  Specifically, his firm received payments while he served as the Chair of the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force – which Mr. Isenberg has repeatedly held up in public testimony as a truly independent commission.  (Click here to see the lobbying report filed by Isenberg/O’Hara with the Secretary of State.)
 
The Delta Vision Foundation, which defines its mission as “restoring the Delta ecosystem and creating a more reliable water supply,” backed the November 4, 2009 water package.  In an on-line statement, the Delta Vision Foundation expresses its pleasure that “all seven goals of the Delta Vision Strategic Plan are incorporated into the Delta/water policy bills enacted by the Legislature on November 4, 2009.”  The Delta Vision Foundation also states that its vision for the Delta includes building “facilities to improve the existing water conveyance system and expand statewide storage and operate both to achieve the co-equal goal.”  In other words, they tout the peripheral canal as the solution for restoring the Delta and meeting Southern California’s water needs.  (Click here to read the Delta Vision Foundation Statement.)

Indeed, the water package will pave the way for a more reliable Delta water supply for the Irvine Water Ranch District, but it will fail to protect the Delta’s ecosystem and/or Delta communities as it does not contain enforceable standards for water quality or inflows into the Delta.  The Irvine Water Ranch District, which according to its website covers 179 square miles in Orange County, claims that it supports the co-equal goals of the Delta Vision Task Force of Delta restoration and water supply reliability.  (Click here to learn more about the Irvine Ranch Water District.) 
 
What is equally disturbing is that during this recent Legislative battle, the cry from the Delta for adequate representation on the Delta Stewardship Council was ignored.  In the end, the majority of Legislators favored a Delta Stewardship Council with a supposed statewide perspective and only a token of Delta representation on the Delta Stewardship Council, with the Chairperson of the Delta Protection Commission serving as one member.  Evidently, this lack of adequate local representation was not a problem for Mr. Isenberg.
 
What will be interesting to see is if Governor Schwarzenegger and the State Senate consider appropriate appointments for the Delta Stewardship Council.  Will they recommend appointees who truly champion a statewide perspective which includes Delta communities?  Or will they appoint representatives like Mr. Isenberg who have financial ties to special water interests like the Irvine Ranch Water District?  And will they continue to appoint so-called independent thinkers who fail to disclose in public testimony before the Legislature and the State Water Resources Control Board that they are also paid representatives for those in our state who favor new conveyance and continued dependence on Delta water exports?

Permalink Leave a Comment

USDA Data Dispels Myth that West Side Growers ‘Feed the Nation’

January 4, 2010 at 9:30 pm (Uncategorized)

Permalink Leave a Comment